Google has been known to lean left, although they try to keep it quiet. I’m just glad my blog isnt on Blogger! Wordpress and Typepad are better anyways…

What do you expect from Goggle and the two little snot nosed liberals that created it. Liberals are so gullible. They are sold on this man hook, line, and sinker. I don’t care how many times Barak Hussein Obama denies it, he is a Muslim.  There is no christianity in this man, he is a deceiver.  He will bring this nation down if he is elected, and if he is elected I believe he will be assasinated. If this should be the case there will be fighting in the streets, black against whites. This man frightens me as do the people backing him.  “Wake up America” NOW!!!

Have some of our fellow citizens lost their minds. America must be the only country in the world that falls over backward to give newly-arrived aliens more rights than we receive. A college student needs an assistant dog for his classes; but he can’t have it because some Muslim can’t touch dogs!! An Indian woman in Florida won’t have a driver’s license photo with her face showing because it violates her religion!! A school in California insists its American students read the Koran!! Another does away with the Pledge because it might ‘offend’ a few!! Other examples are just as insane. As for the liberal public officials who sanction this crap, are we losing our country? Are the immates taking over the asylum? A vote for Obama is a sure vote to continue this insanity. John McCain has some deficits, but the alternative is total disaster for our once great country. VOTE McCAIN!!!!

I’ve often wondered about Google and politics. I do two blogs. One leans conservative. The majority of search referrals to that blog are from Yahoo. The other blog doesn’t focus on politics and culture; it’s newsier. That blog’s largest number of referrals are Google. I optimized both sites, btw, in accordance with Google Webmaster tools.

It’s scary, to think a search engine might lean politically, but look at the attention given to the far left blogs and sites. It certainly makes you wonder.

Irony:
The Search feature on this very AIM page is a Google Custom Search.

Chris, one of the best sources of info on “neutrality” is http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm. And it suggests that part of the problem is the looseness of the definition of the term.

In all honesty, I do not understand the “Fairness Doctrine” argument, either. I worked for a NPR station during the Watergate hearings. In those days, the F.D. was in place, yet I do not recall any attempt to balance coverage of the Watergate burglary. We broadcast the Congressional hearings from gavel-to-gavel, but there was not a single minute that I recall devoted to a defense of Nixon, Liddy, et. al.

Conversely, since this Fairness Doctrine was abandoned, every last Presidential speech has been followed by a broadcast in which some member of the opposing party—usually its most extreme fringe—attempts to repudiate what has just been said. So it seems to me that we’ve had more of an operational “fairness doctrine” since the actual rule was repealed.

This new push by the left seems dangerously devoid of details. There is a reason that Limbaugh, Michael Savage, the Salem Radio Network gang and local non-liberal talkers predominate: they are the ones whose shows attract advertisers. Nobody asserting the need for a renewed fairness doctrine has offered an idea of how it would work in the real world. First, there’s the matter of classifying a talk program as liberal or conservative; that in itself neglects the fact that many so-called conservatives are actually libertarians. Second is the matter of implementing this balance. Would a station carrying Limbaugh be required to carry, say, Randi Rhodes or Tom Hartmann? And since the process is driven by advertising revenue, would that mean that the number of hours that of Rhodes’ show that could be sold to advertisers would set the limit on the number of hours of Limbaugh’s that could be broadcast?

There is danger in the air whenever politicians—on either side of the aisle—start talking about “unity.” Our form of government was set up to be a noisy, contentious process; that’s what separates it from outright tyranny.

Regarding violence after November 4th, I share your fears. Should Obama be defeated—especially by a close margin—we will see a re-enactment of 1968. Should Obama win—especially by a wide margin—the same group of radicals will perceive his victory as carte blanche to run roughshod over anyone and anything they perceive as outside the “progressive” sphere.

I don’t believe Senator Obama is experienced enough or astute enough to have anticipated this. And since he will have no legal authority between November 4 and January 20, the party currently in power (in the executive branch) will be forced to deal with the violence. This, of course, will be spun as an attempt to keep the party of Bush and McCain in power.

It’s going to be ugly, no matter what.

Hi, Walter Audubon
The horrible things that you described in your post about the “inmates taking over the asylum” are all happening under a moderate Republican administration. What makes you think it’s going to get any better under another moderate Republican administration?
A radical like Obama will head us toward the edge of the cliff at 100 mph, while phony, country-club Republicans will do it just under the speed limit.
We are in this predicament right now because a lot of well-meaning, yet naive, Republican voters chose the ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy instead of voting for true conservatives such as Pat Buchanan during the 1990’s or Ron Paul during the present campaign.
In the 2000 election, I reluctantly chose the ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy by voting for Bush, after Buchanan who I supported in the 2000 primaries, ended his campaign during the general elections. After seeing all the mischief the Clintons got away with, I just couldn’t stomach more of the same with an Algore presidency.
Four years later, after watching Bush turn his back on the Conservative forces that helped him get elected, I sat out the 2004 elections.
Better to have an obvious enemy in office than a supposed ally who stabs his supporters in the back.

Walter Audubon,

You brought up a great point about Buchanan’s poor choice of a running mate, however, compared to the two-party globalist monopolies that have been running this once great country into the ground, I still would have voted for him, had he not dropped out. Buchanan has a forceful, take-charge type of personality that never put himself or his Pro-American ideals on the defensive. I’m sure he would have kept his VP on hold from doing any damage with the limited political power that she would have had as VP.
After watching the ‘Republican Establishment’ attack Buchanan so viciously after he beat Bob Dole in the ‘96 New Hampshire primaries, I knew then that he was the real deal and that the rest of them were Rinos.
As for Ron Paul and his views about 9/11, I agree with his isolationist views. The fact that we have our troops spread so thin all over the globe has been an abject failure. The more we stick our noses into other countries affairs, then the more we are hated worldwide and more prone to being attacked.
I, myself, would not bet my life that our government was caught off-guard on 9/11 and that they may have let the terrorists pull it off. After all, why has Bush refused to secure the borders after such a catastrophe? Wouldn’t it be easy for a Muslim terrorist to shave off his beard and cross the border as a Mexican?
Also, I found it kind of suspicious that of all places that a President can be at, when informed about the attacks, would be reading a book to a kindergarten class. Man, that’s about as innocent a scenario that can be conjured up as one of the darkest hours of this country’s history was unfolding.
Going back to the borders…It seems that the majority of Americans, especially after 9/11, want to see the borders secured, but most of the politicians don’t seem to be the least bit concerned about any potential danger from leaving them open. We, the People, seem to be the only ones worried about this over the past 7 years. The only conclusion I can draw is that either they’re playing a life-or-death game of Russian Roulette with us, or that they know something that we don’t.
As far as saying kooky things, remember how Bush called the Minute Men “vigilantes”?
In conclusion, even though Buchanan and Paul are not perfect candidates, if you compare their strong views, issue by issue, to the Democrat’s and Republican’s views and past deeds, there is no doubt to who I would vote for.

As far as the Watergate break-in goes, you must remember that it was perpetrated by cronies of a Republican administration whom the “media” despised.
The media were all revved up to do some serious investigative reporting to get to the bottom of this. If cronies of a McGovern or a Carter or Clinton administration committed the same crime, it would have been regulated to a couple days coverage on page 36. In fact, I remember hearing about a similar break-in of a Republican office around that same period by Democrat operatives and there was hardly a peep. (I have to look into that again).
The media’s determination to do a thorough investigation for political reasons, combined with the Democrat’s aggressive zeal in using all their political powers in pursuing justice, and the Republican leadership’s willingness to eventually demand the resignation of their Party’s President (unlike the slimy Democrat leadership during the Clinton impeachment hearings)is what led to retribution, and not some failure in hiding a conspiracy, in my opinion.

Months before 9/11, there were reports of lower- echelon FBI field men telling their superiors about Arab pilot trainees not wanting to know how to land a plane, just how to fly it in mid-air. Apparently, they were ignored by the politically appointed heads of the FBI and CIA.

I’m not saying that for sure there was definitely a conspiracy involving 9/11 , but in light of various occurrences after the fact, I wouldn’t reflexively reject it. I like to keep an open mind, especially with the government we have today because I wouldn’t put anything past them. I consider them enemies of our Constitution and of the ideals of our forefathers.

Blogger1947 - good points, especially on conspiracies. And on coverup what about Sandy “TopSecret DocsintheSox” Berger?  Rarely do we hear about that coverup.  And where is the 180 form that Kerry promised he’d release about 2-3 years ago? Is he afriad that the redact will be visible and expose a not so honorable discharge? The dosiclists can cry all they want to about the SwiftBoat Vets, but Kerry by his own admission did consort with the enemy in France while he still held a commission in the U.S. Naval Reserve. That is an act of treason. The Dems and their socialist cohorts get free passes, no doubt about it. Another problem is calling the socialists “liberals”.  They are about as “liberal” as Joe Stalin, one of their idols, although some admit he “may have overdone things a bit”.  Any anyone who thinks that Obama is not a product of communist thinking needs to rad a bit of Marx, Lenin, and don’t forget his mentor “Frank”.

Blogger1947 - What?  You missed the last part (microphone trouble) “of the local kennel club”

Blogger1947 Neither would I….maybe she really said the Obama Fan Club

pizcaj - I can’t argue with your observation on the bad joke referred to as a two-party system here.

As for conspiracies, I maintain that they are implausible on such a grand scale as what people have tried to envision about the WTC buildings. It is entirely possible that some smaller conspiracy led to the twenty hijackers being allowed into the country and trained to fly. But all the other stuff about the rate of collapse of the buildings, etcetera is a bit hard to swallow. There is that little matter of someone ordering building 7 to be “pulled,” which I find troubling. It’s entirely possible that some of these buildings were constructed with scuttle mechanisms of some sort, but I think if that were the case, the same systems would be found in the buildings that remain standing.

Iraq, it seems to me, was a matter of family pride. “W” using a convenient excuse to finish what his father failed to finish in the earlier Gulf War.

As for the southern border, I don’t think there are two dozen politicans who genuinely support securing the border. Some are idealogues who will make the inevitable comparisons to the Berlin Wall and the Great Wall of China. But I suspect most are simply in a position to benefit financially from the availability of Mexican labor—which is not only low-cost, but fairly reliable. Around these parts (Baltimore) when you see a stoop-labor job in progress, it’s the Mexicans who are sweating the work while the US ghetto element is standing around smoking cigarettes. I have neighbors who have come (legally) from Nigeria, West Africa, the Carribbean islands and Mexico. To a person, they have a stronger work ethic than US-born people of the same educational and economic level. And I don’t mean just black Americans. There are plenty of whites around here (some of them actually supremacists) who are lazy.

Then again, I am also convinced that the ultra-wealthy families (the Soros’s and the Bloombergs, for example) are actually pulling the strings of the elected politicians, except for those holding very minor local offices. That group appears to be in the pocket of the more localized criminal banker/developer element.

It’s not that I don’t believe in conspiracies, so much as that I think we are plagued by a countless number of micro-conspiracies, the effect of which operating together cannot be predicted.

I am stunned that Obama has set the parameters of what we are allowed or not allowed to discuss in this campaign.  We can’t talk about race, about his middle name, about his wife, about his religion, about his muslim background, etc, etc.  He is dictating the media and the discourse. So much for freedom of speech!!!
It is OK for the Obama campaign to bring up race because they use it for their advantage—victimhood and white guilt. Fact of the matter is that it is not because he is black that white america may not vote for him—but because of his socialist, liberal philosophy, total lack of experience, and untrustworthiness. Not because of his race. Let’s not forget Rev. WRight (his spiritual mentor for 20 years). Who is naive enough to believe that he never knew Rev. Wrights positions!! Only a fool can.

P.S. Using IE pulls a blank Falsani page. Firefox will get you to the article, though.

Blogger1947, Actually. Politically speaking I do think Couric, the fork lift operator and the elderly resident may agree on politics. I talk to a lot of people (and get so much email I have to get my daughter to help me keep up with it.) People on fixed incomes and many blue collar workers seem fixated on a single political party.

I spent some time a few weeks ago with a retired military fellow—not an officer, but a respectable mid-rank. He is absolutely devoted to the Democratic Party. I asked him if there was a particular issue he really felt the DNC had helped him on. “Nope. But they’ll bring our troops home,” he said.

And this: “The Democrats are for the common man.”(Direct quote).

I was astounded. I mentioned the marriage penalty that will return on his income taxes—he and his wife have a very comfortable retirement—he worked after retiring from military so has more than one cushion plus soc. sec.

He really didn’t even realize there was a marriage penalty. Nor did he realize there’s been a shift in Sen. Obama’s plans regarding Iraq.

Dems are better at the narrative—and in my opinion, they have more support in the press (a Harvard study and a study noted by The Committee for Concerned Journalists both confirm that).

Just thought I’d toss that one in—best, Kay

Google needs to take responsibility for censoring these blogs by publicly apologizing and pledge to never censor content again…force them to change or else we will blog on non-Google platforms: https://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/stop-google-censorship

Stephen - Most free forums on the Web are censored or redacted. That’s YOUR “cost” of using them. And that’s why I pay for blog hosting. The cash outlay is only three bucks a month, and outside the terms-of-service, which prohibit pornography, content is unrestricted. The server is in London, and the software is maintained from Glasgow. The owners are a small outfit with absolutely no ax to grind in US politics. My web hosting is done by a small (6 employees) company in New England, for the same reasons. The people there are politically liberal, but we respect each other’s differences because we know each other as people.

@Jim, that’s a nasty remark. I’m an old, bald white guy and I love greens. I get my share of chit’lins, but in the form of sausage and scrapple.

However, I cannot resist observing that if Obama is elected, there will be little for which anyone will be thankful, by Thanksgiving of 2009. I don’t think he will be satisfied short of reducing everyone to the same state of poverty, as was the case in Soviet Russia. You had the “apparatchiki,” who lived quite comfortably, and everyone else was reduced to standing in line for food and other commodities.

Lee, as I have said before, the free blog sites “cost” you in that way. I’m curious what the hundreds of spam messages are, though. Are they more or less identical, as though you are being mail-bombed? Surely they don’t each originate from a separate source do they? You can track IP addresses on them if you’re curious enough to do the work.

At the risk of violating some terms-of-service condition, I will say that the blog site I mentioned in #36 is blog-city.com.  You can put up a free site, although some handy features are not enabled unless you pay. And the annual cost is around $36.

The left in America are the intolerant hypocrites.  My blog comments are often times removed/censored while   -filled intolerant comments on the left are accepted.  Hope for the best (that McCain/Palin win), but prepare for the worst (that OBummer/Biden win). Get out your old Y2K books and start preparing for a coming nightmare in America. Start reading the Bible, esp Psalms and the NT.  Look forward to Jesus’ coming kingdom, not Obama’s nightmare black liberation NWO kingdom with Pelosi and Reid and new liberal judges. Encourage and pray for a future impe^chment or c@up or something.  Get ready to move to a place of refuge, maybe get off the grid, start up hunting moose or deer or caribou for extra food (Sarah Palin is heads up on most of us), start fishing again, plant a garden away from liberal bigots and black inner city thugs who Obama will give money to in his new socialism (one who recently carved the letter ‘B’ for Barack in a white woman’s face who supports McCain/Palin), etc.