The elitist ruling class and the sycophants and wannabees have doubled down. No need for a linkfest here; memeorandum has a good-enough lineup. Cordoba House must be built! Justice, ethics, morality, the souls of the Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, and the very voices of the stars demand it!

Dissenters to that Universal Opinion [haark spit] have not been few. In my little corner of the dextrosphere alone, Goldstein and friends, Dan Riehl, Collins and his co-bloggers, Patterico, and a host of others have weighed in, and I’ve provided my own commentary. Even the esteemed and well-nigh imperturbable Prof. Reynolds has reacted with some irritation. More importantly, sentiment on the issue has not budged within polling accuracies.

The result has been some remarkable screeds. One hopes, for the sake of the IT department there, that the editorialists at the New York Times don’t speak aloud as they type. Replacing keyboards and screens contaminated by floods of saliva is expensive, tedious, and gag-inducing. Thunderous, raging denunciations of the nearly three-quarters of Americans who are, in their estimation, at minimum racists and more likely despicable h8ers of All Things Good and Wonderful are the norm, closely followed by wistful, more-in-sorrow regrets that the Vision of the Founders has been so betrayed. The two sorts of polemics have in common out-of-context observations,  determination to elevate extremists to “movement leaders”, and specious reasoning that resolves after linguistic analysis to a tight little loop:

Q: Why do people oppose Cordoba House?
A: Because they’re racist haters.
Q: How can you tell they’re racist haters?
A: Because they oppose Cordoba House.

The bombastic, spittle-flecked expressions of bigotry, stereotyping, and self-elevation to positions of moral and ethical superiority neither justifiable nor defensible induce, in me, a disgusting nostalgia for the Good Old Days, when red-faced white supremacists, outraged to the point of aneurism, denounced blacks and “pointy headed liberals” in terms stylistically and logically identical, albeit using different specifics.

It is clear, now, that they have long since ceased to defend Imam Ra’uf and his supporters, and segued into defense of themselves and their pretentious self-elevation to Omniscient Arbiters of All Things Ethical and Moral. Those defenses, couched as they are in terms so insulting, dismissive, and disrespectful of the both the feelings and the rationality of Americans, do not discredit the denounced, they discredit the denouncers. The proper response to such clear examples of precisely the motives and behaviors they pretend to denounce has two forks.

Breitbart and Reynolds, among others, lead the way down one path, which is to simply ignore the self-styled Arbiters. Neither of those leaders of the dextrosphere has commented on the matter as a news or policy item recently; it’s below their notice. Breitbart does provide commentary referring to the journalistic aspects; correctly, the commenters he supports do not address the substantive question of the mosque, but the output and motivations of those accusing mosque critics of vile intent.

The response I urge upon you is the other fork: Point, jeer, and guffaw. Their “reasoning” is specious and self-referential, their conclusions cannot be reached even if the bigotry and stereotyping that substitutes for apprehension of the facts were valid, and their self-image as Good and Wise Arbiters is so obviously unjustifiable as to be laugh-worthy. If you cannot ignore it, the proper response to a New York Times editorial is simple: