Senator Barack Obama's foreign aid proposal ought to be enough to dissuade any conservative bolter. Unsurprisingly, the M-S-M has not emphasized it enough.
On February 12, Cliff Kincaid of Accurary in Media (AIM) reported that Joe Biden and the Senate have supported Barack Obama's "Global Poverty Act", which has received too little attention from television and M-S-M sources. According to Kincaid, the legislation:
"would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends."
Kincaid notes that:
"The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."
Contrairiimarie just forwarded the following excerpt from a July 29, 2008 Investors' Business Daily article:
"A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate...if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world... Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want...It calls for the 'eradication of poverty' in part through the 'redistribution (of) wealth of land' and 'a fair distribution of the earth's resources.' In other words: American resources...Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty...During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500."
Kincaid of AIM adds:
"The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars."
Can we not ask a little honesty of Mr. Obama, who seems to put little stock in openness or truthfulness, but asks us to rely on his good faith and judgment in increasing taxes to ever greater heights for his bird-brained, social democratic schemes?
Saturday, August 2, 2008
WireandMedia on the Illinois Birth Certificate Petition
Hat tip ReunionPI, WireandMedia gave this coverage to Barack Obama's supporters' attack on this blog:
Illinois Petition for Investigation of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
X -Posted from Mitchell Langbert’s Blog H/T Larwyn I have it on good authority that yesterday 7/31/08 Mitchell Langbert was locked out of his blog by Google/Blogspot. Mind you the post date is Thursday, July 31, 2008. His blog was reported as a spam blog. One day people! IT ONLY TOOK ONE DAY FOR OBOTS TO ATTACK! FASCISTS! Illinois Petition for Investigation of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Thursday, July 31, 2008 contrairimairi@aol.com has drafted a petition for residents of Illi
Illinois Petition for Investigation of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
X -Posted from Mitchell Langbert’s Blog H/T Larwyn I have it on good authority that yesterday 7/31/08 Mitchell Langbert was locked out of his blog by Google/Blogspot. Mind you the post date is Thursday, July 31, 2008. His blog was reported as a spam blog. One day people! IT ONLY TOOK ONE DAY FOR OBOTS TO ATTACK! FASCISTS! Illinois Petition for Investigation of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Thursday, July 31, 2008 contrairimairi@aol.com has drafted a petition for residents of Illi
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 @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com
Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com
Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com
politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com
Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com
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 www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com. 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:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/google-shuts-...
http://bloggasm.com/whos-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/
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 FreeRepublic.com.
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.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
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 @ http://bluelyon.blogspot.com
Come A Long Way @ http://comealongway.blogspot.com
Hillary or Bust @ http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
McCain Democrats @ http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
NObama Blog @ http://nobamablog.blogspot.com
politicallizard.blogspot.com @ http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com
Reflections in Tyme @ http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com
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 www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com. 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:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/google-shuts-...
http://bloggasm.com/whos-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/
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 FreeRepublic.com.
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.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Obama's Divisiveness Aims to Distract Voters
One of the old tricks of European monarchies, social democracies and communist states for millenia past has been to distract the people from economic mismanagement and decline by introducing a scape goat or highly charged issue to deflect public attention. Perhaps the classic literary example of this is in the beginning of Shakespeare's Henry V when the Archbishop of Canterbury designs to suggest to the King that he is entitled to the kingdom of France under the Law of Salique in order to distract him from considering imposing a tax on church lands. And, of course, the Czars of Russia and later the Communist regimes frequently used the Jews to distract the populace from the mismanagement and poverty that the highly centralized feudalist system of Russia entailed. This strategem continued on through the Communist era. Today, Le Pen of France attempts a similar strategy.
The Obama campaign resorts to the "distraction card" in order to deflect attention from his intent to reenforce failed social democratic economic policies, especially the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and cartelization of health care, that have increasingly impoverished the average American. Since the international gold standard was abolished in 1971, workers' average hourly real wage has declined worse than one percent per year, but the mass media has been telling the public that there is no inflation and that things are great because of cell phones even though both parents now work two jobs whereas thirty years ago one parent worked one job. Academic economists, the media's high brow equivalent, attribute economic decline to marginal income tax rates, a non-sequitor.
Given the economic instability that the social democratic system has created that go well beyond nonsensical explanations like marginal tax rates, Obama has decided to emphasize divisive race issues. Thus, John McCormack of Weekly Standard (hat tip Larwyn) reports that ABC News has video of Barack Obama telling voters in Missouri that the Republicans
"are going to try to...make you scared of me. You know he--oh, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all of those other presidents on those dollar bills."
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt (hat tip Larwyn) reports that Obama favors reparations:
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
By raising the reparations issue Obama aims to distract Americans from the economic pain that they are about to suffer at the hands of our national economic planning czars, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson and their identical-twin-replacements under an Obama administration. What better way to distract from economic crisis than the reparations bugaboo?
The Obama campaign resorts to the "distraction card" in order to deflect attention from his intent to reenforce failed social democratic economic policies, especially the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and cartelization of health care, that have increasingly impoverished the average American. Since the international gold standard was abolished in 1971, workers' average hourly real wage has declined worse than one percent per year, but the mass media has been telling the public that there is no inflation and that things are great because of cell phones even though both parents now work two jobs whereas thirty years ago one parent worked one job. Academic economists, the media's high brow equivalent, attribute economic decline to marginal income tax rates, a non-sequitor.
Given the economic instability that the social democratic system has created that go well beyond nonsensical explanations like marginal tax rates, Obama has decided to emphasize divisive race issues. Thus, John McCormack of Weekly Standard (hat tip Larwyn) reports that ABC News has video of Barack Obama telling voters in Missouri that the Republicans
"are going to try to...make you scared of me. You know he--oh, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all of those other presidents on those dollar bills."
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt (hat tip Larwyn) reports that Obama favors reparations:
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
By raising the reparations issue Obama aims to distract Americans from the economic pain that they are about to suffer at the hands of our national economic planning czars, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson and their identical-twin-replacements under an Obama administration. What better way to distract from economic crisis than the reparations bugaboo?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
