Saturday, August 2, 2008

My Blog is Back---Obama's Supporters and His Corrupt Candidacy

Barack Obama's supporters tricked Google and Blogger, the Google subsidiary that manages Blogspot, into denying me access to this blog since yesterday. They just let me back on. Obama supporters reported my blog as "spam", i.e., as engaging in fraudulent activity that violates the firm's terms of agreement, because I posted contrarimarii's petition here. Raquel Okyay and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs have covered this story and I appreciate their support.

Previously, many other anti-Obama bloggers have been attacked in this way. Pamela lists several blogs that have received similar treatment from Obama supporters:

Blue Lyon @
Come A Long Way @
Hillary or Bust @
McCain Democrats @
NObama Blog @ @
Reflections in Tyme @

As well, ReunionPI has forwarded a link to Bloggasm that discusses this as well as a New York Times blog about this when Obama supporters were doing it to Hillary supporters (of course, the Times will not note when Obama supporters do it to McCain supporters since McCain supporters are not of the aristocratic, New Deal Whig Democratic caste). Also thanks to Rorschach, Contrairimaiiri and Jim of Gateway Pundit who were supportive. Most of all thanks to Larwyn who was terrifically supportive through a painful illness.

I have drafted a letter to Google's Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Vincent Cerf, that I plan to edit over the next few days. I have copied the first draft below.

This incident sheds a bit more light on Mr. Obama. It is fair to judge a candidate by the nature of his supporters. Nor is this kind of behavior unrelated to a long history of left-wing hooliganism and violence. The ideology of socialism is the most macabre in the history of the world. Obama does not claim to be a socialist, but rather a "progressive", a social democrat, who utilizes socialistic rhetoric but avoids being pinned down to appeal to his real clientele: investment bankers, Morgan Stanley, George Soros and Warren Buffett.

The line between socialists and social democrats is thin. Theodore Roosevelt was a "Progressive" but by the end of his presidency he was a socialist, and he was an overt socialist during his Progressive Party or Bull Moose Party presidential bid in 1912. During this period one of his chief advisers was George W. Perkins, a prominent financier and associate of JP Morgan. Many of Franklin D. Roosevelt's ideas were indeed enunciated in Theodore's speeches, and the claim that there was a big difference between the Republican Progressives along with President Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal is claptrap.

Social democrats are not Lockean in their core but pragmatic in function, as Louis Hartz claimed. Nor are they "moderate". Social democrats argue that they can use state violence to implement their ideology, but they have no evidence that their ideology works. Hence, social democracy involves the use of violence to enforce stupidity. Historically, Bismarck concretely implemented social democracy in Germany in the late nineteenth century and it influenced American ideology through the thousands of Americans who attended German universities during that period. Within 50 years of Bismarck's introduction of "liberalism", actually social democracy, in Germany Hitler rose to power. Today, we are seeing an America impoverished because of New Deal social democracy. The liars in the social democratic institutions, the New York Times and the universities will do all they can to distract you from the simple evidence, for instance today's poor benefit/contribution ratio of social security or the underlying cause of inflation and declining real wages, the Federal Reserve Bank.

The naked lust for power cloaked in the garb of "change", "justice", "reform" or "revolution" is nothing new. There was enough blood let in the last century to drown all of Obama's supporters. The willingness to defraud, lie, and manipulate is characteristic of a social democratic or socialist demagogue like Mr. Obama. The deceit that Mr. Obama's followers exhibit characterizes his campaign's values.

Here is my letter to Mr. Cerf

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
Vinton G. Cerf
Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Mr. Cerf:

I am writing to alert you to a management problem with Blogger and was hoping that you could direct this to the appropriate party. The problem has some public relations and policy ramifications and so I thought it might be of interest to top management.

I am an associate professor at Brooklyn College in New York and have been blogging on Blogger for about a year or two at I was locked out of adding any blogs yesterday because a "robot" indicated that my blog is "spam". However, when I told several others about this issue, they indicated that many Blogger blogs that are critical of Barack Obama have been blocked for spam reasons. Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, the New York Times and Blogasm blog this:

Google put a block on my blog when I wrote a piece about an Illinois woman who is circulating a petition to obtain Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. It so happens that Blogger put a block on my account the same day that I had about 250 visits to this particular entry mostly via

My access was restored in a day, and I do appreciate your firm's abilities. Moreover, I do not believe that this is Google's direct fault but there does seem to be a control problem whereby you have allowed the problem of spam blogs to outweigh the risk of spam reports of spam blogs. If what Pamela Geller is saying in her Atlas Shrugs link above is so, as a statistician would put it, Google is allowing an "alpha" or probability of rejecting the assumption that nothing is wrong at a much too high level. Put another way, Google is trusting malicious complainers and permitting them to staunch the free speech of honest bloggers.

I raise this question with Google’s management because your policy against Spam has been turned into a policy that facilitates a malicious form Spam—the kind that suppresses free discourse and exploits your firm into becoming a tool of the Obama campaign. The individuals who are reporting something like 10 anti-Obama sites as Spam are as culpable as those who would use your company’s blog site for unethical purposes. Hence, there needs to be better balance in your policy, and Google needs to improve its PR by coming out and publicly stating that you support free speech and that you will block further complaints from those who complained about my and the other blogs.


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.


Richard Walden said...

Dr. Langbert;
I disagree with you on most everything, but I'm glad that your blog is back up. I find the dirty tricks and software "gaming" engaged in by a handful of Obamaniacs to be reprehensible, and Google's anemic response to the problem has been pathetic.

Even when I don't like your opinions, I'm "old-school" enough to believe that democracy depends on free and unfettered debate. I may be (hell, I am) a "lefty", but that doesn't mean I think Google has any damn business deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't.

So welcome back online. :)

Mitchell Langbert said...

Thank you, Mr. Walden. We are all entitled to our opinions. Free debate and evidence ought to be the deciding factors, but I'm afraid that they have become less so over time. When I was young I went to a summer camp, Camp Hurley, in the town where I have decided to live. The head of the camp was very much of the left as were most of the people I knew. To this day I remember him saying that the campers should be tolerant of others' views. That was during the 1964 election when Goldwater was running against Johnson, and some kids had said some sarcastic or disrespectful things about Goldwater. Today I agree with Goldwater, but I continue to respect the camp director.

Anonymous said...

Very Interesting!
Thank You!

Anonymous said...

Very Interesting!
Thank You!

Anonymous said...

Very Interesting!
Thank You!