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.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
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?
Illinois Petition for Investigation of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
contrairimairi@aol.com has drafted a petition for residents of Illinois that demands an investigation of Barack Obama's birth certificate. If you live in Illinois please sign the petition, pass it around to your friends and forward it to her at contrairimairi@aol.com:
We, the undersigned residents of the State of Illinois, hereby demand that Barack Hussein Obama produce documentation of American citizenship in the form of a legal birth certificate. It is our understanding that Mr. Obama has heretofore refused to produce such a document. The residency requirement for qualification as a United States Senator includes United States citizenship. Without documentation, under United States law, Barack Hussein Obama may not legally qualify to represent the citizens of the State of Illinois. By signing this petition, we request that the State of Illinois investigate Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve in the Senate and make his birth certificate public immediately, and that with continued coverup
of documentation, we demand Mr. Obama's immediate removal from the Senate.
Previously, Rorschach of the Red Ink: Texas blog has reported that a petitioner closed down his petition because Obama supporters threatened him. The Obama candidacy is truly divisive in a way that the United States has not seen for a quarter century.
>"One person put up a website for an online petition calling for the REAL birth certificate to be released, but within hours of it going up, someone, using the site operator's home address, left a veiled threat against the site operator and his family.
"Petition Closed...A veiled threat was made against myself and my family which included our home address, so I have decided to close the petition for good. It is truly sad that political discourse in our country has come to this. "
We, the undersigned residents of the State of Illinois, hereby demand that Barack Hussein Obama produce documentation of American citizenship in the form of a legal birth certificate. It is our understanding that Mr. Obama has heretofore refused to produce such a document. The residency requirement for qualification as a United States Senator includes United States citizenship. Without documentation, under United States law, Barack Hussein Obama may not legally qualify to represent the citizens of the State of Illinois. By signing this petition, we request that the State of Illinois investigate Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve in the Senate and make his birth certificate public immediately, and that with continued coverup
of documentation, we demand Mr. Obama's immediate removal from the Senate.
Previously, Rorschach of the Red Ink: Texas blog has reported that a petitioner closed down his petition because Obama supporters threatened him. The Obama candidacy is truly divisive in a way that the United States has not seen for a quarter century.
>"One person put up a website for an online petition calling for the REAL birth certificate to be released, but within hours of it going up, someone, using the site operator's home address, left a veiled threat against the site operator and his family.
"Petition Closed...A veiled threat was made against myself and my family which included our home address, so I have decided to close the petition for good. It is truly sad that political discourse in our country has come to this. "
The American Media Crisis--The One Who Pays Is You
The media's monotonous support for the Obama campaign ratchets my curiosity about its declining standards. Yellow journalism and bias go back to the Federalist period of American history and before, and Jefferson was not above planting friendly journalists in positions in order to maximally irritate his opponents. But there are several differences between the factionalism of today's media and that of only a few decades ago. In the 1960s, there was still a significant degree of variability in the opinions of the major New York newspapers. Today, television and newspaper outlets conform to a social democratic norm and are increasingly shrill.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media and this is in part true. The corporate and financial interests that control the television and newspaper outlets are corporatist and social democratic because social democracy supports their financial interests. Thus, to understand the reason for the media's liberal bias, it is necessary to fathom the corporate interests that control the major media outlets and the economic conditions that favor their health.
Social democracy has always been a method by which corporate power deceives and controls a naive public. The history of the Progressives and the New Deal as ensuing from the exercise of a broadened interpretation of corporate power, that is for instance, as opposed to small business power, is well documented. The increased stridency of the mass media not only in support of Barack Obama but in its shrill uniformity (examples are MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNN's Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs) suggest a crisis of confidence on the part of American elites. The crisis is economic and it is in its early stages.
The Bush administration has intensified the inflation of the past 25 years to a point that will necessitate a recession. But American financial and business institutions have been considerably weakened due to mismanagement and may not withstand a recession. The media's advertisers and corporate owners are in for a rough ride.
Wealth has been reallocated away from the economy's productive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and the manufacturing firms as in the automobile industry that might be able to produce value are frequently not globally competitive. For them to become competitive the dollar needs to depreciate to the point where their exports become so. This will attract talent back to productive areas of the economy but will reduce the wealth base and force many Americans to reduce their living standards. As well, the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar will be associated with an influx of dollars from abroad, causing additional price inflation here. This will cause instability. The reason for the price inflation is of course Federal Reserve policy that has subsidized the same firms that advertise through the mass media and include the mass media firms themselves.
In response to the depreciating dollar the Fed will need to raise interest rates. This will cause difficulties and perhaps bankruptcy of major American firms.
The mass media adopts an increasingly lock step tone in order to prepare for a series of economic crises whose causes it aims to distort. The beneficiaries of the long inflation of the past 25 years have been top managers, Wall Street and hedge funds. Oil speculation is not really an important component of this, and the media's recent tap dance about oil speculation is evidence of how it will continue to lie about the economic problems in the next decade. Barack Obama has received more donations from Wall Street and the financial community than has John McCain. He will avoid, with media support, addressing the underlying sources of the need for adjustment.
The one who pays is you.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media and this is in part true. The corporate and financial interests that control the television and newspaper outlets are corporatist and social democratic because social democracy supports their financial interests. Thus, to understand the reason for the media's liberal bias, it is necessary to fathom the corporate interests that control the major media outlets and the economic conditions that favor their health.
Social democracy has always been a method by which corporate power deceives and controls a naive public. The history of the Progressives and the New Deal as ensuing from the exercise of a broadened interpretation of corporate power, that is for instance, as opposed to small business power, is well documented. The increased stridency of the mass media not only in support of Barack Obama but in its shrill uniformity (examples are MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNN's Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs) suggest a crisis of confidence on the part of American elites. The crisis is economic and it is in its early stages.
The Bush administration has intensified the inflation of the past 25 years to a point that will necessitate a recession. But American financial and business institutions have been considerably weakened due to mismanagement and may not withstand a recession. The media's advertisers and corporate owners are in for a rough ride.
Wealth has been reallocated away from the economy's productive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and the manufacturing firms as in the automobile industry that might be able to produce value are frequently not globally competitive. For them to become competitive the dollar needs to depreciate to the point where their exports become so. This will attract talent back to productive areas of the economy but will reduce the wealth base and force many Americans to reduce their living standards. As well, the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar will be associated with an influx of dollars from abroad, causing additional price inflation here. This will cause instability. The reason for the price inflation is of course Federal Reserve policy that has subsidized the same firms that advertise through the mass media and include the mass media firms themselves.
In response to the depreciating dollar the Fed will need to raise interest rates. This will cause difficulties and perhaps bankruptcy of major American firms.
The mass media adopts an increasingly lock step tone in order to prepare for a series of economic crises whose causes it aims to distort. The beneficiaries of the long inflation of the past 25 years have been top managers, Wall Street and hedge funds. Oil speculation is not really an important component of this, and the media's recent tap dance about oil speculation is evidence of how it will continue to lie about the economic problems in the next decade. Barack Obama has received more donations from Wall Street and the financial community than has John McCain. He will avoid, with media support, addressing the underlying sources of the need for adjustment.
The one who pays is you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
