First, here's the entire "article":
Title:
Napolitano releases deceptive terrorism report, gives Muslim Brotherhood US security clearance
(The first thing in this article is this video which was uploaded to YouTube on October 26, 2011.)
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s latest contribution this week to the protection of Americans appears to ignore the most deadly and destructive groups on the planet — Islamic terrorists — say security and law enforcement experts.
A Department of Homeland Security report released on February 2 compares terrorism to “ordinary crime” in metropolitan U.S. cities and omits the radical Islamic factor, instead finding “significant variability in the ideologies motivating terrorist attacks across decades.”
This appears to be part of the Obama Administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes hiring a special Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary who supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue.
All Americans who don't have their heads in the sand must join together in supporting our War against Islam which Islam started against America on September 11, 2001.
We cannot allow the illegal president who is nothing more than Islam's Muslim General to destroy our United States Constitution and change America into an Islamic cockroach nest. Obama is an enemy to both America and Israel.
There is only one solution to Islam and that is to defeat Islam throughout the world, so Islam's quest to conquer the world will fail.
Failure to confront Islam will lead to Islam's conquest of not only America, but the entire world.
My reply to my Facebook friend who posted this article on my wall:
Wow. What a clusterf_ck this "article" is. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it.
Just about everything in it is questionable, not accurate, out-dated, wrongly-dated, conspiratorial, or in some other way just generally "bad". Holy crap. People actually read this junk and share it and comment on it? (There are 4 pages of comments on this "article" and supposedly it has been viewed 3,110 times???)
What the hell am I doing wrong? Maybe I should begin making inaccurate/confusing/shitty/stupid/moronic blog posts so that people will read and share them more?
The title:
"Napolitano releases deceptive terrorism report, gives Muslim Brotherhood US security clearance" It doesn't even address this in the "article" (I keep putting "article" in quotes because it's an insult to articles everywhere not to do so).
BREAKDOWN: "Napolitano releases deceptive terrorism report..." -- the "article" refers to a report that it SAYS was released on February 2nd (no documentation or link provided in the "article" to corroborate this). In the "article", the link that is provided is to a .pdf file. The first date on that .pdf file is July 5, 2012. When scrolling thru the document, the next date I found was January 31, 2012 (that it was released on February 2nd makes more sense but, this doesn't corroborate a thing. Whatever. I digress).
The 1st sentence:
"Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s latest contribution this week to the protection of Americans appears to ignore the most deadly and destructive groups on the planet — Islamic terrorists — say security and law enforcement experts."
BREAKDOWN: "...Napolitano's latest contribution this week..." -- what the hell is he talking about when he says "this week"? The report he is referring to was released in FEBRUARY? (According to him, that is. The two dates in the .pdf are July and January.) --"...say security and law enforcement experts." --WHO??? Who the hell is he referring to? I could write, "Security and law enforcement experts say the Patriot Action Network is a waste of time to read." Wouldn't those at the PAN want to know WHO it is that is saying this? Wtf? GOT A LINK???
The 4th sentence (and, 4th paragraph - there are 8 sentences and 7 paragraphs to this "article"):
"All Americans who don't have their heads in the sand must join together in supporting our War against Islam which Islam started against America on September 11, 2001."
BREAKDOWN: Since it would be of great benefit to have MORE people join in and understand the threat that Islam presents, wouldn't it make much more sense to NOT INSULT ALL THE PEOPLE who are not yet awake in order to get more of them to join in?
5th sentence (5th paragraph):
"We cannot allow the illegal president..."
BREAKDOWN: So, unless you're a "birther" you're not going to take anything else this guy says seriously. I'm not a birther. I don't take him seriously, not only because of the birther comment, but for the utter mess that this "article" is.
Believe it or not there is so much more that I could go into about this "article", but I'll leave that for some other time.
_____________End of my reply.____________
This entire fiasco that the above "article" represents dovetails a little bit off of one of my posts from earlier this week entitled "Conservatives FAIL Online - Please Read & Share!" because, according to the comments underneath the "article" and the fact that it was posted on my Facebook wall, it kind of proves that the people sharing, commenting, and "reading" posts like that really are NOT reading them. They appear to me to be only reading the headline and running with it. If you're only reading headlines and not comprehending and discerning the information in the article you're not as informed as you probably think you are.
There certainly are parts of many articles that can be skipped when you're reading them. When supporting information is discussed, information you're already aware of for example, you can skip ahead in the article. However, when you only read a headline or take at face value whatever the author is sharing, aren't you only "a headline more informed" than you were prior to reading the headline? Provided that the headline is accurate, that is. When an "article" consists of only 7, mostly one-sentence paragraphs, why wouldn't you read the whole thing? I don't get it.
It is my opinion that since this "article" on the PAN was posted on September 18, 2012 and appears to be "reporting" about something that happened "this week" which actually happened MONTHS AGO, you've only been misled. This results in the reader being MORE IGNORANT than they were prior to stumbling across this mess of an "article".
I'm not an avid reader of the PAN because I've seen similar "reporting" debacles in the past on that website. I don't know what I'm missing, perhaps there's some secret prize that people get for being a part of it. Perhaps some think that because it's got "Patriot" in the title it must be all good. The "article" above is nothing but trash.
Can anyone that may be a regular reader of the PAN tell me what I'm missing? (Without calling me a bunch of names.)
If you wish to be notified of my future blog posts, please subscribe to my blog via the “Follow by email” box near the top of this page. You will NOT be spammed. If I make 10 posts in one day, you’ll only receive ONE email. Thanks!
Because the left owns the media in this country, I blog. If you don’t share these posts, who else will see them?
