The information obtained from the policy documents is damning. Google’s Trust & Safety team “will be in charge of updating the blacklist as when there is a demand,” and a “deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies.” That blacklist will “bar the sites from surfacing in any Search feature or news product. It will not cause a demotion in the organic search results or de-index them altogether.”

In other words, sites that offend the sensibilities of Google’s tech team will not be completely removed from the “ten blue links” portion of search results. But other search features, such as “top news,” “videos,” or various sidebars that are often returned as part of search results, will be censored.

One of the documents states that it was “approved by gomes@, nayak@, haahr@ as of 8/13/2018.” Ben Gomes heads Google’s search team and reports directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. Pandu Nayak is a Google Fellow. Paul Haahr is a software engineer whose company bio states that he is involved in “fringe ranking: not showing fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial unless we’re sure that’s what the user wants.”

All of the above seemingly contradicts sworn testimony given by Pichai at a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee last December. “I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way,” Pichai said in his opening statement. “To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests.”

At the same meeting, Rep. scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) outlined the core “principles” of the Democrat Party. “Before we delve into these questions, I must first dispense with a completely illegitimate issue, which is the fantasy, dreamed up by some conservatives, that Google and other online platforms have an anti-conservative bias,” he asserted. “As I have said repeatedly, no credible evidence supports this right-wing conspiracy theory.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) apparently didn’t get the proverbial memo. She asked Pichai why searching for the word “idiot” returned a photo of President Donald Trump. Pichai remained adamant, answering, “This is working at scale. We don’t manually intervene on any particular search result.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) was even more direct. “Conservative individuals and organizations have had their pro-Trump content tagged as ‘hate speech,’ or had their content reduced in search results,” he stated, citing studies that showed such bias.

Pichai insisted all the studies were flawed. “We found issues with the methodology and the sample sizes and so on, but let me step back and say providing users high-quality and trusted information is sacrosanct to us.”

PJ Media’s study was anecdotal, but troubling nonetheless. A search for “Trump” using the “News” tab prioritized left-leaning news sites, with no right-leaning site making it to the first page of results. Moreover, in the first 100 results, left-leaning sites comprised 96% of the total returns.

Yet a far more extensive study of 1,200 URLs was conducted by San Francisco SEO company Can I Rank. Researchers looked at high-ranking Google sites that included politically charged keywords such as “gun control, ” “abortion,” and “Black Lives Matter.” Despite Pichai’s assertions, they discovered that “top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a ‘Left’ or ‘Far Left’ slant than they were pages from the right.” In fact, the website reported, “16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results.”

Another study conducted by Harvard-trained psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein revealsthat Google’s “autocomplete” function, which finishes a word or phrase one is presumed to be completing, engendered few negative search queries for scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, when compared with commie-Bernie Sanders, Trump, and other GOP primary candidates. Epstein believed such bias could have accounted for the shift of approximately 2.6 million votes toward scumbag/liar-Clinton.

In another op-ed column, Epstein illuminated eight other of Google blacklists he is aware of: Google Maps, YouTube, Google accounts (Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet, and others), Google News, Google AdWords, Google AdSens, Google’s search engine, and its quarantine list. “You may disagree, but in my view Google’s blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop — a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association,” he concludes.

An internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News also speaks to this thuggery. “The term ‘abortion’ was added to a ‘blacklist’ file for ‘controversial YouTube queries,’ which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive,” the website explains. “According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.”

Google’s “sensitivity” isn’t just Internet-related. Earlier this year, it formed a new advisory council on Artificial Intelligence (AI). Heritage Foundation president and conservative Kay Coles James was invited to join. That was an affront to 2,500 Google employees who signed a “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate” petition seeking James’s ouster, describing her appointment as a “weaponization of the language of diversity.”

“But the Google employees didn’t just attempt to remove me; they greeted the news of my appointment to the council with name-calling and character assassination,” James herself explained. “They called me anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ and a bigot. That was an odd one, because I’m a 69-year-old black woman who grew up fighting segregation.”

It didn’t matter. In a shameful display of cowardice, Google ousted James … and disbanded the board.

Columnist Jeffery Lord, who writes for the American Spectator — a 52-year-old mainstream conservative magazine banned by Google — spells out the company’s real agenda. Google is “a high-tech giant run by and for would-be left-wing tech totalitarians,” he writes.

Unfortunately, taking on Google and other equally biased tech titans is problematic. As private companies they can do what they want. Moreover, since Pichai is an elitist “in crowd” member, his chances of being held accountable for lying to Congress are virtually nil.

What to do? Columnist Roger Simon proposes  government deregulation. “Legislation could be passed forbidding social media from keeping anybody out, censoring anybody, excepting a very few people such as child pornographers, already against the law,” he writes.

Keeping people out? How about dealing people in? Like copyright protections, Congress should pass a law requiring tech giants to compensate Americans for using their personal data. That data, which Google and other tech giants currently get for free, generate multibillion-dollar revenue streams. Revenue streams that have made them the most powerful and influential entities in the history of man.

That contemptible status quo must be forcefully challenged — while it’s still possible.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62464?mailing_id=4215&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4215&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

But that wasn’t the end of commie-Sanders being challenged over his failure to live up to his own leftist “tax the wealthy” mantra. Baier’s cohost, Martha MacCallum, came back to the issue, asking commie-Sanders if he would be willing to abide by his call for a 52% tax on the wealthy and voluntarily give it up to the government. Rejecting the notion, commie-Sanders argued, “You can volunteer, too. … Martha, why don’t you give? You make more money than I do.” But MacCallum quickly countered, “I didn’t suggest a wealth tax.” And Baier astutely added, “And she’s not running for president.”

Like many politicians, commie-Sanders talks a big game, while at the same time being unwilling to live by his own loudly proclaimed principles. This gross hypocrisy is especially true for proponents of big-government solutions — the snake-oil salesmen of the political world.

A final note: commie-Sanders gave just 3% of his income to charity in 2017. Where commie-Bernie really wants to be “generous” is with your money.  ~The Patriot Post

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cszJjVaQYho

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62435?mailing_id=4210&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4210&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The president tweeted, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”

You’d think so, right? Yet for days now, many progressive leaders have been denouncing Trump for daring to suggest he just might give them what they want. 

The mayor of Seattle called Trump “a despot.” A spokeswoman for Nancy Pulosi, who represents the sanctuary city of San Francisco, blasted the president’s idea as “cruel,” “warped” and “despicable." 

Not long ago, Cher urged progressives to adopt DACA recipients and to give these illegal immigrants "sanctuary” in their homes. But in response to Trump’s latest suggestion, Cher tweeted this:

I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISN’T TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN. WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+ Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS. PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE, & HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own (Many Are VETS) How Can it Take Care Of More.

That’s a great question. It deserves a real debate. I commend the president for getting at least one Hollywood liberal to focus on the impact of open borders on ordinary Americans. Is she going to re-register as a Republican?

Let me briefly remind you of what President Trump has tried to do.

• He wanted full funding for a border wall to stop illegal immigration. Progressives in Congress gave him as little as possible.

• He wanted to station more troops at the border. But liberal governors pulled their National Guard troops and some deep state officials in the Pentagon resisted.

• He wanted migrants claiming asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were adjudicated. But a liberal judge blocked him.

• He tried to end scumbag/liar-nObama’s unconstitutional DACA program. But liberal judges blocked him.

• He tried to block funding to sanctuary cities. But a liberal judge blocked him.

• He offered a very generous immigration deal exchanging protections for DACA recipients for border wall funding. Congressional liberals blocked it.

I think you get the point.

And what has the left proposed? Well, nothing really. In spite of record apprehensions, left-wing politicians insist there’s no crisis at the border. 

The left’s radical agenda is deeply unpopular. For example:

• 76% of voters oppose open borders.

• 71% of voters oppose letting illegal immigrants vote in local elections.

• 64% of voters oppose sanctuary cities.

• Only 25% of voters support abolishing ICE.

Republicans used to label liberal politicians “San Francisco Democrats.” Trump is successfully labeling his open borders opponents “Sanctuary City Democrats.”  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62414?mailing_id=4208&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4208&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer, 2017

Codevilla and scumbag-Schumer have aptly described America’s Ruling Class and its unelected deep-state enablers/enforcers. In short, American government has become a de facto oligarchy that embraces the most transparent double standard of justice in the history of the nation. Its members are protected by a lapdog media every bit as invested in maintaining this contemptible status quo as are the people they’re supposed to hold accountable.

The most blatant indication of such was the response to the 2008 financial crisis. Quite simply, Wall Street bankers who ran the nation into the ground were rewarded with bailouts by Main Street taxpayers who can’t get a decent return on their savings to this very day. During the eight years of Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s presidency, every scandal, from the Benghazi terror attack and Fast and Furious gun-running to the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS and the ransom payments directed to the Iranian mullahs was dismissed by a lapdog media, and ineptly investigated by a Republican-controlled Congress no more interested in rocking the Ruling Class boat than their Democrat colleagues. And all during those years, the same economic “experts” who killed the economy told us we would have to get used to a “new normal” of anemic growth, declining wages and underemployment.

In 2016, the unthinkable happened. “Sure thing” Ruling Class candidate scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton got beaten by a brash-mouthed political amateur who, despite his own considerable wealth, represented the antithesis of the Ruling Class mandarins who became utterly unhinged by the unlikely turn of events. That wholly uncharacteristic outburst, coming from the self-anointed champions of “tolerance” and “diversity,” was an eye-opener for millions of Americans long dismissed as deplorables. Deplorables whose “pedestrian” concerns such as getting a decent job, raising a family, and making life better for their children — the chances for which have considerably improved under the Trump administration — were completely antithetical to the Ruling Class’s globalist ambitions. Ambitions that include contempt for American institutions, traditions and the nation-state itself.

Ever since, the Ruling Class has sought to “right” the ship of state, in a sequence of events best described by Victor Davis Hanson. “From the day Trump was elected we were told the election machines were flawed, we were going to sue,” he explains. “And then there was a group, remember we were told about the Electoral College, and we were told we had to overturn the electors. And then we went to the 25th Amendment that Trump was unbalanced. And that didn’t work. And then we went to the emoluments clause, he profited even though his businesses had lost a billion dollars. And then we’ve gone to dirty cop-Mueller.”

For those who believe in the Rule of Law and genuine justice, the dirty cop-Mueller investigation of Russian collusion was a farce. If it weren’t, the reality that scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign officials also met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislya, and that they and the DNC paid for and received the Steele dossier  containing information from “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin” would have received as much scrutiny as the Trump campaign’s Russian interactions.

None of that was investigated by dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s team, the one that initially consisted of 16 attorneys, 13 of whom were registered Democrats, and nine of whom contributed $62,000 in donations to the party.

And now, Democrats are infuriated by Attorney General Robert Barr’s assertion that the Trump campaign was spied upon by the scumbag/liar-nObama administration. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisted it demonstrates “either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation.”

What would Warner and equally hypocritical Democrats like for Americans to forget? That the scumbag/liar-nObama administration has a track record of spying. They surveilled Fox reporter James Rosen, Associated Press reporters, pro-Israeli U.S. lawmakers … and staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Moreover, former CIA Director scumbag/commie-John Brennan initially lied about investigating the Senate committee until it became impossible to continue doing do. The same scumbag/commie-John Brennan who, despite who an extensive track record as a documented liar, now worksfor NBC and MSNBC. scumbag/commie-Brennan’s employment, along the hiring of several other equally duplicitous former government officials, makes a completely mockery of the media’s role as government watchdog.

Instead, the mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the Ruling Class and its agenda. Perhaps nothing speaks to this better than the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the outrage directed at Trump for stating he might send illegal aliens to sanctuary cities.

While Assange is no hero, it is telling that virtually no one in the media has taken Barack scumbag/liar-nObama to task for commuting the 35-year sentence of Assange’s provider, Bradley-turned-Chelsea Manning. Moreover, very few are questioning the reality that the government is charging) Assange with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion so that the same First Amendment protections that immunized Glenn Greenwald when he published Edward Snowden’s intel, The Intercept when it published intel provided by NSA contractor Reality Winner, or The New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers provided by Daniel Ellsberg, do not apply.

Robert Mahoney, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, worries that such an indictment could have “broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.”

That may be precisely the point, courtesy of a Ruling Class embarrassed and humiliated by WikiLeaks revelation related to Manning and the exposure of the DNC’s effort to rig their own primaries in favor of scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton.

As for Trump’s trial balloon, the outrage demonstrated by a Ruling Class that has conspicuously left the borders wide open — and warned us that any resistance to a wholesale invasion is racist or xenophobic — is the epitome of hypocrisy. Moreover, the plethora of media entities that have used the word “dump” with regard to the process is a great indication of what the Ruling Class and their media handmaidens really think about illegals, especially when its their communities that may finally bear the direct burden of their policies.

“The ruling class’s appetite for deference, power, and perks grows, Codevilla warned in 2010.

Nine years later, the only thing standing in their way is Donald Trump. "He was not supposed to win,” explains Hanson. “With the victory, he interrupted sixteen years of a planned progressive agenda.”

It is an agenda wholly embraced by a globalist elite Ruling Class that continues to seek revenge — by any means necessary.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/62398?mailing_id=4204&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4204&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Democrats sharply attacked Attorney General William Barr for telling the truth when he acknowledged in Senate testimony Wednesday that federal law enforcement officers had spied on the Trump presidential campaign.

House Speaker Nancy Pulosi of California, House Majority Leader scumbag-Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer of New York were the highest ranking congressional Democrats saying they were outraged. Why? Because Barr simply acknowledged reality.

scumbag-Schumer tweeted that Barr was “peddling conspiracy theories.” Pulosi said “I don’t trust Barr.” And scumbag-Hoyer told Fox News that Barr is “acting as an employee of the president … to protect the president.

"I think spying did occur,” Barr told a Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee. “The question is whether it was adequately predicated.”

Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican — whether you support President Donald Trump or can’t stand him — you need to accept the reality that what Barr said is true. As Barr pointed out, the spying took place by both federal informants and secret electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

The question of whether the spying was proper or improper is now what’s up for debate — not whether the spying occurred. And the only way to determine if the spying was proper is to examine how and why the investigation of the Trump campaign began — something Barr told senators he is doing.

Simply ignoring the issue of whether the spying against the Trump campaign was justified would be irresponsible and a dereliction of duty by the attorney general.

Barr has a responsibility to look into the spying, focusing on finding answers to two questions:

First, did the FBI and the Justice Department have evidence to justify opening an investigation and counterintelligence operation looking at the Trump presidential campaign?

And second, did those who authorized the spying meet the requirements of the FISA law to justify electronic surveillance?

“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr told senators. It sure is. Everyone, regardless of their politics, should be “concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane,” Barr said.

Dictatorships spy on political opponents, throwing them in jail or sometimes even executing them. In democracies, governments are not supposed to use their law enforcement powers and massive resources against political opponents. It is vital that we adhere to this distinction and not let Uncle Sam turn into Big Brother.

We have never before had a situation in which law enforcement officials of executive branch agencies spied on a presidential campaign. It’s something that never should happen without substantial evidence of possible wrongdoing.

You’ll recall that the purpose of special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s investigation was to ascertain whether members of the Trump campaign or others associated with it conspired with the Russian government in efforts to interfere with the 2016 election and elect Trump.

The dirty cop-Mueller investigation found no evidence of any such collusion, raising serious questions about what led to the campaign surveillance in the first place. This is why Barr told senators that he is “reviewing the conduct of the investigation” to fully understand “all of the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016.”

Keep in mind that all of this started when the Justice Department and the FBI sought permission from the FISA Court to surveil Carter Page, who acted as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign for several months. Page was never charged with, or indicted for, any violation of federal law by Mueller or the Justice Department.

The FISA Court reviews all applications made by the FBI, Justice Department, and other federal intelligence agencies seeking classified warrants that allow them to engage in electronic surveillance. The court’s proceedings are secret.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires federal law enforcement agencies to provide “a statement of facts and circumstances relied upon” to justify the government’s assertion that the surveillance target is “an agent of a foreign power.”

The act also requires the government to show that the “facilities or places” targeted by the electronic surveillance are being used by the “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” Most importantly, the application to authorize surveillance must be submitted “by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation.”

In other words, the government officials who applied for a surveillance warrant on Page had to swear that the “facts and circumstances” in the application were true.

Yet we now know from various reports, including one released by the House Intelligence Committee in 2018, that the FBI and Justice Department relied almost exclusively on the Steele dossier, a piece of fraudulent opposition research paid for by the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

It appears that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department bothered to check the claims in the Steele dossier. Former FBI Director scumbag-James Comey admitted the claims were “salacious and unverified.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before Congress that no surveillance warrant involving the Trump campaign would have been sought without the dossier information.

And former FBI attorney Lisa Page admitted to Congress that the investigation was opened with a “paucity” of evidence.

There are plenty of additional details here for Barr to investigate. Were the FBI and Justice Department officials who signed the FISA applications less than forthcoming in that application? Did they mislead the FISA judges by failing to reveal that government officials were relying on unverified political opposition research?

If government law enforcement officials abused their power or misled a court, serious consequences must follow — not only to punish wrongdoing, but also to deter future misconduct by government officials.

Barr reminded senators of his “obligation to make sure government power is not abused.”

“I think that’s one of the principal roles of the attorney general,” Barr said. On this, he is absolutely right.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62374?mailing_id=4204&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4204&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body