I say we fight fire with fire.
The "hatriot" movement is frothing rabidly over the passage of health care reform (which I can't be too happy about if the insurance industry supports it, honestly, but that's just me).
As you probably know, I spend an inordinate fraction of my spare time peeking in at the goof-o-sphere, trying to understand what could make so many people behave so irrationally and deliberately cultivate such aberrant thought. I mena, if you're insane, you have an excuse to think that the world is out to get you, but when you are otherwise managing to, say, carry on the everyday activities of life, maintain interpersonal relationships and not trying to pick the aphids off of you, I become interested, because it is not normal to posit vast conspiracies everywhere. My personal interest lies in the far-out religious right.
These are their stories.
(Dum-dum.)
A nutloaf without bound, Janet Porter is one twisted bit of girl-jerky. In her recent column, "
A Nation with Blood on Its Hands," which appeared at Bible Prophecy Today, she posits that America is on the edge of national destruction.
Now, I am going to teach you a life lesson here, and keep in mind that this comes to a professional writing teacher. Do not, under any circumstance, ask a rhetorical question when you are writing an argument for a potentially hostile audience. When you are speaking, that's fine. You can control your audience's stream of thought to a degree by spacing the pauses between sentences, interrupting the thoughts as objections occur to them. It's effective in speech. On paper (or on virtual/online/digital media) your audience is in control of the speed at which your information hits them, and they can stop reading and reflect on what an idiot you are. I tell my students not to ask a rhetorical question because your audience might just have an answer.
Janet asks a rhetorical question:
What if Obama's health-care plan treats you like his secretary of homeland security did when she called law-abiding citizens "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States" and initiated domestic spying on us?
So, what type of stunted idiot is Janet Porter? By floating out this red herring, she inadvertently brings in the instruments of her rhetorical dismemberment. I like to think of what follows as a sort of forced literary abortion. Spread em, sweetheart.
Why, oh why would someone think that you would be dangerous? Let's look at your article.
Now the enemies of freedom [...] hold the seats of power and influence within our own borders in Washington.
Wow. The enemies of freedom. You could not be more inflammatory. No, they are not "people who disagree with me, but mean well." They are not even, "Incompetent people who don't know any better." Nope, they are designing the destruction of freedom. This is the same language, you will remember, that our witless leader of yore, George W. Bush, painted terrorists with. (Of course, once I gave a paper about how the exact same language was being used in the war on "terr" as had been in every legal war we had fought. Whatever.) Essentially you are saying that terrorists are farting into the chairs of power.
You say that we are responsible for children being carved up with:
a taxpayer-funded abortionist's knife
You are such a delight. Now, they are baby-killers and terrorists. But hold on! They are even less pleasant! It's not your opening line that raises the stakes:
Crisis. Our nation has been in crisis before. From our inception we faced insurmountable odds when we fought for freedom against the most powerful nation on earth. We were in crisis at Pearl Harbor and when we faced the National Socialist Party in Germany.
It's really your second paragraph that takes the taco:
But our nation has never been more in crisis than we are right now.
Now the enemies of freedom – the national socialists – hold the seats of power and influence within our own borders in Washington
Your really just are a hateful little twat, aren't you, Janet? (The correct answer is, by the way, "Yes, I am a hateful twat! Thanks for noticing, Bing!) Even your equivocation here, using "national socialists" to mean something else entirely other than what grown-ups mean when they use it, is based on diseased thinking. The Nazis
But did you notice that she called the democratically elected representatives of this country Nazis? You're a real fucking patriot, Janet. However, it's only your reputation that you are destroying, so go for it.
Also, I would like to add that opening an article with a single word is very freshman-year. Take, for example: "SEX! Now that I have your attention, I would like to talk about health care..." You think like a child.
Oh, but let's not forget the worst bit. They are SABBATH-BREAKERS. (I'm not even fucking joking. It's coming up all over the wierdosphere.)
Desecrating the Sabbath, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic lynch men in Congress did exactly what they said they'd do when they were voted into office. And if you sent any of them to office with your vote, you, too, have blood on your hands.
See? Sabbath breakers. Also, notice that they are now lynching. I was curious about this charge because...it's so fucking strange.
Luckily, fellow unhinged loony-tune Chuck Baldwin (who actually thinks he'd make a good president...go figure)
made a similar charge:
Passage of the so-called "health care reform" bill in the House of Representatives this past Sunday, March 21 (I won't even address the inferred unconstitutionality of Congress doing business on the Lord's Day. See Article. I. Section. 7. Paragraph. 2.) drove yet another stake into the heart of America.
I followed up on this interpretation, which left me wondering, "Are you fucking kidding me?"
Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
I have highlighted the only possible reference here. It gives no order that nobody shall work on Sundays, but even if it did (which, really? That's your argument?), it seems clear that the timeline is intended for the Executive Branch. Nice big stanky fail.
So, we have lynching Nazi terrorist baby-eating god-mockers in office, eh, Janet? How could anyone ever, ever mistake someone preaching that for a potential threat?
HJ (You can suck on that last rhetorical question, Janet, you unreflective bint.)