Wednesday, December 5, 2012

A mildly dismaying tale of lying liberal liars who must have struggled in English class

So many bloggers have a disdain for the facts. Especially on the Left.

Take the bloggers in my former home state of Pennsylvania at "2 political junkies."

In a piece called the "The Right Wing Echo Chamber/Filter," they accuse me of "skewing" or something in an article about loathsome radical union thug Leo Gerard.

They accurately quote from my FrontPage Magazine article last year about Gerard. In it I wrote:
To Gerard, it is not radical leftist agitation that leads to violence but capitalism itself. Economic “inequality,” he says, “leads to instability and violence.”
In a Huffington Post column dated Halloween 2011 and titled "Sacrilege: Wall Street Worship," Gerard wrote, "Such inequality leads to instability and violence."

It's pretty obvious that Gerard is criticizing capitalism, which, of course, is his privilege.

But the 2 political junkies, who may have been high at the time, accused me of dishonesty because I didn't include a superfluous detail that they really, really, think I should have.

Gerard was indicating that he agreed with a report from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (whatever that is -- sorry, no disrespect intended to anyone, but I'd never heard of it before). I've never read the report and didn't deem it necessary when I wrote my article.

Immediately after writing, "Such inequality leads to instability and violence," Gerard lifts a direct quotation that is apparently from the report. Here is the quotation:
If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid.
When Gerard wrote "Such inequality leads to instability and violence," he was expressing his opinion about the supposed dangers of inequality which he happened to share with the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Read the op-ed and it becomes obvious.

Because they don't like me/were having a bad day/were paid by George Soros or for whatever reason the 2 political junkies attacked me.

Referring to the sentence "Such inequality leads to instability and violence," the bloggers wrote:
Knowing that that sentence was written by Matthew "burglary tools" Vadum, I think we can reasonably ask whether Gerard actually said that?
And if so what was the context?
With the glorious google we find that he did, in fact, type out those words.  But he was quoting someone else.
Who?  You might ask.
The Vatican.
Eureka! the 2 political junkies must have shouted. We've got an eeeevil right-winger lying!

Alas, they have squat.

It has already been shown that Gerard actually wrote the sentence and that he agreed with it. It was his opinion -- and it's clear he's not the only person in the world who feels that way.

But he was not "quoting someone else," as the 2 super geniuses claim. He was paraphrasing something in a report that was consistent with his own beliefs.

That's called writing. For the 2 little einsteins in Western PA that's W-R-I-T-I-N-G.

The two self-important, artifically offended bloggers kept digging. They wrapped up with this:
Now take a step back to see what Vadum said.  He chose to lie to his audience and omit the faith-based conclusions that Gerard was quoting and agreeing with.  Scaife's braintrust at best failed and at worst lied to their audience by not checking the source of Vadum's assertion.
Now go take a look at the blurb at the Trib.  How much corresponds to reality?  How much of it looks ridiculous?  How credible is it?  How credible do its readers think it is?
This is how the right wing echo chamber filter works. [emphasis added above]
I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the "lie" was.

If I had intended to write about religion or "faith-based conclusions" maybe I would have cared about the report and referenced the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, but I wasn't, so I didn't.

We can see that this is how incompetent left-wing fact checkers work as they desperately try to discredit their ideological adversaries. When they've got nothing, they just make stuff up.

But I'm sure they think they're just so smart.



  1. It's call a lie of omission for a reason.

  2. Dayvoe seems a lot smarter than you Mr. Vadum!

  3. You don't understand what "to lie" means.

    I quoted Leo Gerard accurately and without intending to deceive. I did not wish to add irrelevant details that for whatever you consider relevant.

    Criticize me for that, if you wish, but stop being dishonest by accusing me of lying. You damage your own credibility by doing so.

    You people have way too much time on your hands.