Let’s send those politicians a message, then send them home!

Google is being accused of favoring its own sites in searches.

Sure, you might think someone searches for "search engine", and Google comes top - no big deal. But Google websites now encompass every area of the web, and compete directly with every other site, in some way or other.

Here, for example, is some original research: if you search google for "the official blog of the Media Research" (text that appears on every Newsbusters page), include the quotes as this tells Google to look for the exact string, and the 9th result is:
http://peek-a-boo.appspot.com/newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/02/19/wapo-front-page-slam-cpac-once-venue-right-fringe
which is a tiny ultra-low-volume user website, but hosted on a Google site . It has the exact same text as a Newsbusters page, and should be much lower ranked in google, but is rated higher than the original page (in fact the original page does not even appear in the results ). This is quite clear evidence that Google favors its own sites, as the original page does in fact exist in the Google index.

And why are there only 28 results for this search anyway? Every page of newsbusters has that text. And we know they are in the Google database. Clearly Google is withholding results. On what basis do they withhold results? Isn’t this a breach of trust? Do we not expect a search engine to live up to its name, and simply be a search-engine?

Ten years ago, you could search for some text, and Google would find it, somewhere in the vastness of the Internet. Now we get "no results found" all the time. The effect of this is to "mainstream" the web - Google is only showing what it chooses to be the top sites, and so the Web is not so much the varied source of information that it used to be, if you search through Google.

That said, you can’t deny that Google’s results are usually very relevant. But it’s on the interesting searches that Google fails today. I prefer christian search, which combines results from many engines.

But there are other strange results of Google dominance. If you do an image search for "michelle obama", the 1st image is of a monkey, blended with Mrs. Obama’s face. There is no good reason for this image to have the highest ranking in Google. In fact, that particular image has been the top image result for "michelle obama" for over 2 years. But previously, the image was hosted at another location. The owner of the previous website deleted the image (making it "404" not found), but then the top Google link miraculously changed to exactly the same image, but at another location. Some say this is an example of Google trying to slur opposition to Obama as racist.

In fact, the image was from a website that allowed people ot create monkey-pictures of any politican, and by far the most popular image was President Bush. But that context does not come across to the average person who typed "michelle obama" into Google image search.

As with the old Big Media - it is not easy to categorically state "this is what is being done, and this is how it is being done" - and yet, we are seeing the same propagandistic effects from the new Big Media that we have been seeing from the old Big Media for 40 years.

This morning, after dropping my wife off at work today, I was listening to the Tom Joiner Morning Show on the radio (I was driving her car not mine, hence did not have any control of the radio), and they had Michael Steele on the phone interviewing him.  They were talking about the health care legislation, and I heard that tired old line of, “The Republicans had eight years of control, and they did not do anything to address health care.”.  I am so sick of this meme, and I would love to hear a good answer back to this.  Just from my observations of what the political climate of the environment at the time, I would like them to answer, what would they have expected Bush to accomplish given the following variables.

1.  At no time during the Bush administration did he have a “filibuster proof majority” in the Senate to push any legislation that he would have wanted through.

2.  It was such a partisan time with the question of his “legitimacy” being raised that there would have been no cooperation from either the Democrats, or the media on anything that he or some congressional Republican would have wanted to try to propose.

3.  September 11, 2001, happened, where our president by neccessity needed to shift focus from domestic issues to trying to stop the next airplane, missile, bomb, or random terrorist attack from hitting our shores killing more citizens. (Sorry, health care doesn’t matter when everyone is dead).  This focus required at least the Afganistan war, and to fight startegically the war on terror, plus Saddam’s support of the same type of terrorists that attacked, required the war in Iraq after we initially succeeded in toppling the Taliban. 

Personally, I do believe that Bush and the Republicans were focusing on the right thing, when he attempted to address Social Security Reform.  If folks are financially secure the acquisition of health care does take care of itself, however Dems and the media made sure to make the Social Security reform look as if the Republicans wanted Grandma and Grandpa to eat cat food because they were going to “Privatize” Social Security, but under the there criteria that listed above, even if Bush proposed single payer, it still would not have passed because some Dem would have found something wrong with enough to block it. 

Also listening to the same radio show, after the interview was over, it was stated that the republicans don’t even listen to Michael Steele, and of course racism was the cause of that.  It couldn’t be that at most times Steele does not do a good job of defending and advocating for the GOP, has focused on backing RINO candidates, and overall has been very ineffective as a GOP chariman by attempting to chart a proper path for the GOP, while constantly whenever he is in a “black” media forum, like this radio show is, he seems to be wanting to regain his black card instead of defending the GOP from said charges. 

What I would love Steele to say to some of these people, is for them to take a look at many of the cities and states that are run by the democrats that supposedly represent their views and look at their conditions.  I live in a suburb outside of Cinicinnati, and Cincinnati has been in control by democrats since I have lived out here (at one point, Jerry Springer was mayor), but yet, there are many areas within the city that I would not go for fear for my life, where there are more abandoned buildings and houses than occupied.  Then ask them if they should probably look for a different direction.  I would also love for our media to have a little intellectual honesty and neutrality when they look at politics instead of being cheerleaders for the Democrat party.

Friends of Liberty, we have reached a point where we must apply a healthy skepticism to anything reported by our Government or the Mainstream Media. They are shameless and unapologetic in their lies and deceptions.

The latest trick is to release higher than expected numbers for new unemployment claims. This raises the unemployment tally for a few days. Then the real numbers are released and they are revised downward. Unemployment goes from 10.2% to 10.0% and this is hailed as progress, a sure sign the economy is in recovery.

The GDP in the 3rd Quarter was first reported by the Government as a positive 3.2%. This was hailed as proof Obama’s stimulus is working. The figure was later revised down to 2.8% and finally, just recently revised to 2.2%. Whereas, the news of the 3.2% growth was on the front page of all the major newspapers and network news broadcasts, the revision occupied a small space on the business pages of newspapers, buried deep in the back.

The GDP in the 4th Quarter has just been reported at a staggering 5.7% growth. Again, there are deceptions in this number as well. Fourth Quarters are always skewed because end of year inventories are counted as “domestic product”, even though they are not sold. It remains to be seen whether these inventoried goods will be sold at rates which sustain this growth rate. You can bet the 4th Quarter GDP will be revised downwards in the next month.

Even when not manipulated, GDP numbers in general are not reliable indicators of the private sector economy since Government spending is such a huge factor in the calculation. GDP is calculated from CIG (C: consumer spending, I: capital investment, G: Government spending). Government spending is included since it is assumed there had to be ‘domestic product’ taxed to provide that revenue. If a large portion of the Government spending comes from borrowed or printed money, the meaning of GDP lost.

Another trick the media uses is to highlight any decrease in the rate of increasing unemployment. The economy can lose a half million jobs one month, then when it only loses 200,000 the next month it is hailed as recovery. The net result is an increase in unemployment, but the decrease in the rate of increase is deemed good news. Of course, it is not explained that way. Not one of these reports can point to actual jobs created, to a reduction in those out of work.

This is similar to a trick used in George Orwell’s 1984. In the book, when the Government had to cut rationing of some commodity, the Ministry of Propaganda would not say, “Chocolate Rations cut to 8 oz per month.” The story would say, “Chocolate rations increased to 8 oz per month.” Anyone who noticed they previously received 10 ounces was told they were mistaken or they must have accidentally received more than their fair share. 

In Orwell’s police-state society the Ministry of Propaganda controlled history and went so far as to alter historical documents, newspapers, etc to reflect the current version of truth. Many people undoubtedly noticed the alterations, but no one questioned them for fear of being identified as a conspirator, full of wrong-think.

Today, the Obama Administration is pushing for something called Net Neutrality, with the Government regulating the distribution and eventual content of the Internet. I admit it would be nearly impossible to physically alter every print newspaper in the country, but if you control the Internet, how hard would it be for an invasive program to find this data and alter it? And if no one in the media is willing to see—much less publish—the physical evidence of lies, where does that leave us? Who or what are we to believe? The Administration or our own lying eyes?

Jim Clonts

www.jimclonts.com

Tea Parties and their participants have been an ongoing mystery to the media, including some commentators that we sometimes think are relatively unbiased.  When it comes to the participants, even though they’re acknowledged to be mostly independents and Republicans, the pundits have strange ideas about what motivates them, where they came from, and what they mean for the future of the Republican Party.  One reason is that the media pundits are all too ready to accept the Democrat spin on any issue.  Another reason may be that they and we have the wrong mental picture of the electorate.

When people called “independents” are imagined, where are they placed in the political spectrum?  Usually, they’re thought of as being between the Democrat Liberals on the left and the Republican Conservatives on the right.  They are the moderates, occupying the middle ground, neither liberal nor conservative, neither Democrat nor Republican.  They are pictured as torn between both camps, willing to go with the one that appeals to them on some particular issue, but not very strongly interested in either philosophy of government.  That’s why Republicans are often encouraged to create a “Big Tent” that will attract these uncommitted voters on their left flank.  This picture is probably accurate in some cases.

But this vision of independents becomes very confusing when applied to the Tea Partiers, and as a result, some of the pundits, listening to Democrat spin, label them “haters” and racists and fringe characters of all sorts–gun nuts, rubes, angry white men; fearful, uneducated and uninformed boobs, you name it.  But it’s only confusing because that stereotype isn’t an appropriate description.

They are obviously more than slightly energized by a philosophy of government, the one that says the federal government is too big, too intrusive, too expansive, too expensive, and out of control. But this implies that, rather than being the aforementioned boobs, they’re as well-educated and better informed than the average man on the street.  They certainly know enough about the issues to ask questions about them, and they don’t like the answers they get back.

They aren’t just anti-Obama, and there’s really nothing to indicate that either hate or race is a motivating factor behind the movement.  They aren’t even necessarily anti-Democrat–many of them are probably disaffected Democrats.  And it’s not helpful to describe them as “haters” who are anti-everything unless you also identify the object of the projected “hate.”  That object is not the President–it’s the huge government, and the increasingly intrusive government, and the exponential growth of government that he’s advocating.  You could as well say that they’re “lovers”–they love smaller, less intrusive and less expensive government that is controlled by the Constitution.

They are fearful, but not because of ignorance, and they’re not afraid of a Black President, as is always implied.  They’re afraid that their modern-day Captain Edward Smith is in the process of steering that Titanic government into a field of icebergs from which his successor won’t be able to escape.  Those are their motivations. To dismiss them as merely “angry and afraid” (media code for “irrational, ignorant racists”) is to disparage them as irrelevant, which they obviously are not.  Yet the left has tried to do that, perhaps because they’ve given up on winning any of these voters to their side.

If we accept this alternative view of Tea Party supporters, they aren’t hard to explain at all.  It’s only because the media pundits want to believe they’re some new expression of extremism that they haven’t understood them yet, and why they don’t recognize where they’ve come from. I would describe them as a group of voters who would be Republicans if the Republican Party could convince them it stood for the things they want–a government that’s under control, that follows the Constitution, that isn’t trying to do everything for everybody while taking their money in taxes to do it.  (In fact, that’s basically what the Republican Party says it stands for.  The Tea Partiers would just like to see Republicans acting on those principles, not just more often but all the time.)  Picture them not on the middle ground between the Democrat left and the Republican right, but as an overlay stretching philosophically from somewhere left of the political midpoint all the way to the right, soaring above the Republican party. They haven’t come from anywhere; they’ve been there all along.  They are conservatives and conservative-leaning independents, Libertarians, Republicans, and even Reagan Democrats that the Republican Party has been ignoring for years.

If the Republicans want to expand the size of their tent, they don’t need to put on faddish Liberal pretenses to entice the odd passerby in through the side entrance.  They need to blow the roof off the tent, replace it with a giant magnet of awareness, understanding, and responsible conservatism, and let those millions of independents, Libertarians, and disaffected Democrats and Republicans come pouring down from the sky above.  It will happen if Republican leadership responds to their pleas, not for Compassionate Conservatism, but for effective, Principled Conservatism, conservatism with a backbone.

This is not news to Democrat strategists. It’s precisely why they’re afraid of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and even Glenn Beck (not a Republican) and every Tea Party speaker and supporter who firmly believes in and convincingly advocates conservative principles.  Those philosophical trailblazers already have the attention of the American people, including independents.  Democrats are afraid that Republican Party leadership just might start following that trail as well.  They had a glimpse into the future last Thursday, as Republican after Republican gave conservative, principled reasons for their opposition to ObamaCare.  It’s a future Democrats don’t want to contemplate.

If anyone is looking for more examples of state-run media duplicity, I was a victim of the leftist machine.  I wrote a letter to the editor, having posted the same letter as a blog here, to the StarTribune.  The thrust of my argument is that the president is, in effect, admitting he and his party are incapable of making the necessary decisions about the deficit.  The evidence for this is his creation of a commission to do the necessary work. 

Of course, th DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor) Party’s control of the newspaper required they do a hatchet job on my letter.  They would argue the letter was too long to be printed in its entirety.  But, if you are going to print a letter wouldn’t you at least include the essence of the argument?  Well, not if the argument is against your political agenda you wouldn’t.  This is further evidenced by the fact the entire letter could have been posted on the StarTribune website at no additional cost whatsoever.  It was not. 

I was not going to let them make me look like a complete fool so I posted my main argument in the comments section.  But, here is the job they did on my viewpoint.

TACKLING THE DEFICIT

Isn’t that supposed to be the president’s job?

President Obama has created a panel to look into ways to cut the deficit. The panel is supposed to put politics aside and find ways to trim the red ink.

Of course, this commission was created for the sole purpose of insulating him from the inevitable conclusions — cut spending and raise taxes. He thinks he’s pulling a fast one on the American people.

We should really raise the roof because he’s completely abdicating government’s responsibility on this matter. He is, in fact, outsourcing the work of Congress.

First of all, the title of the letter is “Outsourced Government.  It is certainly not the president’s job to pass a budget.  The president presents the budget; Congress then passes legislation that includes the administration priorities or not.  A comment poster mockingly pointed this out before I pasted more of my letter in the comments section showing the newspaper’s hacking of the piece. 

Even in the botched first paragraph, they had to excise my reference to this commission as based on the military base closing panel.  I assume it is because it makes the letter writer appear informed.  They certainly couldn’t have someone informed opposing their Dear Leader.  It looks bad. 

I knew this would probably happen.  I’m no dew-eyed virgin trembling with indignation.  Rather, it is a great example of what the left will do to dissent.  If they can’t silence it, they mock it.  If that doesn’t work, they reframe it.  If that doesn’t work, they will just plain twist your own words against you.  That is the people we are battling against, deceivers of the first order.

Here is the letter as I submitted it. 

Outsourced Government

President Obama has created a panel to look into ways to cut the deficits he’s assumed and augmented.  This panel, based on the military base closing commission, is supposed to put politics aside and find ways to trim the red ink.  Of course, this commission was created for the sole purpose of insulating him from the inevitable conclusions; cut spending and raise taxes.  He thinks he’s pulling a fast one on the American people.  But, we should really raise the roof because he’s completely abdicating government’s responsibility in this matter.  He is, in fact, outsourcing the work of Congress.

We have a democratically republican system of government.  The populace votes representatives to do their collective work for them.  The president, elected by all the citizens, is supposed to create a budget for the good of the whole country.  Congress is supposed to argue, debate, and decide from what parts of the economy the revenues will flow and to what areas these funds will be allocated.  That is the single most important role for Congress.  In our system of checks and balances, the power of the purse is Congress’ most potent.

Barack Obama is seeking to circumvent that political process through this commission.  He hopes the commission will come back with both spending cuts that will hurt and tax increases he favors.  He will promptly dismiss the spending cuts and immediately press Congress to rubber stamp the tax increases.  He will use the commission report as a kind of bludgeon to ‘force’ the representatives to enact his will.  This is insane.

If the president wants to do his job properly, he should have sent a responsible budget in the first place.  Having nonelected officials carry his water is ridiculous.  He is, in fact, making the case that he and his party are irresponsible spendthrifts who do not have the intestinal fortitude to make wise, sane decisions.  Instead, he is blaming the ’system’ for his and his party’s inability to say ‘no’ to their partisans. 

It’s not the system that’s broke, Mr. President, it’s your party.  If they cannot act responsibly and reasonably while doing their most important business, collecting and allocating money, then they need to be shown the door.  Obama is really telling the American people that he and his party are nothing but spineless hacks that cannot govern and cannot make hard choices.  They are worthless.

Cross-posted at: TobyToons.com

Sarah Palin’s speech at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville was widely seen as her sort of “Coming out speech” of sorts post-Alaska governor, post-Vice presidential candidate. Well, in the eyes of many, especially those in attendance, she didn’t disappoint. But int he eyes of the media, and one network in particular, Sarah Palin, even if she saved a basket of puppies, and old woman, and a newborn from a burning skyscraper apartment building, no matter what Sarah Palin is despised by this one network, and you all know who I’m talking about.

There are those out there who are uncomfortable, or to put in in its most honest form: “Afraid” of the idea that she might very well run for president, win the nomination, and defeat a politically damaged Barack Obama in 2012. Now, I’m a Palin fan but I see many flaws, then again all candidates have flaws. But above all else I see someone who is raw, and by raw I mean real. Sarah Palin, despite criticism by the learned coastal staples has the same quirky broken vernacular as the room mom, you guys remember room moms don’t you? The moms who would be in charge of bringing the treats for the classroom parties when you were in elementary school. My mom, was a room mother for about two years. She’s the first true citizen politician. She’s that PTA mom who gets involved in the affairs of her community. And that not only annoys the elites, yes the elites, and I know that word has become cliche, but it’s an appropriate label nonetheless, it also makes them feel like Sarah Palin is somehow beneath them because she didn’t go to Harvard or Yale, she didn’t spend every waking moment of her life campaigning, consulting with strategists, prepping, and focus grouping every word she has every spoke in her life. They say she needs to come up with new ideas, as oppose to Barack Obama who takes old ideas and wraps them in new gift paper. I mean, what is so old and unappealing about small government and less spending?

But this is what happens when you consolidate power and influence within a relatively small area in the beltway and along the coastal regions in America. And yes John Stewart, a truck driver from Burlington Iowa has a different world view than a journalist from Seattle. What’s worse is the apologists on the right, or as they like to call it the “reasonable right” who constantly throw her under the bus so they don’t offend their liberal buddies, Joe Scarborough knows all about that. Just once I’d like to see a Republican on camera, on MSNBC express their support for Sarah Palin. Pat Buchanan is the only one that comes to mind, but I’d like to see more. You don’t have to be a blind supporter of Sarah Palin, we don’t believe in messiahs in the GOP, but at the same time don’t act like you can’t defend your brother or sister in arms whenever the left rears its ugly head after this woman appears on camera.

So she took shots at Obama, you know I noticed that more so called conservatives were offended by that than liberals. I’ve said this for a long time, there are some in our party who are either afraid of Barack Obama for whatever reason, or deep down they like him because they still think he’s the same Obama from the campaign, as if that were the real Obama to begin with. These people are going to have to wake up and join the fight, or get dumped in the mud because we don’t have time to eat our own. Sarah Palin is one of us, she’s not our enemy what’s wrong with these people. You would think Sarah Palin smells or she’s the demon daughter of Satan. What it boils down to is this: She’s unwavering, political, morally, culturally, and the beltway crowd couldn’t imagine holding true to anything that might put their popularity around the cocktail party circuit at risk.

All they talk about is bipartisanship and reason. So they go out on these fake debate tours together, Howard Dean and Ariana Huffington, and Joe Scarborough, or Alan Colmes, Donna Brazil, and Rick Santorum. These debates are nothing but publicity stunts put on by people who live inside an echo chamber filled with alcohol breath, cigarette smoke, and talking points. Their obsession with bipartisanship is masochistic, it’s all they think about. But in reality, history shows us that partisanship, rather than one party namely the GOP, compromising their principles was widely accepted and encouraged by the founders. Let cite an example: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were very skeptical of one another. In fact, when Hamilton was appointed the first Sec. of the Treasury by George Washington Thomas Jefferson was not only a fierce opponent of what Hamilton implemented at the treasury secretary, but he was also opposed to Hamilton’s government solutions because in his eyes he feared it would have influence over politicians and the people. In short, this was the first one many early examples of fierce and substantive partisanship in Washington. Lest we forget Burr and Hamilton’s hatred of one another than ended in a duel, leaving both men mortality wounded. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson remained bitter toward one another after the1801 election. So this so called “destructive partisan ranker” as they call it is as old as the republic herself.

The Jefferson Republicans were down right mean and they went full speed ahead after their opponents and they singled out John Adams. This is tradition in our politics, it’s called democracy at work. Calling Barack Obama a socialist or a liar when he’s clearly both is not uncivilized, it’s justifiable and it’s not uncommon. The way Alexander Hamilton ridiculed and embarrassed Aaron Burr at a dinner party makes today’s partisanship seem like two little girls fighting over a barbie doll, each girl grabbing on end of the doll and pulling it like tug of war. At least in today’s partisan battles they aren’t settled by the barrel of a gun.