Persecution Complex So Big It Explodes Fundie's Head

We all know the fundies love being the victim of things. Janet Folger of WorldNetDaily has gotten such a high from being persecuted that she's getting altitude sickness. How else could one explain this incoherent babbling? It's entitled "Letter from a Future Prisoner," and dated Nov. 20, 2010. Can you see where this is going?

To the Resistance:

I'm writing this letter from prison, where I've been since the beginning of 2010. Since Hillary was elected in '08, Christian persecution in America has gotten even worse than we predicted.

Considering that Hillary is A) not supporting anything that could be considered Christian persecution and B) a Christian, this makes no sense at all.

When the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was signed into law, my radio program was yanked off the air along with all the others that dared discuss moral issues on Christian radio.

That's not what the Fairness Doctrine does. It doesn't force programs off the air, it just requires there to be a balance. This could even be achieved by offering a whole separate liberal station, if you wanted.

The networks just couldn't bring themselves to air a pro-abortion program or one that advocates the homosexual agenda...

Okay, this part reads kind of strange. It's sort of like an abrupt 90 degree turn, as if someone looked over Janet's shoulder and said "Hey, you know that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works, don't you?" and she had to backpedal in a big hurry.

...for the government mandated "balance" because broadcasting lies went against their basic beliefs – I don't blame them.

Lies? So now all opinions you disagree with are "lies?" Do liberals go around calling your opinions lies?

We knew "Thought Crimes" was in danger of becoming law back when it passed Congress in 2007, but thankfully, President Bush kept his promise to veto it.

Oh, woe is us! Oh how we long for the glory days of the Bush presidency, when we didn't have to worry about all these damned minorities getting in the way of our white, heterosexual Christian power structure!

And Janet, if you're really so righteous about keeping people from being jailed for thought crimes, I'm sure you'd be happy to dial up your friend Dubya and ask him to empty out Gitmo, right? Oh, wait, I forgot. Those are Muslims! We don't care about them!

And now, even my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," has been banned as "hate speech" just as I predicted when I wrote it back in 2005.

There's probably a lot of hate speech in it, but I don't know anyone who wants to criminalize it. The only people who want to criminalize content they don't agree with are your friends at the Parents' Television Council.

When the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" ("Thought Crimes" for the Workplace) became law, businesses and ministries were targeted by homosexual activists and were forced to close when they wouldn't comply with a law forcing them to hire those opposed to their beliefs on moral issues.

Okay, now you got me; I'm going to call you a liar. ENDA will do no such thing, no matter how many times you fundies cover your ears and insist the contrary.

When they canceled my program, banned my book and targeted my ministry, I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd be forced into "prison ministry" against my will.

What Janet is so cleverly opining here is that "prison ministry" is a euphemism for being thrown in jail. Who's using that euphemism is unclear; in her paranoid fantastyland, the government is hostile to Christianity, so I can't imagine why they would be sending ministers into prisons.

Unfortunately for our nation, that ministry is growing fast. A homeschooling mom was assigned the cell next to me. I try to comfort her, but she cries constantly at the thought of her kids being raised in government foster care.

Yes, we liberals sure do love foster care! We just can't put ENOUGH kids in foster care! Speaking as someone who used to work in child welfare, I can assure you, you have no idea what you're talking about. Pulling kids out of homes is an absolute last resort, one used only when the child's health or safety is in danger. Nobody wants to create strict rules for how children should be raised (except, of course, fundies) and nobody wants to burden a struggling system any more than it already is.

Further, Janet, if you knew anything about child welfare at all, you wouldn't keep confusing foster care with residential care. And you'd probably make assertions that you have no evidence for either.

The forced labor here makes me think that I should have done more for our brothers and sisters in China sent to labor camps for the crime of hosting a home church, or those imprisoned in every Muslim country for choosing Christ over Allah. We should have seen the writing on the wall when Yahoo turned over confidential searches to the Chinese government, sending people to prison...

Look, if you want to go to battle over real persecution, that's fine, and I'm right there with you. But let's be clear on which problems actually exist and which ones don't. For instance, Christianity is legal in China, but troubled. It is NOT illegal in "every Muslim country," but that's an easy assertion to worm out of since you haven't defined what a "Muslim country" is.

Yahoo did, in fact, turn over searches to the Chinese government, and yes, someone was jailed for it. Because if they hadn't, Yahoo would have faced criminal penalties. I'm not going to pretend that this is an easy issue, or one I can cover right here in this paragraph. All I'm going to say is that the balance between doing what's right and doing what's legal isn't always simple. I myself disagree with the law of China saying that companies have to turn over search results, but we don't get to go around forcing American values on the rest of the world. That is, unless WorldNetDaily would like to rethink its stance on International Law?

...and when Google barred American Christian sites from its search engines as "haters." Finding allied ministries is now almost impossible.

Once again, and I don't necessarily agree with Google's choice here. But Google is a private corporation, and it has the right to ban or not ban any site it wants from its searches. What happened to that "free market" you people are so obsessed with?

It also has nothing to do with Hillary or the government. I know you fundies like to think we live in a totalitarian country, where the President has the right to do all kinds of things, including make up law from whole cloth, but that's just not how it works.

Most didn't see it coming. I try not to think about how the 2009 "Freedom of Choice Act" wiped out every single pro-life law from parental notice to the ban on partial birth abortion.

Oh if only! Janet, having displayed a shocking lack of understanding on every subject so far, now directs her laser-misguided missiles toward law, espousing the apparent belief that the President can overturn Supreme Court decisions.

And how "anti-reproductive rights" was added to the "Thought Crime" statute, which, like California before the election, means a year in jail if someone claims to feel "intimidated" by anything a pro-lifer might do – like express their beliefs in public.

I need to step aside from arguing for just a second, because this has been bugging me throughout this whole piece (of crap). What's with all the expospeak? Does Janet actually think people in the future need to hear a reiteration of what they've experienced over the last two years?

Okay, back to arguing: If this is about California's SB 1234, you're misguided again. I know how much the fundies love to bash abortion rights supporters, but luckily for you, nobody is going to take that cherished right away from you. You can't, however, threaten or intimidate them in California. Too bad for you.

But, like the homeschool mom in the cell beside me, I cry too. I cry mostly because it didn't have to be this way. Just three years ago – in 2007 – we had a chance to unite and achieve our lifetime goals of restoring protection to children in the womb...

I don't know any "children" in any "wombs." If there were any, they'd probably like to be let out.

...and protecting our foundational relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.

Since no one, anywhere, is threatening to do anything to marriages between a man and a woman, I really fail to see what you're complaining about.

And now the suggestion of it is treated like the illegal mention of a "mom" or "dad" to the California School Board.

BZZT! Wrong again, Janet! Do you actually read the bills you complain about, or just let other people tell you what you're supposed to get your panties in a twist over?

Martin Niemöller's words ring true. I see them with a modern twist:

When they came for the Chinese, I did not speak up because those slave-labor goods were so very cheap.

Who's "coming for" the Chinese? Of course, if Janet wants to start closing sweatshops, I can get behind that.

When they came for the Afghan and Iraqi Christians, I did not speak up because I didn't want to undermine the war effort.

Not true at all. The fundies never met a war they didn't like. Janet would never advocate doing something that would undermine the war!

When they came for the German homeschoolers, I didn't speak up because I live in America.

Yes, homeschooling is illegal in Germany. So what? Do you want to go over there and impose your values too?

When they came for the Philadelphia 11, I didn't speak up, because I was from Cleveland.

When they came for the Philadelphia 11, I didn't speak up because I thought they belonged in jail.

When they came for me, speaking up had become illegal.

Yeah, right, that's totally going to happen. Because liberals love to suppress free speech.

No, in 2007 and 2008, American Christians were so used to the status quo that they forgot we were in this to win. Compromised and divided, they choose to protest rather than protect.

What does that mean? What is "protecting?"

When the Christian and conservative leaders couldn't stop fighting over their candidate of compromise or their favorite "tier two" pick, we missed our last chance at victory – victory for children facing the abortionists' knife and victory for the institution foundational to our society – marriage.

Yes, I'm sure things like forcing pregnancies and denying rights to gays were what Jesus would have wanted.

All the money in the world couldn't buy Mitt Romney's trust. And no one seemed to remember what Rudy Giuliani had said of the previous Clinton administration: "Most of Clinton's policies are similar to most of mine." Or how he praised the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and offered up a citywide proclamation honoring the infamous racist eugenicist, whose organization has brutally killed more babies than any other in the Western Hemisphere.

Did they really think we would have a chance to beat Hillary with "Hillary-lite?"

If they're smart, yes. You don't get to the White House by nominating some ideological extremist. Maybe if you're really lucky, David Duke will run again!

There was a tier-one candidate that stood for our goals of life and marriage – that man was Gov. Mike Huckabee. Had we nominated Huckabee to run against Hillary, the stark difference between the two would have brought voters out in droves.

Yeah, for Hillary.

And we never would have seen the Supreme Court appointments of Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein. If only there were a way to go back in time to change�

I don't know why they keep bringing up Dianne Feinstein (and misspelling it). She's not all that liberal, but maybe being one of those Ebil Jooz! makes her a good fundie boogeyman. But whatever; I don't know what paranoid delusion Janet is suffering under that makes her think Feinstein and Schumer will be nominated to the Supreme Court.

I've gotta go. The guard spotted me writing again.

What a ridiculous waste of kilobytes this all was--as if some prisoner in a concentration camp would use her few precious minutes and writing implements to lament about how bad things are and how we should have voted for somebody else. She's writing to the resistance for God's sake, don't you think there's something more important she could be saying?

"Well, Jim-Bob, we got another letter from Janet on the inside!"

"Great, did she send us a map of the compound? A schedule of when the guards change? A proposal for an escape?"

"Nah, she wrote 15 paragraphs about how much she hates the government!"

"Shit, Cletus! Back in the good ol' days, we dun' told all the libruls not to talk like that!"

Janet, give up your paranoid delusions--you sound like a nutcase. We get it already, you don't like Hillary. So go vote for Huckabee; we Democrats will thank you for it.

*Please note: This article was brought to my attention by reader TB Tabby.