Truth in Liberalism? Or No Truth in Blogging?

February 24, 2007

One of my many problems with Liberals is that often times many of them think that by lying they can make us see the truth. I have discovered that Liberals will often claim that they served in the military when infact, they have not. It’s often the same story, they served in Vietnam, Gulf War, received three purple hearts, and thus proves the rest of us are chicken hawks for not serving. That this also qualifies them as opponents of the war.

Not that I am being critical of people that did serve, if even during a time of peace, that are opposed to the war in Iraq, far from it. I thank them for their service. But just as the soldiers who fought for those who never served and gave them free speech, so does the soldier who fought does for those who who never served who support the war in Iraq and future wars.

Whether you served in the military or not, you have the Right to voice your opposition. By the same token, you have the Right to wish our country win, to contribute if even with moral support, to the victory for our nation. Just keep in mind that during a time of war, if you sympathize with your nations enemies, than your enemy is your nation. Bullies love cowards, but your countrymen will eventually betray you.

Even those that still celebrate what they think they accomplished during Vietnam are remembered as a disgrace to their nation. What people remember is how cruely those who protested the war in Vietnam treated those who sacrificed for them.

My patience has really been wearing thin with Liberals that make things up in order to justify their “truths”. I find it annoying that people think that a lie can make something “true”, when all it accomplishes is to make their truth a bigger lie. I happened upon this blog that caught my attention, though I want to make it clear that I am not accusing this blogger of lying. The blogger, who supports Barack Hussien Obama, would not cite her sources. Normally in the blogosphere, it is common to cite your sources. It gives credibility to your blog, or at least makes the case that it’s not just information that the blogger made up.

In this post the blogger claims that her “Open letter to Barack Obama” is being featured on “racist websites”, but lo and behold, I couldn’t find anything to substantiate this claim. Just a warning, she cusses a few times in the post. So, I did a quick search on Technorati and all I could not find evidence that gave credibility to her claim, going as far back a just prior to when she posted the open letter.

So then I did a google search and still came up with nothing. So I asked her, well not exactly asked, but questioned the legitimacy of her claim.

“Oh I get it, you call people racist, even when they are not, to what? Not silence them? Or to prove how racist you aren’t?If they are so racist, why not link to the exact people you are talking about?

No, you wouldn’t do that, you’d rather just point your finger in the air and call other people racist.”

But instead of backing her claim she goes on the attack, which, again somehow proves that she didn’t just make it up, I suppose, anyway. Her response?

“Mr. Blanko – if you refer to Senator Obama in racist language – that makes you a racist too. This has nothing to do with politics or ideology. People who thrive on hate have no bully pulpit from which to preach morality because they have none. You seem to be attacking me for saying that bigotry and racism is bad for America. That puts you in the same camp as sheet-wearing fanatics. Either you believe that all are created equal or you do not. If you do not – then you sir, are bad for America. By the way – did you find this article through one of the racist sites I refer to in my addendum? If so – then I think any point I may be trying to make here is rendered moot.”

Isn’t that interesting? I suppose hate truly is in the eye of the beholder. After all, she claims she’s preaching against hate, but looking through her site, hate is what I believe I’m reading. Is hate bad all the time? Or is it just okay to hate Republicans, Christians, Southerners, Military, and White Men? Is hate wrong all the time? Or is it acceptable to hate Bush? Isn’t true that love is never wrong? Even if I say I love President George Bush?

There is something far more important here, and that is something that threatens to spoil the blogosphere. I believe that certain amounts of political loyalty is healthy. When the opposition is ready to condemn a man, it serves in the best interest of the nation that he has loyal supporters with him. It prevents the nation from rushing to judgement.

It does absolutely no good to be such an ardent supporter of ones politics, that one has to flat out lie about such a subject. It discredits not just the individual blogger, but whittles away the credibility of the whole. What I am saying, and hopefully you bloggers paid attention, is simply that, when making a statement of fact, do not only yourself a favor, but the rest of us as well – link to your source. Do not misinterpret this to say that I am calling the blogger a liar, but that I am simply pointing out that she left reason to doubt. It’s advice to bloggers everywhere, to back your arguments, especially if you want credibility. It’s not the readers responsibility to substantiate your claims for you, it’s the bloggers responsibility.
No blogger is too important that they can not cite their sources.


1 comments
indianhead
indianhead

I suppose your reference to "three Purple Hearts" involves John F. Kerry. So perhaps we need some sources for the military records of a couple of men... http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html Military Service Records of Senator John F. Kerry Records of Senator Kerry's military service in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. Military Records of Lieutenant (Junior Grade) John F. Kerry for U.S. Navy Military Service During The Vietnam War, 1968 - 1969 Note: Kerry was promoted to (Full) Lieutenant on Jan. 1, 1970 prior to requesting a discharge Purple Heart Awards (3) (PDF) For wounds received in action on Dec. 2, 1968, Feb. 20, 1969, and Mar. 17, 1969 Silver Star (PDF) For displaying "courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism" while acting as the Officer in Charge of a Tactical Command on Feb. 28, 1969. Bronze Star (PDF) For "professionalism, great personal courage under fire, and complete dedication to duty" in rescuing, while wounded, a man overboard following a mine explosion, directing his gunners to provide supporting fire for the rescue, and towing a damaged boat to safety under enemy fire on March 13, 1969 Acceptance of Discharge Naval Reserve (PDF) July 13, 1978 Background Information (PDF) Feb. 1, 1966 Bupers Orders to Gridley (PDF) Nov. 17, 1966 Change of Duty (PDF) July 8, 1968 DD214 (PDF) Duty Recommendations (PDF) Emergency Data (PDF) Sept. 12, 1967 Enlistment Contract (PDF) Feb. 18, 1966 Enlistment Photo (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966 Fitness Reports (PDF) Apr. 12, 1967 Honorable Discharge from Reserve (PDF) Feb. 16, 1978 Leave Record (PDF) National Defense Service Medal (PDF) Naval Messages (PDF) Dec. 8, 1969 Naval OCS Report (PDF) Nuclear Weapons Training Certificate (PDF) For training from May 8 - 11, 1967 Office Order Memos (PDF) Dec. 5, 1969 Officer Candidate Agreement (PDF) Feb. 18, 1966 Order to Officer Candidate (PDF) July 14, 1966 Pay Entry Base Date (PDF) Listed as Feb. 18, 1966 Personnel Casualty Report (PDF) Presidential Unit Citation (PDF) "For Extraordinary Herosim" from Dec. 6, 1968 to Mar. 31, 1969 Qualifying Questionnaire (PDF) Oct. 16, 1970 Recommendations for Next (PDF) Nov. 24, 1969 Record of Discharge (PDF) Release From Active Duty (PDF) Jan. 2, 1970 Report of Home of Record (PDF) Dec. 1966 Request for History of Service (PDF) May 24, 1986 Request for Swiftboat Duty (PDF) Feb. 10, 1968 Research Sheet F4-15 (PDF) June 21, 1967 Reserve Office Appointment (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966 Security Clearances (PDF) Dec. 16, 1966 Service Record (PDF) Prepared Jan. 25, 1985 Serviceman's Life Insurance (PDF) Dec. 8-9, 1968 Statement of Service (PDF) June 21, 1967 Thrice Wounded Reassignment (PDF) March 17, 1969 Top Secret Clearance (PDF) April 28, 1969 Training School Record (PDF) Feb. 18, 1968 Transfer to Standby Reserve (PDF) March 1, 1972 Travel Payment Order (PDF) Undated Vietnam Service Medal (PDF) April 8, 1968 (Source: John Kerry for President, Inc.). Military Records of First Lieutenant George W. Bush for National Guard Service Between 1972 and 1973: Aug. 1, 1972 Memo ordering Bush's suspension from the Texas Air National Guard's 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. May 4, 1972 Memo ordering Bush to report for his annual physical examination with the Texas Air National Guard by no later than May 14, 1972. May 19, 1972 Memo to the file from Bush's commanding officer about a telephone call from Bush asking about how he "can get out of coming to drill," and suspecting that "he's...been talking to someone upstairs." Aug. 18, 1973 ‘CYA’ Memo from Lt. Col. Killian suggesting that his superior officer, Col. Walter B. Staudt, was "pushing to sugar coat" Bush's officer evaluation. Jan. 6, 1973 USAF Dental Exam Record for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 11, 2004 Memorandum of Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.) (HTML) [PDF version] (Analysis of Military Payroll Records for George W. Bush for service from 1972 to 1973) Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004 USAF Reserve Personnel Record Card for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (HTML) [PDF version] (Covers period from 27 May 1972 to 26 May 1973) Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004 ARF 1st Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004 ARF 2nd Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004 Military Payroll Records of 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973) (HTML) [PDF version] Released by White House on Feb. 10, 2004 -------------------------- Okay there's your sources and your men. Wonder why some vets use the term "chickenhawk"? http://www.vietnamveteransforbush.com/ I'm conservative on gun control, states' rights, taxes, right to life and nation building, but somehow I'm not a Conservative when it comes to the neo-conservative definition. Hopefully, the site will not confuse conservativism and neo-conservatism. Or truth with lies...from either side. Is this truly a conservative site? Or is it another George Bush site?

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box