Pastor James David Manning cooks with steam (h/t Bob Robbins). Besides the questions he raises about President-elect Obama's birth certificate, calling his election the biggest fraud in American history, Manning points out that the whites who voted for Obama are more racist than those who voted against him.
I had thought of this before. The racist, pro-Obama claim that those who opposed Obama did so because of race speaks to a psychological process known as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance or mental conflict refers to a process whereby our minds attempt to resolve internally conflicting facts. For instance, if we believe intellectually that racism is wrong but work in a company that is 95% white, attended universities that are 95% white, sent our children to elementary schools that are 95% white and live in neighborhoods that are 95% white, we might sense a mental conflict. In order to resolve their cognitive dissonance, racist white liberals supported Obama. Call it liberal guilt, perhaps, but it is more immediate than mere guilt.
Manning is absolutely right. The worst white bigots I know have all supported Obama, and the left-wing propagandists who make sure that their children attend all-white schools, colleges and universities are the most vocal of Obama's backers. I never saw more politically correct, intolerant left wingers than when I worked in all-white towns and in colleges that were all-white. These university-linked students and fauclty, a bunch of closed-minded bigots, are Obama's base of support.
Manning's points are all spot on and worth a careful listen.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Has Google Suppressed Atlas?
Bob Robbins has forwarded this blog from Texas Darlin saying that Google has excised the Atlas Shrugs blog and other anti-Obama sites from its search engine:
"Google, the world’s number one search engine, is apparently adjusting its search engines to restrict access to anti-Obama information on the world wide web. I don’t know of a more intelligent, hard-working, ethical anti-Obama blogger than Atlas Shrugs. If Google is disappearing Pamela’s work, it’s flagrant political content-based censorship. Welcome to Obama’s Regime. And they say he’s a 'liberal?'"
Pamela Geller writes:
"A couple of days ago I was wiped off google search pages. Yes, if you google Pamela Geller or Atlas Shrugs, I come up, that is not the issue. My work is not there, it does not come up in google's search results. It is critical to building Atlas that I be searchable.Youtube searches are still intact as are images."
I Googled "Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs" and came up with 32,200 hits, five times what I get when I Google "Mitchell Langbert". But when I Google "Obama birth certificate" I do not see Atlas Shrugs right away, which I would think I should. When I type in "obama birth certificate +atlas +shrugs" I get back 28,100 hits, including from the Atlas Shrugs site, which seems all right to me. I don't really understand how search engines work, or how Google might be editing or altering access.
But one thing's for sure. Google does a great job in providing search and blogging support. On the other hand, by virtue of its virtuosity does Google get too much information about us? I'm not casting aspersions about Google (nor am I clear about what has happened with Pamela) but the left-liberal ideology is largely the dominant paradigm, and it has been used systematically to secure concentrated corporate power even as leftists claim to favor the "underprivileged", minorities and the like. What has happened to the underprivileged and minorities? Take a walk around some of Brooklyn's worst neighborhoods, which were nothing like this before the left started to become ascendant in the 1930s.
Is big business capable of suppression of conservative bloggers on behalf of the pro-Obama progressive left? Of course. So whatever has gone on with respect to Geller's site, I respect what she says.
"Google, the world’s number one search engine, is apparently adjusting its search engines to restrict access to anti-Obama information on the world wide web. I don’t know of a more intelligent, hard-working, ethical anti-Obama blogger than Atlas Shrugs. If Google is disappearing Pamela’s work, it’s flagrant political content-based censorship. Welcome to Obama’s Regime. And they say he’s a 'liberal?'"
Pamela Geller writes:
"A couple of days ago I was wiped off google search pages. Yes, if you google Pamela Geller or Atlas Shrugs, I come up, that is not the issue. My work is not there, it does not come up in google's search results. It is critical to building Atlas that I be searchable.Youtube searches are still intact as are images."
I Googled "Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs" and came up with 32,200 hits, five times what I get when I Google "Mitchell Langbert". But when I Google "Obama birth certificate" I do not see Atlas Shrugs right away, which I would think I should. When I type in "obama birth certificate +atlas +shrugs" I get back 28,100 hits, including from the Atlas Shrugs site, which seems all right to me. I don't really understand how search engines work, or how Google might be editing or altering access.
But one thing's for sure. Google does a great job in providing search and blogging support. On the other hand, by virtue of its virtuosity does Google get too much information about us? I'm not casting aspersions about Google (nor am I clear about what has happened with Pamela) but the left-liberal ideology is largely the dominant paradigm, and it has been used systematically to secure concentrated corporate power even as leftists claim to favor the "underprivileged", minorities and the like. What has happened to the underprivileged and minorities? Take a walk around some of Brooklyn's worst neighborhoods, which were nothing like this before the left started to become ascendant in the 1930s.
Is big business capable of suppression of conservative bloggers on behalf of the pro-Obama progressive left? Of course. So whatever has gone on with respect to Geller's site, I respect what she says.
Democrats To Change Name from Thanksgiving to Resentment Day
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, has announced that she has proposed a bill that will change the the name of the late-November American holiday from Thanksgiving to Resentment Day. "The Thanksgiving Day Parade needs to be changed into a protest march," Congressman Rahm Emanuel added. Noting that Thanksgiving's history is male-dominated, Speaker Pelosi said that she "realized in over 200 years of our history, these meetings have taken place and a woman has never ever sat at (the head of) that table." Democrats predict a healthy, across-the-board increase in resentment of all kinds. "I'm very excited about the prospects for Resentment Day," Senator Kennedy said.
Heartily supporting the change, President-elect Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, adds (see below) that "Thanksgiving has been a holiday that has been controlled by rich, white men. It is a European holiday. My skin is the wrong color for Thanksgiving. I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it."
Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy and President-elect Obama aim to change the Thanksgiving Day dinner ritual, which Senator Kennedy describes as "racist". On Resentment Day all Americans will share with others around the table the reasons why and how they have been wronged, what they are most resentful about and why taxes should be raised to subsidize them.
Especially excited was the head of the Ku Klux Klan. He noted: "White males have been wronged for too long. It is time we got to express our resentment, just like everyone else."
First Lady-elect, Michelle Obama, seemed pleased with prospective name change. She said, "And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." She emphasized that people are hungry for "change", not "turkey", which she considers to be a racist construct. She added that now she will not feel alone in her frustration. All Americans, especially those whose family incomes reach $1.6 million in a single year, will be "unified" in their expression of resentment toward the United States and freedom.
The animal rights movement is also exuberant about the name change. Writing from the Democratic Party's left wing, Change.org asks "Why do only white turkeys get pardons?" Moreover, Change.org has provided vegetarian Resentment Day recipes. They have proposed that anyone eating Turkey on Thanksgiving Day be sent to one of the re-education camps that Congressman Emanuel has proposed. "Americans must be taught to think in unison. Turkeys have rights, too."
Animal rights activist Stephanie Ernst of Change.org adds:
"A lot of you, I imagine, will be doing your grocery shopping this weekend, so in advance of that, I'm going to share with you a roundup of resources full of animal-free recipes."
While expressing resentment around the table, animal rights activists say, don't forget America's centuries of abuse of turkeys. "We need to resent the turkeys' agonized gobbles and the treatment of their remains as mere 'leftovers'."
Senator Kennedy also voiced support for the change. "People earning the minimum wage should be resentful that they are not earning more. Working families deserve a raise. Everyone deserves a raise. Everyone should be resentful." As well, he added, "automobile drivers who murder their passengers have been unfairly treated. I resent that."
Congressman Emmanuel proposed that anyone celebrating traditional Thanksgiving should be imprisoned. The editors of the New York Times said that Emanuel's proposal is "moderate" and ought to be taken seriously. "This is change we can believe in." The Times said that it resented that its reporting could not be even more overtly biased in President-elect Obama's favor, and suggested across the board tax increases to begin to satisfy Americans' resentments and perhaps create new ones. "We have resentments, too," the Times's editors said.
The esteemed Jim Crum responds:
Don’t laugh too hard…
I can see the day where someone will try to do this.
For what it is worth, you’ll notice that all of the people quoted have one thing in common: They don’t have real jobs, they really don’t work, they simply do not produce. So value added? None.
The renowned Candace de Russy responds:
clever!
Heartily supporting the change, President-elect Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, adds (see below) that "Thanksgiving has been a holiday that has been controlled by rich, white men. It is a European holiday. My skin is the wrong color for Thanksgiving. I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it."
Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy and President-elect Obama aim to change the Thanksgiving Day dinner ritual, which Senator Kennedy describes as "racist". On Resentment Day all Americans will share with others around the table the reasons why and how they have been wronged, what they are most resentful about and why taxes should be raised to subsidize them.
Especially excited was the head of the Ku Klux Klan. He noted: "White males have been wronged for too long. It is time we got to express our resentment, just like everyone else."
First Lady-elect, Michelle Obama, seemed pleased with prospective name change. She said, "And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." She emphasized that people are hungry for "change", not "turkey", which she considers to be a racist construct. She added that now she will not feel alone in her frustration. All Americans, especially those whose family incomes reach $1.6 million in a single year, will be "unified" in their expression of resentment toward the United States and freedom.
The animal rights movement is also exuberant about the name change. Writing from the Democratic Party's left wing, Change.org asks "Why do only white turkeys get pardons?" Moreover, Change.org has provided vegetarian Resentment Day recipes. They have proposed that anyone eating Turkey on Thanksgiving Day be sent to one of the re-education camps that Congressman Emanuel has proposed. "Americans must be taught to think in unison. Turkeys have rights, too."
Animal rights activist Stephanie Ernst of Change.org adds:
"A lot of you, I imagine, will be doing your grocery shopping this weekend, so in advance of that, I'm going to share with you a roundup of resources full of animal-free recipes."
While expressing resentment around the table, animal rights activists say, don't forget America's centuries of abuse of turkeys. "We need to resent the turkeys' agonized gobbles and the treatment of their remains as mere 'leftovers'."
Senator Kennedy also voiced support for the change. "People earning the minimum wage should be resentful that they are not earning more. Working families deserve a raise. Everyone deserves a raise. Everyone should be resentful." As well, he added, "automobile drivers who murder their passengers have been unfairly treated. I resent that."
Congressman Emmanuel proposed that anyone celebrating traditional Thanksgiving should be imprisoned. The editors of the New York Times said that Emanuel's proposal is "moderate" and ought to be taken seriously. "This is change we can believe in." The Times said that it resented that its reporting could not be even more overtly biased in President-elect Obama's favor, and suggested across the board tax increases to begin to satisfy Americans' resentments and perhaps create new ones. "We have resentments, too," the Times's editors said.
The esteemed Jim Crum responds:
Don’t laugh too hard…
I can see the day where someone will try to do this.
For what it is worth, you’ll notice that all of the people quoted have one thing in common: They don’t have real jobs, they really don’t work, they simply do not produce. So value added? None.
The renowned Candace de Russy responds:
clever!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Laisser-Faire Made The Industrial Revolution Possible
The Tudors ruled England from 1485 to 1603. The Stuarts ruled Scotland from 1371 to 1603 and England as well from 1603 to 1701. The Tudor Industrial Code and Statute of Artificers were laws passed from 1558 to 1563 that replaced previous feudal guild regulation of crafts and modified the Statutes of Labourers, which were passed from 1350 to 1562 and repealed in 1714. The last statement of the Statute of Laborers was passed under Queen Elizabeth in 1562 and was called the Statute of Apprentices. The Ordinances of Laborers passed from 1350 to 1562 included restrictions on the freedom of serfs, fixed wages for laborers, prohibited hiring by the week, and gave justices the power to regulate wages. The Statute of Artificers also regulated labor, set wages, established training standards and regulated apprenticeships.
TS Ashton writes
"The belief that the Tudors and Stuarts had a consistent plan for the conduct of economic relations dies hard. The regulation of wages, employment, technical training, industrial location, prices and commerce established by them was in fact less generous, less enlightened and less systematic than is sometimes supposed. However that may be, the diminution of the powers of the Crown and the weakening of the Privy Council in the seventeenth century meant that some at least of the instruments of control were allowed to rust. At the same time the rise of wider markets, more elaborate techniques, and more specialized types of labor must have made the task of detailed supervision difficult indeed. Even if there had been no Civil War, no political power, central direction must almost certainly have broken down. For more than a hundred years before the industrial revolution the State was in retreat from the economic field."
T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution. London: Oxford University Books, 1948. p. 138.
TS Ashton writes
"The belief that the Tudors and Stuarts had a consistent plan for the conduct of economic relations dies hard. The regulation of wages, employment, technical training, industrial location, prices and commerce established by them was in fact less generous, less enlightened and less systematic than is sometimes supposed. However that may be, the diminution of the powers of the Crown and the weakening of the Privy Council in the seventeenth century meant that some at least of the instruments of control were allowed to rust. At the same time the rise of wider markets, more elaborate techniques, and more specialized types of labor must have made the task of detailed supervision difficult indeed. Even if there had been no Civil War, no political power, central direction must almost certainly have broken down. For more than a hundred years before the industrial revolution the State was in retreat from the economic field."
T.S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution. London: Oxford University Books, 1948. p. 138.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
