The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal Newspaper published an article on my write-in candidacy on its website early on September 22, 2014. The headline read:
“Abilene man challenges Neugebauer as write-in candidate in U.S. District 19 race
Vance running as “strict constructionist constitutionalist’”
I want to thank Adam Young for the article. I know that any such article requires editing and selective use of the material provided. Although there may be some quibbling over the material selected, I believe he wrote a fair and accurate news story.
I also want to thank Robert Pratt of “Pratt on Texas” for mentioning the article on his radio show. I seldom miss the show and was posting one of my blogs when he referenced the article. The link to the news story is on the “Pratt on Texas” website.
http://prattontexas.com/
On the home page of the website, go to the “Local News” toward the top of the page. It is the third category listed going from left to right. Click on “Abilene.” Then go to “Abilene-area news for 9/22/2014.” Where it says, “The City of Abilene Addresses the Problem of … “[Read more...],” click on “read more…” (Hopefully you can just click on “[Read more...]” here. However, sometimes the links do not hold when I post them.) Scroll down to the very last article entitled “TX19: Abilene man challenges Neugebauer as write-in candidate.” Click on and it should take you to the article.
When I read the article, there were five comments. I will discuss one of those five. This is the comment:
“nowhereland 09/22/14 - 06:31 am
Donald Vance
Wow! I went to his ‘website’. This guy is a true Tea Bigot and Misogynist. Seems to have some trust issues with the media dating back to one episode in the 80’s because a reporter may have misquoted him. He even posted Adam’s interview questions and got bit surly in one response.
Apparently, he moved from Illinois a year ago to be in the same state as Ted Cruz. Weird. His blog reads like right wing puke fest. It doesn’t mention current employment beyond ‘publishing’ which seems to encompass blogs and tawdry little pamphlets full of hate and propaganda.”
I have never liked anonymity when it comes to anything of importance. Why is the individual hiding his identity? How valid is his information? In relation to internet comments, there are studies that conclude that people say things that would not be said if it was not an anonymous statement.
From: http://www.ehow.com/info_8464540_5-propaganda-techniques.html
“Name-calling: The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, or IPA, pioneered the serious study of propaganda in 1937, and published several books on the topic. Name-calling was one of the propaganda techniques it identified in its research. When liberal politicians refer to conservative politicians as fascists, or conservative politicians refer to liberal politicians as socialists or communists, they are using the propaganda technique of name-calling. This technique depends on the powerful negative charge of the name to demonize the opponent without seriously critiquing the opponent’s position.”
What name-calling occurs in this short comment realizing this individual does not know me and is relying on my blogsite for any information he has about me?
1) “Tea Bigot:” Who is the bigot? The person who uses name-calling or the person who does not?
2) “Misogynist:” For those who do not know the definition of this word ~
“mi·sog·y·ny [mi sójjənee] n hatred of women: a hatred of women, as a sexually defined group
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.”
I am pro-life. When did being pro-life become synonymous with hating women? That is total nonsense.
Does the anonymous writer know that over half of all unborn/preborn babies who are aborted/murdered are female?
Does the anonymous writer know that in sex selection abortions/murders that females are aborted/murdered more often than males?
Does the anonymous writer know that young girls who are sexually molested by older men are often forced to have an abortion/murder by the molester to hide his crimes? Does the anonymous writer know that the clinic where the abortion/murder takes place often does not report the sexual abuse of the minor even though every State requires such suspected abuse to be reported? I suggest that the writer honestly examine this web site:
http://www.lifedynamics.com/
Does the anonymous writer know there are scientific studies that show that having an abortion/murder significantly increases the chances of having breast cancer?
Does the anonymous writer know that many women who have an abortion/murder have physical and/or mental problems after the abortion/murder?
Does the anonymous writer know that every abortion is a murder? Thus, every mother who knowingly and willingly aborts/murders her child is by definition a murderer.
“mur·der n
1) crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.”
Does the anonymous writer know that the Declaration of Independence recognizes life as the first right? A right for both men and women.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Does the anonymous writer know that the Constitution of the United States protects unborn/preborn babies, both male and female, as well as all other citizens?
“Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Does the anonymous writer know that I am a Christian and Christians do not hate anyone or any group. We, however, do hate sin. Sin is the evil not women or any other group or subgroup.
Who really hates women? Those of us who are pro-life or those who are pro-abortion/murder?
3) “His blog reads like right wing puke fest:” Self evident and really needs no comment.
4) “tawdry little pamphlets full of hate and propaganda:” The books mentioned are e-books on Amazon. I seriously doubt that he has read any of them including the section that may be read for free on Amazon.
“taw·dry [táwdree] adj
1) gaudy and of poor quality: gaudy, cheap in appearance, and of inferior quality
2) mean-spirited: mean-spirited and lacking in human decency
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I’m not sure an e-book can be “gaudy and of poor quality: gaudy, cheap in appearance, and of inferior quality.” If he has not read any of them, how is he capable of identifying them as tawdry? He should certainly give at least a few examples.
Please give examples of hate and propaganda.
Here are the titles of my books:
The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam—This was the first book I wrote. It took me three years to write it from 1996-1999. It is autobiographical. I had to write it that way because I wanted to include a Selective Service Notice that gave my draft number. It was high enough to keep me from being drafted. Since It had my name and address on it, to write the story in the third person would be nonsensical. The first five chapters deal with recruitment, training, and combat in Vietnam. The last chapter covers a span from 1969 to about 1996. I do not know of any place in the book where hatred and propaganda are present. Anonymous should enlighten us.
Constitution Workbook for Gunslingers—second book written. Written for our local Tea Party group in 2011. I do not think the Constitution contains hatred and propaganda so I do not know how the book could contain hatred and propaganda. Anonymous should enlighten us.
Constitution Answerbook for Gunslingers—third book written. See above for the rest of the explanation.
Bible Questionbook on Homosexuality for GODseekers—Written in 2013. Almost all of the questions deal directly with verses from the Bible. If the Bible is filled with hatred and propaganda, then the book is. Anonymous disagreeing with what the Bible says does not mean the Bible is hateful or propaganda.
Bible Answerbook on Homosexuality for GODseekers—see above
The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Bold Church and the Holy Spirit Questionbook—Written in 2013. Almost all of the questions deal directly with verses from the Bible. If the Bible is filled with hatred and propaganda, then the book is. Anonymous disagreeing with what the Bible says does not mean the Bible is hateful or propaganda.
The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Bold Church and the Holy Spirit Answerbook—see above
The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Church Individually and Collectively Questionbook—Written in 2013. Almost all of the questions deal directly with verses from the Bible. If the Bible is filled with hatred and propaganda, then the book is. Anonymous disagreeing with what the Bible says does not mean the Bible is hateful or propaganda.
The Bold Church of Jesus, the Christ: The Church Individually and Collectively Answerbook—see above
It is easy to claim that something is hateful. It is easy to claim that something is propaganda.
Now, prove it.
I don’t allow comments on this blog. However, if “nowhereland” contacts me at votevance2014@gmail.com, gives me his name and address, verifies that information to be true, and sends me his comments to this post, I will post them as written (except for expletives which will be deleted) along with his name and his community with my response to his comments. Is that fair? Is that hateful? I’m giving him an opportunity to prove what he wrote.
Twice in Illinois, I offered anyone $10,000, who could show that the concept of “separation of church and State” is within the Constitution. To not waste my time, they had to pay $1,000 first. If they showed that the concept of “separation of church and State” is in the Constitution, I would return the $1,000 and pay an addition $10,000. If they could not show the concept of “separation of church and State” is in the Constitution, I would keep the $1,000. Naturally, no one took me up on the offer because the concept is not within the Constitution.
Do you think “nowhereland” will take up the challenge? Saying and proving are two very different things.
© Vote Vance
