Forget the other Wars, We need a war on Ignorance

Of course, you are completely correct, Mike. There is no Muslim center being considered for Ground Zero in New York. Nope, none at all.

The church that was ruined in the 9/11 attacks has been rebuilt. Totally repaired.

Despite the multiple mosques all over New York, in the Pentagon, and throughout the US, Americans are anti-Muslim and unfair to other religions.

The children of illegals should not be treated equally with the children of any other criminal...they should be treated far better.

The Bush-era tax cuts must be repealed, despite the fact that revenue rises when taxes no longer crush citizens and businesses. We can easily see the proof of that in the wonderful current economy.

Democrats never use the N-word, nor any other offensive language. Never.

Obama is really a Christian...and there really is proof of that. Really.

Oh, and liberals really do base all their beliefs on proof. They totally require hard evidence for everything.

...

Seriously, thanks for the laugh!! That was a fantastic column! (It was sarcasm, right?)

Though I really do agree with you about one thing...the Obama administration is completely wrong about the oil in the Gulf. But that's what happens when you put liberals in control of our country...the demand "proof" of everything. Hahahahahaha!!!!

@MrsSmith Thanks for commenting your hilarious! I was kind of missing your presence there for a while I'm glad you hopped back on the horse as they say!

Was there a point to your post MrsSmith or was it just to degrade and take away from the fact that you know that you can not prove any of the wild baseless attacks that you continually post on here.

Proof that Obama is a Christian? How about the fact that he does go to church. I know for many christians all they have to do is go to church and they are christian.

Do you have any proof that revenues have risen under the Bush era tax cuts?

I know I am correct MrsSmith the Muslim Center they are trying to build isn't even in line of site of Ground Zero. Thanks for agreeing with me.

"Despite the multiple mosques all over New York, in the Pentagon, and throughout the US, Americans are anti-Muslim and unfair to other religions."

Well at least you show you have been paying attention.

"The children of illegals should not be treated equally with the children of any other criminal...they should be treated far better."

Where's your proof on this one? I'm sure you will hit us with the whole citizen thing but last time I checked children of any other criminal are also citizens. So where is your proof on this one?

I never said there weren't Democrats who didn't use the N-word, now did I? Yet another baseless attack from you, what a shock?

Thanks for proving my larger point. You posted with nothing more than ad hominen attacks and information you can't back up yet you act as if they are facts.

So the burden is on you MrsSmith. Prove your points.

Mike,

"...forget about the Constitution if it means they can stop Muslims from building a Center."

It seems you are the one pushing the fear and paranoia on that one. You want to make the claim that the Constitution is being ignored in this debate but it's actually just the opposite. The Constitution is what allows this debate to take place. The people protesting this are not the government preventing this mosque from being built. They are, however, expressing their first amendment rights to oppose it. Don't try the Governor or Mayor example either because that's simply laughable because neither one is taking any action to prevent the mosque from being built. They have offered to help find a new location IF and only IF the developers are willing to accept tht offer, possibly including state lands. That would be like a Governor simply offering to put the 10 Commandments in a courthouse then turning around and saying that the rights of Jews and Christians is being violated. Only the government can violate a person's freedom of religion. So, I still don't know why you keep pushing the fallacy that those who oppose the mosque are violating anyone's rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Muslim as a kid. He has a family history of Muslim worship and attended Muslim school which makes sense for a parent who would want their child to practice Islam. Really, it doesn't matter if he was because there's more evidence to show that he is currently a Christian then there is evidence to show he is currently a Muslim. He went through this during the campaign and described allegations of him being a Muslim as "smears" which I think is a disrespectful way of referring to the Muslim faith because I know I would be offended if a Muslim said that being described as a Christian was a "smear".

You clearly don't pay attention to the news do you McCook. Governor Patterson (unfortunately a Democrat) has actively been trying to get the site moved for a few weeks now. Just today he said that his attempts were coming close to fruition.

So yes the governor is getting involved, politicians continue to suggest it being moved. Those are actions and words by the government and that is a violation of Freedom of Religion.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Muslim as a kid. He has a family history of Muslim worship and attended Muslim school which makes sense for a parent who would want their child to practice Islam. Really, it doesn't matter if he was because there's more evidence to show that he is currently a Christian then there is evidence to show he is currently a Muslim. He went through this during the campaign and described allegations of him being a Muslim as "smears" which I think is a disrespectful way of referring to the Muslim faith because I know I would be offended if a Muslim said that being described as a Christian was a "smear"."

Wow this is just getting tiresome. Not being surprised "IF" he practiced the religion is not proof, so why throw it out there? I agree his religion shouldn't matter. Shouldn't matter. But both you and I know that it does for a large segment of our population. A lot of people weren't all the happy when John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic President (and that's within the Christian family).

Mike,

Based on his history, it's not hard to see why someone would believe that he practiced Islam as kid. It's not a basis of proof to satisfy your demand for proof that he ever was a Muslim. That was a concession to a hypothetical point about whether he WAS a Muslim as a kid which, even if it were true, wouldn't matter because he is a Christian now.

If he were a Muslim now, it shouldn't matter either except that it would raise a question of his character by denying his faith. Either way, he says he's Christian and I don't know any Muslims who would profess to be Christians or vice versa for that matter. I think he should apologize for considering being called a Muslim, a "smear", if he hasn't already. He's had lots of practice apologizing so maybe he did that one already.

Ugh... the Governor's words and offers, which are contingent upon the approval of the Muslim developers, are NOT a violation of THEIR freedom of religion. He is not forcing them out nor is he even issuing ultimatums or threats to shut down the project. He would actually be helping them to build a religious facility and possibly even use state lands for it. He has not forbid the project, he has made offers to the developers to find other sites which is the exact opposite of violating their rights. If anything, the only people who would have an argument that their rights were violated, would be anyone of any faith or people with no faith EXCEPT the Muslim faith because the Muslim faith would be getting special benefits from the government that the other faiths are not receiving by being offered state lands for their religious building. That's only if they locate on state lands though. If he helps them find a new place that is private then nobody has a violation of their freedom of religion. It's a textbook case for an ACLU lawyer but I don't know why they're not blasting the airwaves against that idea. If the word God appears anywhere on public property then they are right there to demand its removal so I'm stumped on their reluctance to enter into this one.

Personally, I don't buy into the idea that the Governor is "establishing a religion" by offering their religious building to be on state lands but that is not the precedent that has been set in this country so I'm making these statements from legal precedent not personal opinion.

If a Governor's words are a violation of freedom of speech then that would mean no elected official could speak in support of or opposition to anything religious. Patterson is actually offering to use his power to help them find a location on state lands which cannot be construed as a violation of their rights. Suggestions from politicians are not grounds for a violation of freedom of speech, if they were then it would fundamentally change the way the first amendment has been interpreted since it went into effect.

It would mean no politician could condemn the actions of extreme Muslim terrorists or the Westboro Church because their "words" violate their right to practice their religion. Unless they force the project to be cancelled without the backing of any legitimate, existing law then they are violating their freedom of religion but offering to find a new site is not forcing them to do anything and therefore, it's not a violation of their freedom of religion. How is it that I am the only one who understands this? Whether their rights are being violated is not a matter of what side of the debate you're on, it's a matter of actual law as it has been interpretted for hundreds of years.

Mike,

Ok, I've got the government part out of the way. Now, you've also suggested that "we" are violating their freedom of religion. If I go down and protest the site and demand they move the site, would I be violating their freedom of religion?

John Stewart did an excellent piece on the Mosque the other day.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homela...

Unsurprisingly I don't remember Charlton hestons speech since I was only in 7th grade roughly. Honestly though, Stewart is right, his words still ring true.

I have to respectfully disagree with you McCook. The fact that the governor is actively trying to work to get the building site moved and it is partly based on the group being Muslim then yes their freedom of religion is being violated. With politicians out in force saying that they should move the site based in part of their religion they are also violating freedom of religion.

As a lay person while you can not personally violate anyone's freedom of religion but I do believe that protesting a site based on their religion and fear and paranoia about what is believed that group represents is both unfortunate and I'm sorry to say ignorant of the religion of Islam. Had the group been planning to build an actual mosque on the grounds of Ground Zero you might have a point. But the fact that it is being built two blocks away with no line of site of that area invalidates, in my opinion, those fears and paranoia.

As far as the Obama being a Muslim. I couldn't care less if he was or if he is now. I think it's very sad and troublesome that in this country people are suspicious of other religions based on ignorance. What's even sadder to me is that this even matters. We have much larger issues in this country to deal with than worrying about the President's religion.

They are simply wedge and dividing issues that are sadly working. People will go out and vote out of ignorance and we will continue getting lawmakers in Washington that only care about their bottom line.

My question is, if it is such a big deal that MAYBE Obama is a Muslim then why is not a big deal that the one network pushing that narrative the hardest is partly owned by a Muslim from the ruling class of a country where most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from?

That's the ignorance that I am talking about. That's the ignorant narrative that is being pushed.

@MH I know facts are so much fun! If only more people were interested in looking into them!

You are 100% correct about people becoming ignorant.

President Obama created a "Cartoon Character" in 2008 amd sold "Hope" and "Change" and got elected.

Seasoned people knew that he was going to fail miserably because he had no background to run our Country. He is failing miserably. so what do the unseasoned people do? They look to things that grab their attention. Therefore they focus on religion and travel and basketball.

The point is when you fool people with Slogans and catch phrases to get attention "Hope" and "Change we can believe in", when those people realize they were hoodwinked they will come out with similar outlandish slogans to denounce you.

I just wish so many people hadn't been ignorant 2 years ago.

wallis, how long have you lived in this country? How many elections have you lived through? Is this really the first time you have encountered campaign slogans? Clinton being partly elected on the slogan, "It's the economy stupid" or Bush running on his slogan that he was a DC outsider even though he was a member of a family that had been in DC for decades?

Slogans are nothing new but to pretend they are just to go on an attack is just weird. We all are well versed in this attack. Yourself, sam, MrsSmith, SW, Justin, etc etc have all been preaching this for two years. I mean if you want to keep harping on it it's okay but seriously is there ever going to be a moment where you won't try to find something to hate and disrespect the President on? If not please let me know so I can ignore your future posts.

This theme that you have been tirelessly promoting is almost as tired and old as MrsSmith trying to prove that high school teachers are pushing a liberal ideology on their students based off a poll on college professors.

Mike,

At least we agree that the average person can't violate a person's freedom of religion then we still have some common understanding. The reason why a politician speaking against the location isn't a violation is because if the first amendment started to be interpretted that way then it would open the floodgates. It would mean a politician couldn't speak out against the actions of the Westboro church. Actually, there were attempts to pass laws to prevent protests at funerals because of them. That would be closer to a violation of their freedom of religion then what the governor is doing because it would be a unilateral action by the government. What Patterson is doing would be the equivalent of a governor negotiating with Westboro to protest at a location other than a place near the funerals but would be contigent on Westboro's acceptance of the offer. Without their cooperation, the protests would still happen near the funerals. It's only a violation if the government does something to force their movement. Every politician I've heard has said they have the right to be there. They are just trying to resolve the situation by the legal means that are available to them without forcing them to move the location. Both sides understand that this project will not be moved unless the developers agree to it and that is not a violation, it's a negotiation.

I don't think Obama's religion is a big deal. I've only stated that I could understand why Obama used to be a Muslim as a kid. In fact, it's likely he prayed according to the Muslim faith he was taught and raised in. It doesn't make much sense to send a grade schooler to learn Islam if his parents didn't want him to be a Muslim. If he was, I don't see why people care one way or the other.

This issue was all over every network, extensively last week because of the poll that was taken. The blame for this lies with that poll and then to all the networks. This was a neverending theme on CNN last week.

You have two sentences in your last post McCook that you present as fact though you have no proof at all. Both are simply your opinions. So starting a sentence with the phrase "In fact" and then offering up nothing more than your opinion is wrong.

But as I said if you can't prove your statements then there is no reason for me to listen to you when you state your opinions repeatedly trying to convince someone that you are right.

The last time I checked Obama has never stated that he was a Muslim as a kid, nor has his family yet you lead your statement with, "Obama used to be Muslim as a kid". That's not fact, that is simply your opinion and you should say that, otherwise people will take your statements as facts and not as opinion which they clearly are.

You had better be careful GI, facts are now well accepted here. But great background on Obama's real background, not the fake one that some are wanting us to believe.

I agree with you Mike...I guess there is a first time for every thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&feature=player_embedded

Mike,

Are you ignorant or stupid when you argue there is a Mosque in the Pentagon? As you so shout to all who disagree with you, prove it.

Away all that time and when you get back the first thing you do is verbally attack me. How nice. I remember not too long ago, SW, you claimed that you you were mostly in the middle and you would call anyone out if you felt they were wrong.

Yet through this entire thread McCook has been arguing that there can't be a Mosgue in the Pentagon because it isn't a building but a room. Then he turned around and said that the prayer room in the planned Center in New York was a Mosque because only Muslims could pray in that room. He is using two definitions to clearly decide for himself what is and what is not a Mosque. I simply want him to justify that and make a decision.

So your reaction, SW, is to call me ignorant OR stupid.

I will prove it or disprove is as soon as we can decide on the proper definition of a Mosque.

I know, though, SW, you will come back an claim that you never called me ignorant or stupid, just asked if I was and this will somehow justify in your mind that you don't call people names (which you have claimed in the past that you don't) or label people(which you have also claimed in the past that you don't). So let's move past that. I want to know why you didn't call McCook out for his traveling definition of a Mosque but instead went after me.

If we go with one of McCook's definition then no there is no Mosque in the Pentagon. If we go with his other definition, then that prayer room when only Muslims are in there it is indeed a Mosque.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4

Mike,

I've turned over a new leaf, when I try to be fair I get ridiculed, it seems the only response is to not be fair just like the rest of you.

So why did you feel it necessary to write a blog attacking everyone who disagrees with you?

Actually the reason I didn't call our McCook1 on his definition of a mosque is that I didn't read it, sorry to dissappoint.

I would argue that it isn't a Mosque in the Pentagon because it is used by all faiths, I'm pretty sure most Muslims object to their mosques being used for Easter services.

Guillermo,

Would you argue that any place used for an organized Christian prayer is a church?

When I searched for a Mosque in the area of the Pentagon it didn't come up. I know this is just a semantic argument, but I was trying to show Mike that when he wants to argue semantics, he better make sure he is not making the mistake he is arguing against, interestingly you feel it necessary to answer for him, apparently you don't feel he can defend himself.

Molly,

Bravo!, you've found me out, I'm incapable of independent thought (clap, clap). Why should I feel bad for asking Mike if he is ignorant or stupid by ranting about the need for proof but refusing to hold himself to the same standard, when you imply that I am stupid? Where did you post the op-ed? I missed it.

I'm sorry SW but when have you ever been fair? You typically have always made good arguments but you almost always ruin your argument by calling people names or labeling people and then your argument loses even more luster when you fly off the handle when you are called on it, because in your own words (oddly it's almost the exact same argument that Bill O'Reilly uses, even though I know you don't watch him), you don't do that.

I love this new bravado that you have but you might want to read all posts before just focusing on the three posters that you do not like.

Please, read McCook's prior statements on the mosque issue, heck read my comments as I know from your statements you haven't, and you will see what the semantic argument is all about.

No, scratch that, I told you what the argument was but instead of paying attention to the argument you felt it was better to once again question my intelligence. At least your style of attacking hasn't changed. When you don't have a valid argument you question the person's intelligence.

I have attacked no one. I just simply demanded that if you want to call the president a kenyan born muslim you better provide some proof, well you can read my blog, which you obviously haven't. I gave you your proof using McCook's own definition of the word mosque but since you haven't and probably won't read any of McCook's posts you will continue to claim that I haven't proven my claim.

Molly, welcome to the world of SWNebr. He continually attacks other posters while decrying other posters for attacking. He gets his talking points from the media (sometimes even using the exact same verbage) then denies that he has. He is typically the first to name call or label people then blows a gasket when he is called on it. He will also question your intelligence with mind numbing repetition. But we love SWNebr he makes our days brighten.

The one thing that I know for sure is the moderate Muslims (and their are millions more than any of you want to admit) at taking notice of this entire situation. They see these protests against the (Not) Mosque (Not) at Ground Zero while right next door to the actual planned Center is a Gentleman's Club that no ones seems to really care about.

Great example we are sending out to the world.

Mike,

I was responding directly to your original blog, I don't feel I need to read everyone's posts to respond to part of your initial argument. I don't particularly care what McCook1 thinks a mosque is, I don't recognize him as an authority on the subject.

Further on you point about what Bill O'Reilly says, I'm afraid I don't know what he says. I have seen his show in the past, but I turned off cable when the digital changeover and really only miss it when Husker games aren't on network. But wait that doesn't fit in with your world view so I must be lying.

You're right Mike, I don't take your argument with McCook1 as proof. If my asking if you are ignorant or stupid is an attack, how can you say your entire blog in which you accuse those who disagree with you of being either ignorant or stupid is not an attack? You can't have it both ways. By your logic, I didn't attack you I just asked for proof which has been lacking. At least Guillermo tried to answer my question, although it wasn't of him. I can respect his answer even though I disagree, I think he is walking too fine a semantic tight rope.

Guillermo,

I realize you can never be wrong but I still disagree here. My Muslim friends(OH MY GOD THAT MINDLESS CON-BOT DID NOT JUST SAY HE KNOWS MUSLIMS FOR THAT CAN'T BE, BECAUSE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE LEFT POSITION CAN'T THINK AT ALL) and I had a discussion about this a few years back and they said they have the Eid ul-Fitr there are too many people to fit in the mosque so they use a community center that doesn't make the community center a mosque for the day.

As fabulous as merriam webster is, I think the lack of clarification is more indicative of a lack of information rather than a definitive authority. My point is that calling the interfaith chapel in the Pentagon a mosque is just as misleading as calling the Park51 a mosque at Ground Zero, apparently the point was lost on you an the others here.

I really don't understand what you are missing here SW. I just flat don't get it. You say you only read my original blog and then asked me to prove it. Since there was already an ongoing conversation about what is exactly in the Pentagon I used one of the definitions given in the posts as my proof that there is indeed a Mosque. For whatever reason you have now ignored this for three consecutive posts. I really don't know what else to do.

I guess the only thing for me to do at this point is to ask if you believe that a Mosque is being built at Park51?

I find it really interesting that you take me calling out a group of people who have continually lied without any knowledge about the president as me attacking people I don't agree with. That has got to be one of the funniest statements I have ever read. I am not calling them ignorant or stupid because I disagree with them I am calling them ignorant or stupid because for two and a half years now they have continually claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, that Obama was born a Muslim, that Obama was a Socialist, that Obama was a Communist, that Obama was a Nazi with absolutely no (zip, zero, nadda, nill) proof to back them up.

But you know what, SW, just for you. If you fit into one of those groups that you want to label the president as being something just because you say he is then yes SW I am calling you ignorant.

And yes SW we are all familiar with every single conservative poster on this site that doesn't or has never watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh, or go to conservative web sites yet you all almost always post a talking point that is almost directly taken from one of those sources. We get it, you don't want to admit to watching Fox News, or listening to Rush, or reading the conservative websites. We get it.

"As fabulous as merriam webster is, I think the lack of clarification is more indicative of a lack of information rather than a definitive authority. My point is that calling the interfaith chapel in the Pentagon a mosque is just as misleading as calling the Park51 a mosque at Ground Zero, apparently the point was lost on you an the others here."

This one is a classic, even for you SW. You never made the point about how misleading a title can be (actually I think I am the one that made that point a few days ago when McCook tried to change his definition of Mosque, or maybe GI beat me to it) yet in that one little paragraph not only do you take credit for originally making the point you chastise (presumably myself, GI, and Molly since you only apparently read our posts and completely skipped McCooks(as if I really fell for that)) us for not getting "your" point.

Classic.

Mike,

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, just because two people sometimes have the same idea, doesn't necessarily mean one person formed his idea from the other. I do listen to Rush when I am driving for something at work over lunch hour, that's when he is on, although I find him to be a pompous *** and disagree with his points probably more than I agree. I also read your blog even though I disagree with it, does that mean I must only be getting information from you? OH NO I JUST REALIZED I'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY MICHAEL HENDRICKS! There isn't always a vast right wing conspiracy.

To answer your question, as I understand it there is to be a dedicated mosque in the Park51 development. Is this incorrect?

Guillermo,

I thought we've been over this before. I don't toe the GOP line, I just tend to argue it here more because Mike amuses me. I used to argue against Sam when he still did political blogs, but I refuse to argue religion, I feel each person is entitled to his beliefs nor will I mock those beliefs. When he switched over to all Christian all the time, I no longer play on his boards. If I didn't mess with you guys now, who would, those who can't put a coherent thought together, where's the fun in that. I am a troll, but at least I'm an honest one.

If you look back here I don't think I ever argued for or against the mosque, I just got involved in the argument over the argument.

If the Muslim leaders of DC come out and say the interfaith chapel is a mosque I will agree, as it stands I searched for mosque in DC it didn't show up. I figured if people directing Muslims to mosques don't count it, neither will I.

If it were only as simple and silly as you want to make it I would agree with you.

I have not heard of a dedicated mosque being planned in Park51. The only people that have actually said mosque are those opposed to it. The only thing I have heard about the development is that there is to be a prayer room on the top floor. Depending on your definition it could either be a mosque or just a prayer room.

Mike:

http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

Well here is your proof, although after giving some thought to your blog here, it still doesn't seem fair that everyone who disagrees with you must provide proof but you are free to make whatever statements you like.

Hmmm did I ever make the statement that I could say whatever I like with no proof? I don't see it. Maybe you can enlighten me as where or when I said this, since you know all about me.

You can continue to try cornering me with your line about those that disagree with me having to provide proof (in fact I know you will). I never made that claim but that's never stopped you from saying or alluding that I have.

If someone falsely claims (and yes I will use Obama on this one because it is the most egregious) that Obama was born in Kenya but they have no proof. That is not someone I disagree with, that is someone who is either absolutely ignorant of facts or knows the facts and is just outright lying about it. I don't know where you stand on the whole Obama birthplace issue but the fact is he was born in Hawaii, end of story.

You can try all you want to turn this into me attacking those I disagree with. It's not, but to each his own.

As far as Park51 I apologize I was wrong, but it appears all of us have been wrong since the Mosque is going to be a separate unit from the Center and they are going to have a contemplation space for everyone to use.

It honestly sounds like a nice place to me and one I would rather visit than the Gentleman's Club a stone throw away from the site.

You know I wonder if any of these people that accost this man because he "looks Muslim" ever actually looked up Park51:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4

You think they would be embarrassed by the way they were acting or would they just ignore the information and continue trying to convince everyone that it is a victory mosque?

The world is watching and frankly I don't like what they are seeing.

Yay! Apologies all around!

btw, what does the Gentleman's Club have to do with anything?

The line about proof comes from your entire blog which was nothing but the fact that people have to prove things to you, but you offered no proof for any of your arguments. On the record, people who disagree with you don't need to prove things to you then, is this your new argument? They either need to prove or not.

I never said you said you don't need to provide proof, are you really this juvenile? I said you apparently feel you don't need to because you make claims without proof. I know I've made this observation several times in the past, it's not a new thing. You go on and on about other people needing to prove things to you yet you offer little support for your claims and you finally devote an entire blog to it, it amuses me.

Mike,

I don't mean to make a two wrong's make a right argument, but why don't you ever criticize the other side?

I do and I have. I think Obama's handling of the gulf spill has been absolutely horrible. I stated that in my "Fun Facts" blog. I am also tired of the leadership of the Democrats in the Senate. Harry Reid has been too weak-kneed as a leader. I stated quite a while ago that I was not going to back or vote for my Senator (Blanche Lincoln) because of her stances on certain issues. Unfortunately she won the primary and is going up against another DC Beltway hack so I am voting for an Indepedent.

I have been critical of my side but why would I want to focus on the people I consider my allies. I am sorry that apparently I do not do it enough for you but there you have it.

"I never said you said you don't need to provide proof, are you really this juvenile? I said you apparently feel you don't need to because you make claims without proof."

Yeah I'm going to let that one marinate for awhile. There is so many holes to poke in this little phrase I don't know where to start.

The Gentleman's Club comes in because part of the argument against Park51 is that they are building on hallowed ground (or as a candidate in California called it hollowed). This hallowed ground has strip clubs, bars, and OTBs on it yet no one seems to mind those, it's only when the Muslims come in (even though they already have a place in the same area already and are simply moving into a bigger place).

I'm glad I entertain you, I just wish you were right on any of your claims. I make a concerted effort to provide facts whenever I discuss a topic. If in my research I find something that reverses my point or invalidates it I admit it, post the link and move on. I don't know how you haven't seen this, but you have said in the past that you don't really read the comments section so I guess that's how you miss it.

But I will close with this I do not believe my blog is an attack. I am just calling those people out that thrive on misinforming other people. You apparently took offense to it so you started attacking me (though I am fairly sure at this point you will claim to have never attacked me).

Sorry I made a grammatical error in my last post. I posted that "There is so many holes to poke in this little phrase I don't know where to start."

I obviously meant to say that "There are so many holes ... "

Sorry