December 5, 2022

SHOCK: Google Censors and Manipulates Search Engine Results

A reader sent me a link to a Michelle Malkin piece published at Ammoland, about information from a Google whistleblower who claims that Google manipulates and censors content from its search engines and other media outlets, such as YouTube.

Well, no kidding!!! Cripes sakes anyway. For many years I have been making that obvious claim. But I guess now with a whistleblower, we can confirm this is common practice at Google…or can we? Who is running this dog and pony show anyway? And most importantly, does anyone REALLY care? NOPE!

Like Facebook and all the other social media sites, they are all fake, controlled, manipulated, and censored. We are all at the mercy of the tech giants (whoever they really are) if we choose to participate in the game of Internet Technology Charades.

I began a “blog” before blogs were called blogs and before software became readily available in which a writer/blogger could more easily publish his work and have it available for anyone in the public realm to read or have access too.

Back in the day it was a frustrating thing to figure out how you could end up at the top of the heap in the search engines’ results pages. Some chose to spend money to buy their way into the search engine results (inject money? What possibly could go wrong?)

I first posted on an official blog site in November of 2005. If I could count the couple of years of hand-crafted blogging, I’m zeroing in on 15 years of posting blogs on the Internet (that’s only 5 years less than Malkin). With well over 30,000 personal posts published to only my own websites, one would think by now I could be easily found in the search engine results and readers numbering well into the tens of thousands. Not so!

Not unlike the big guns in Big Tech, I also have authored or co-authored 4 books. I have written too-numerous-to-count articles that have been published in many print and digital media sites across the country and in foreign lands. After 15 years of nonstop writing and publishing, a rational mind might think I would have a giant readership and would show up in the landing pages of search engines when readers/users search for key words that are common to what I mostly write about. Not so!

After all these years, I figure there must be one, or more, of at least three things going on. First, the base of my content is so tiny, with little interest, I will never draw more readers. Second, I’m a terrible writer incapable of holding the interest of readers enough to entice them back for more, and third, I have been for the past 15 years censored and manipulated off the search results pages.

I believe that in the last 4 to 6 months, especially since I have done a little shifting of content to information about the evilness of the corrupt man/government and sharing truth in the Living Word of Our Creator and “Hidden Scriptures” promised us to be revealed in the Last Days, my site has been the target of even my web hosts, who, for no apparent reason (to me anyway) shut down my website, claiming I was harming their servers and due to a poorly designed website I needed better security, etc. Even after showing them I had all the latest gadgets as part of the con game, they still refused to put me back online.

After over a month, I finally got the web hosts to upgrade their own software and I was brought back online. However, since coming back on line, my readership has been shrunk to basically nonexistent. At my peak, I had 3,000 to 4,000 daily readers (a pittance when you consider 15 years of writing and posting). Now, I’m lucky if a get a couple hundred.

Many readers who have signed up to receive my email notifications of when new articles are published, are finding the notifications shunted to the SPAM folder. Key information in those published articles is censored by the controllers of the Disqus commenting software system.

So, what’s the use? Sure I can tell you all about it and even complain, but what’s the use of spending valuable time researching for content to share, when the entities to which I am a slave to, are deciding who gets recognition and who does not.

It’s all part of the bigger Rigged System, the Bread and Circuses. I have no recourse. My only option is to hold out hope that the handful of readers I have value what I write enough to keep reading and hopefully they will be changed, even in the tiniest of ways, for the better having been fed portions of truth.

So, the reality is, if I chose to continue with an Online presence, I have no choice but to remain a censored slave by the “Image of the Beast.” I can complain to no end, but nothing will change and I suspect the censoring and manipulation will get even worse.

Will the day come when heavily censored writers will be target for execution? More than likely.


How Google Recognizes St. Patrick’s Day

On the landing page of Google’s Chrome web browser, today they opted to recognize St. Patrick’s Day with the below icon. Tell me what you see.


Suspicious Link or Suspicious Google?

Have you noticed? I have. Lately, more and more times that I click on any link that takes me to comments or a page or pages on this website, I get a window that pops up saying the link is “suspicious.”

I assure readers NO link that takes you to this website should be labeled suspicious if you are seeking Truth. Google doesn’t want readers to find Truth and they will do anything to deter Truthseekers from finding it.

In the classic, honest case, some sites are “suspicious,” but not here.

I can’t control what a tool of The Beast can do. But I can pray that Yahweh will make them go away so that seekers can find important Truths.


Attention Readers: Don’t Trust Google Search?

Or perhaps we should not trust ANY search engine.

I’ve written sparingly on this topic but perhaps it is time to expand on it just a bit. Please understand one thing. If you, the reader, are not willing to devote the time to “vet” any and all “news” stories, don’t waste any more of your time to read the rest of this post. If you are, pay attention.

Many years ago, the Powers and Principalities that rule this world, (let’s just call them PnPs) had to devise a way to discredit anyone who questioned or challenged their authority. And so was born the vicious and extremely effective vituperation; Conspiracy Theorist. It has worked marvelously for the PnPs for many years, but perhaps that obloquy has lost its punch. Overuse may have caused some sort of desensitization of the masses, rendering it ineffective so as to not have the same amount of control over what people see and hear. The PnPs cannot stand for such loss of power.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, we were all introduced to “Fake News,” the new castigation, stamped on anyone who dared offer truth or any contradiction to what we are deemed to see and hear by the PnPs Media.

Yesterday, in the Open Thread, I posted a photograph of Mika Brzezinski, daughter of the Monster of Evil, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the prolific members of the PnPs. Mika B was quoted as saying that it was Media’s job to control what we, the people, are supposed to see and hear. This was not a slip of the tongue but something that she, and others like her, have, for so long carried out, it is routine – routine enough that few pay attention anymore or care that she said it. That is the weather vane of success.

The first time I heard “Fake News” I knew we were in for a change. Mostly gone now are the days of conspiracy theorists, replaced with “Fake News.”

To label something or someone as “Fake News” is easy to do. Like conspiracy theorist, it’s the lazy man’s way of passing off something they have no interest in discussing or in discovering truth about. In short, what ever doesn’t fit the personal narratives, that is those mind manipulated ideas beat into the brain since birth, are cast aside – now labeled Fake News.

But there’s a lot more to this than simply placing a label. Fake News accusations became rampant, slapped onto any and all sources of information, both in the so-called Mainstream Media and Social Media. This was done when somebody with a voice didn’t like something somebody else wrote or said. Even the newly elected president, Donald Trump, called CNN “Fake News.” Unfortunately, Trump failed to remind everyone that ALL news sources are fake – fake to the extent that details of a news event always become a fake Left vs. Right issue, or is saturated with untruths, crafted by the PnPs in order to influence public opinion. The average reader is incapable of recognizing what parts of a “news” report is truth and what parts are fake. The PnPs depend on that ignorance and work diligently to make sure the masses remain that way.

The entire world has been given a free license to be judge and jury over what is and what isn’t “Fake News.” However, it doesn’t matter. News has always been fake. I’m just surprised it took the PnPs this long to bring out the “Fake News” war weapon. What does matter, or should, to all of us is what happens now?

Recall the Hegelian Dialectic in which the PnPs create a problem (always a fake problem). In this case the “problem” was, Fake News. Once the monster is created, it must be embellished and perpetuated. This always instills fear – the more the better. During this process, the lies and trickery are for the purpose of carrying out desired outcomes. And thus, the dialectic ends with the PnPs offering a solution.

It may have been a new speed record in accomplishing an embellishment of the fake, PnP-crafted “problem” of Fake News, as it tore through the American Society like a pack of ravenous wolves. Within days, solutions to the fake, Fake News began to surface.

A person has to be extremely stupid and/or willfully blind to not realize, by now, that things like Google, Facebook, Twitter, the Internet, cellphones, music, movies, etc. etc. etc. are the PnPs’; directly or indirectly owned and/or controlled by them. Understand that the PnPs must control all of this in order that they can effectively control the minds of every person on the planet.

One of the first “solutions” that I became aware of came from Facebook, where it was announced that Facebook was going to make some changes in order that users would be assured that no “Fake News” would be allowed on the social media giant’s website that would confuse and mislead the readers. What could possibly go wrong?

Most people can’t see any of this because they never saw and still haven’t seen, that after 9/11 the scared masses were willing to give up some, more and all of their rights, believing the government’s embellishment that we are were, and are, all going to die if we don’t give government power to spy on us and watch everything we do and say. The Patriot Act was government’s “solution” to the “problem” they created in the first place. If you are struggling with this, ask yourself if the Patriot Act has been repealed and why not.

Now, across Cyberspace, we are being bombarded with claims that search engines, such as Google give “Fake Search Results.” This is an embellishment looking for a solution. So do we trust that Google search results are honest. If you have in the past and still are, you are a fool.

Do you use Wikipedia? Do you believe everything you read there? If you do you’re a fool. Oh, but wait! There are sites like Snopes or Truth or Fiction that can tell us “the truth.” Then there’s Fact Checker and any other creation that tells you whether something is fact or not. Do you trust them? If you do you’re a fool. (Note: To be clear, I use Wikipedia, Snopes and others, as a starting point. Just as I read both “sides” of the fake news, Fake News sites.)

So what is going to change? We know that search engines like Google give us search results they think we are looking for. What? You haven’t noticed that before? Here’s a way to find out. Call a friend – Sorry, text or email. Have them type in the exact same search term as you and then compare results.

Google could not get away with informing the public that they censor and control the Internet and all of your search results. However, with enough people now scared about whether they are getting “Fake News” they will be anxiously willing to let Google decide what “news” you should get…And you WILL like it.

Truth is a very dangerous substance to the PnPs, who never operate in Truth and always operate in deception. They, the PnPs, must control any opposition to their propaganda and media (all media not just the news).

We live in a Post-Normal world now. For those not knowledgeable about post-normal, it simply means that what once was the truth is now a lie and what once was a lie is now the truth. If you are living the lie, you cannot see truth, and that is what makes the job of the PnPs easier with each passing day.


Lightweights Presented as “Powerful Americans”

*Editor’s Note* -Read it but don’t believe it…at least as presented. There are too many ifs to know how much, if any, that is written here is true and exactly how much isn’t told. More than likely too little is told.

Like it is some great and remarkable phenomenon that these “powerful Americans” met at Seal Island. The G8 met there during the Bush W. regime and that administration bribed the town of St. Simon’s with a community center, costing us tax payers a few, cool millions.

And, let’s not forget about the “Creature from Jekyll Island” which took place right next door to St. Simon’s and Seal Island. The meeting on Jekyll Island was the laying of plans to destroy America – to create the Federal Reserve (private corporation) System, that most people think is a government agency, as they do the Internal Revenue Service. In reality, the result of “The Creature” is the destruction of America. The goal was to make billionaires out of the ruling class, which most Americans are dumb to.

I’m not saying that Apple, Google, the media prostitutes, turncoat Paul Ryan and moron Mitch McConnell aren’t “powerful Americans.” What I am saying is, they don’t make those kinds of decisions. If, and it’s a big IF, the real powers that decide presidential campaigns, don’t want Trump in their way, then those that we are told who were at Seal Island, are following orders. Perhaps they are laying out the plans on how to “get rid of Trump.” They did this for Kennedy and Lincoln, among others.

This may be part of controlled opposition, leading us to believe that these people are meeting to get rid of Trump. If so, then what is really going on?

There is one thing for certain. Whatever you and I do, unless it’s something that hasn’t been done for 240 years, will not matter. It’s smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show – Kabuki Theater. We are screwed, the power brokers are not…until that day when trumpets sound.

This past weekend, the new Kingmakers met off the coast of Georgia. This time the carefully selected group of powerful Americans, assembled by the American Enterprise Institute, included the CEOs of Apple and Google, media titans Arthur Sulzberger and William Kristol, and top political leaders including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The main goal of everyone present was to stop Donald Trump from obtaining the Republican presidential nomination, and the highlight of the meeting was a presentation by Karl Rove on how to achieve that objective. Their purpose is the same: to take power away from “we the people” and to be Kingmakers once again.”

<<<


Google Asked to Improve Transparency

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Free-Market Organization Asks Google to Be Transparent with Investors Regarding Cost of “Green” Initiatives

Shareholder Resolution Sought Disclosure of Risk to Shareholders if Taxpayers Decide to End Generous Subsidies to Alternative Energy

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Also Criticized for Making the Company Vulnerable to a Lawsuit from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Mountain View, CA / Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Google shareholders in Mountain View, California, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a shareholder resolution urging the company to come clean with investors about the risks associated with its alternative energy projects – many of which receive lavish taxpayer subsidies that may not continue indefinitely.

“The Obama Administration and many state governments have destructive energy policies that pick winners and losers. Using taxpayer funds, these schemes often subsidize alternative energy projects and cause great harm to middle and low-income Americans. Companies such as Google take advantage of these policies to ‘greenwash’ their images,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “However, as budgets tighten, taxpayer-subsidized freebies may end, thereby exposing Google investors to great risk as the company’s portfolio is heavily invested in renewable energy schemes.”

At the meeting, Danhof presented the National Center’s shareholder proposal. In doing so, he noted that in accepting taxpayer funding for certain green energy projects, Google has placed its own shareholders in an unknown degree of risk:

It is no secret that the federal government and many state and local governments offer substantial tax breaks and lavish grants and loans for many renewable energy projects, and Google has taken advantage of these taxpayer subsidies. Our proposal asks management to tell its shareholders one simple thing: if renewable energy projects such as solar power and geothermal were forced to compete in a free market, would Google investors be at risk? If politicians in Washington, Sacramento and elsewhere changed their minds about spending many hundreds of billions of dollars on the “green” energy projects of private businesses like ours, what would the impact be on our shareholders?

Danhof also noted that Google’s decision to accept taxpayer support gives it a conflict of interest when addressing energy issues publicly:

The company has claimed that it supports rigorous debate regarding energy policy, but as long as the company accepts grants and loans based on the belief that global warming is significantly caused by humans and is a severe problem, the company has a conflict of interest. If the company promotes the global warming theory, it promotes policies that enhance the company’s coffers. If the company promotes any skepticism whatsoever regarding the global warming theory, it risks undermining support for grants and loans for green energy projects management has already begun.

And Danhof noted that Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt seemingly, and unnecessarily, put the company at risk from a lawsuit from the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council:

The company’s desire to continue grants and loans for green energy appears to be undermining our management’s admirable reputation as straight-shooters. In choosing, we believe unwisely, to withdraw the company from the free-market American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Chairman Eric Schmidt said ALEC was “literally lying” about climate change. But ALEC has no position on the degree to which climate change is occurring and if it is occurring, what the cause might be. ALEC simply promotes policies that reduce government interference with energy markets. Since ALEC has no position, its position cannot be a lie.

But Schmidt’s over-the-top statement – which, by the way, could unnecessarily make the company vulnerable to a lawsuit by ALEC – implies Google is highly emotional about the climate change issue, which in turn raises the possibility that the company is very reliant on energy policies providing lavish subsidies for renewable energy projects.

If this is so, don’t shareholders deserve to know the extent of the company’s exposure?

To read Danhof’s full statement, as prepared for delivery, click here.

To watch him make the statement, go here.

The National Center’s shareholder proposal highlighted how Google uses taxpayer funds to promote its green portfolio:

Google relies on government actions to obtain certain financial advantages from climate change-related investments. Google might be materially affected by legislative and regulatory developments concerning climate change.

For example, it has been reported that Google and other investors in the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System are seeking more than $500 million in taxpayer funds to help pay off a federal loan for the solar project. That project has already received $1.6 billion in government loans. Future political leaders may act differently concerning loans and grants for alternative energy projects.

The National Center’s shareholder proposal is found on page 62 of Google’s proxy statement.

“If Google wants to green its image, let it do so on its own dime,” said Danhof. “Why should American taxpayers help foot the bill so that major tech companies such as Google and Apple can appeal to liberals and the mainstream press by pretending to invest in green energy for virtuous reasons? Politics is fickle, and the next presidential administration may force energy producers to compete freely by removing lavish alternative energy production subsidies. At that point, Google’s investors would effectively be left blowing in the wind.”

Late last year, the Wall Street Journal explained how Google’s renewable energy schemes not only rely on American taxpayers to remain profitable, but harm low-income Americans as well. The Journal article noted:

Most of Google’s renewable investments qualify for a federal investment tax credit that covers 30% of the cost. Its $450 million investment in rooftop solar-systems also benefits from state incentives such as “net-metering” laws. This hidden subsidy compensates ratepayers for power they remit to the grid at the retail rate, which can be three times as much as the wholesale price of electricity. Net-metering allows solar companies to charge higher rates to homeowners who lease their panels, and thus for investors like Google to reap larger profits.

Last September, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt announced on a PBS broadcast that the company would no longer be a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Schmidt accused ALEC of lying about climate change and “hurting our children and grandchildren.”

“It was Schmidt who was lying about climate politics,” said Danhof. “It was not ALEC. ALEC does not have a position on climate change. Rather, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, ‘ALEC provides a forum for sundry businesses to discuss free-market reforms with state lawmakers. Two of its policy targets are renewable-energy mandates and subsidies, which are being exploited by big businesses like Google at the expense of low-and middle-income taxpayers. Google’s real problem with ALEC is a conflict of pecuniary interests.'”

An initial vote at today’s Google meeting showed the National Center proposal did not pass.

In March, the National Center presented a similar shareholder proposal at the annual meeting of Apple shareholders.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. So far in 2014-15, National Center representatives have participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

The National Center for Public Policy Research was founded in 1982. Sign up for free issue alerts here.


Google Apologizes for Easter Snub; Explains Gun Policy

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt Publicly Apologizes for Insult to Christians Worldwide by Celebrating Violence-Linked Union Leader Cesar Chavez with Google Doodle on Easter Sunday; CEO Larry Page Seconds the Apology

In Response to Question from Shareholder Activist Group, Google’s David Drummond Says Decision to Restrict Guns from Google Shopping Platform is NOT Linked to President Obama’s Push For More Gun Laws, Despite Coincidental Timing

Mountain View, CA / Washington, DC – At Thursday’s annual meeting of Google shareholders in Mountain View, California, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. asked Google’s leadership to explain the company’s decisions to ban gun sales from Google Shopping and its decision to honor left-wing union organizer Cesar Chavez with a Google Doodle on Easter Sunday.

The exchanges can be viewed on YouTube at

In response to whether the gun restriction was intentionally contemporaneous with President Obama’s push for more restrictive gun laws, Google senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond said Google was merely extending its previous policy banning gun advertisements to the new Google Shopping platform, noting “we have not allowed gun ads since almost the inception of our programs… so we’ve taken a position that it is best for Google [not to advertise guns] and that’s been our view, and we’ve been consistent… so I can assure you that it is a longstanding view that we’ve had, not any kind of a recent public policy [statement].”

Danhof also asked Google’s executive team about the company’s decision to honor labor icon Cesar Chavez this past Easter Sunday, concluding, “from a business point of view, what went into the company’s thinking in making this decision, and what did the company gain from unnecessarily offending so many customers?”

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt responded with a sincere apology to all Christians who took offense to the company’s decision. Schmidt said that it was never the company’s intent to insult Christians or their faith, saying in part, “…there was no intent to slight anyone… there was certainly no intent, and if there was offense, it was certainly not intended and I do apologize.” Google CEO and Co-Founder Larry Page then endorsed Schmidt’s apology.

“While I am thankful for Schmidt’s apology, this is a situation that never should have occurred,” said Danhof. “Chavez is a divisive figure who draws out strong emotions; I hope the company learns from this mistake.”

“Cesar Chavez is an iconic figure among leftists and ‘Chicano’ activists, a man whose life has become shrouded in political mythology,” notes Project 21’s Joe Hicks. “As a doctrinaire Marxist during the 1970s, I often crossed paths with Chavez and trained with many of his United Farm Worker organizers in ‘revolutionary theory’ classes. Despite today’s depictions of him as a man of peace and nonviolence, the tactics used by UFW organizers against resistant field workers often included intimidation, threats and violence. Even among the farm workers Chavez claimed to represent, his leadership was viewed as controversial. When examined closely, a darker side of Chavez and his movement emerges.”

In 2007, Hicks testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands concerning H.R. 359, “The Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act,” where Hicks explained that Chavez was “a labor leader that presided over an organization that harbored deep hostility and resentment about the American nation.”

After learning about Google’s decision to honor Chavez on Easter, Project 21’s Bishop Council Nedd, the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church, said, “I now will much prefer to receive the points from Bing Rewards in the future rather than dealing with a company that clearly seems to have gone out of its way to be offensive to Christians on the most important day on the Christian calendar.”

“Easter is a sacred day during which Christians celebrate the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Google’s management showed extreme callousness in their decision to honor a leftist icon on this holy day,” said Danhof. “I am not suggesting that Google choose a religious affiliation, but Google’s decision to honor a socialist ideologue on the day of Christianity’s most sacred celebration is unconscionable.”

Justin Danhof also was critical of the company’s gun restrictions following the meeting.

“Hypocrisy, thy name is Google,” said Danhof. “Google’s ‘Freedom of Expression‘ proclaims that the company has ‘pressed governments to make combating Internet censorship a top priority in human rights and economic agendas,’ yet the company is using its Internet market power to censor searches in an active effort to limit Second Amendment rights. More than just a Constitutional guarantee, the Second Amendment allows Americans to protect themselves and their families from harm. According to Gary Kleck, a highly respected criminologist at Florida State University, Americans use guns in self-defense more than two million times per year.”

In May 2012, Google announced that it would begin censoring guns, gun parts, ammunition and other weapons from its Google Shopping platform. Read more about Google’s weapons policy here.

“I respect Google’s consistency in policy, but the policy doesn’t align with good business practices,” said Danhof. “If you want to end the life of your child by aborting him, Google will show you the closest abortion clinic. If you want to purchase the most violent video games and movies available, Google will help you comparison shop and find the best price. But if you want to purchase a firearm to protect your family, Google has no use for you.”

“Google’s decision is also highly hypocritical since its Shopping platform remains a bastion of violent and gruesome video games off of which Google profits. From Manhunt, where Google’s description explains, “[p]layers can fight back with hand-to-hand moves, guns, or perform stealth kills using such items as meat cleavers, plastic bags, and hammers to slice, suffocate, and bludgeon enemies,” to God of War: Ascension, where players engage in “another blood-soaked adventure full of grand vistas, environmental puzzles, [and] brutal hack-and-slash combat,” violence and perversion are in full supply on Google Shopping,” added Danhof.

“Google’s policy of infringing the Second Amendment aligns with the White House’s current anti-gun posture. Google executive Chairman Eric Schmidt worked closely with President Barack Obama’s political team during the last election and was even in the campaign’s ‘boiler room’ on election night,” noted Danhof. “But Google’s most recent ant-gun policy is apparently an extension of previous company policy, not a concerted effort with the White House.”

“Google’s decision is not only hypocritical, it is bad business. Google Shopping operates on a pay-for-play platform, meaning that merchants pay Google for the right to have products appear in searches,” explained Danhof. “Google is likely actively rejecting money from willing merchants for purely political purposes, this is a breach of management’s fiduciary duty to protect shareholder value. The fact that Google also limits gun advertisements, the main driver of Google’s revenue, should be a real concern for shareholders and investors. It is clear to me that Google’s management team has decided that promoting progressive policies is more important than sound business practices in this instance.”

The National Center has recently attended the annual shareholder meetings of Comcast, Time Warner and, where it asked the CEOs of each about its seemingly anti-Second Amendment policies even as they broadcast or sold extremely violent materials.

Since January 1st, the National Center has participated in free-market and conservative activism at 33 shareholder meetings.

A copy of Danhof’s questions at the shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here. Note that the questions, when delivered, were shortened to comply with Google’s request to keep questions to one minute. The questions as literally asked can be viewed on YouTube at

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Google shareholder.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


Screaming and Yelling At PayPal

Damn! I’m angry! I have an account with PayPal. The only reason I have an account with them is because I sell CDs for a friend on mine and use PayPay as the service that customers can use to buy CDs etc. I’m struggling right now to find anything nice to say about PayPal, but let me say that I have used them for several years without any problems. That ended the other day.

When I logged onto my account there was a notice that my Visa card ending in 7529 was about to expire and that I needed to click on a link to update my information. The problem is I don’t have a credit card with PayPal. I have a debit card but it doesn’t end in 7529.

I thought about just deleting the card from my account but in that process it told that it was the ONLY account number I had and that if I deleted it, I would not have access any longer to my account. I decided I better contact them and that’s when the real problems began.

It’s next to impossible to resolve this problem without speaking to a human being (and as far as dealing with PayPal, use of human being is liberally used.) But you can’t get a human being to speak with because of the worthless computerized robots.

So, I sent an email and sure enough, I got a robot to answer my email that they would do their best to get back to me in 24 hours or so. In about 24 hours, I received an email saying they were going to call me in a minute. I waited and waited and no call. Then I got an email a few hours later stating they were unable to reach me and left a number to call.

You are probably already guessing that the number to call took me right back to the robot that gave me NO options to speak to a human being.

I went back to the PayPal website and attempted another contact email. This time, regardless of what I entered for information they asked for, it would not recognize any of it.

I’m seething by now and ready to put my fist through a wall. I called again and again and again, trying to figure out how to reach a human. No luck. I thought some more about it. Finally I called and just kept repeating myself to the robot like a robot, “I want to talk with a human being. I want to talk to a human being. I want to talk to a human being.” Does not compute! Does not compute.

After perhaps 25 or 30 of those hypnotic rants, I finally screamed to the top of my lungs, making my head hurt, “I WANT TO TALK TO A HUMAN BEING!” (I might have added expletives.

I waited and there was silence. FINALLY, the robot says, “OK. There seems to be a problem here. I’m going to transfer you to someone who might be able to help.”

BINGO! But the poor bastard who got my call, I’m sure is still shook up…..or he and everyone else in the office are laughing their asses off at me, as they probably should be.

But do you think it ended there? NOPE! Incompetence is running rampant. It’s unbelievable. I explained to this guy what was going on and so he asks me if I want to delete my credit card. Now I’m screaming again. I said, “LISTEN CAREFULLY! &()^$$ *(^%$Y I don’t own a goddamn visa card………

And just so you know, the little bastard never once apologized because his company screwed up and made my life a living hell for a few days. And, I have no confidence the problem is resolved. Probably some other poor schmoe will lose his credit card and have to go through what I did.

I’m so glad so many kids today and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school, receive a college degree and are so damned stupid they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.


FYI PayPal is an EBay company which is Google. Surprised?


FBI Wants to Tap Your Social Networks – Obama on Verge of Agreeing

From the New York Times:

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.


Google Will Censor All Gun Products From Shopping Search Results

This is a copy of a letter sent to Google Ad customers:

Dear Merchant,

We’re writing to let you know about some upcoming changes to the product listings you submit to Google. As we recently announced, we are starting to transition our shopping experience to a commercial model that builds on Product Listing Ads. This new shopping experience is called Google Shopping. As part of this transition, we’ll begin to enforce a set of new policies for Google Shopping in the coming weeks. A new list of the allowed, restricted, and prohibited products on Google Shopping is available on our new policy page –

Based on a review of the products you’re currently submitting, it appears that some of the content in your Merchant Center account, HamLund Tactical, will be affected by these policy changes. In particular we found that your products may violate the following policies:


When we make this change, Google will disapprove all of the products identified as being in violation of policies. We ask that you make any necessary changes to your feeds and/or site to comply, so that your products can continue to appear on Google Shopping.

To help you through this new set of policies and how to comply with them, we would like to give you some specific suggestions regarding the changes needed to keep your offers running on Google Shopping.


As highlighted on our new policy page, in order to comply with the Google Shopping policies you need to comply first with the AdWords policies We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunitions or accessory kits on Google Shopping. In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center. For more information on this policy please visit

We’re constantly reviewing our policies, and updating them when necessary, to ensure we’re offering the best experience possible to our users. We’ve identified a set of policy principles to govern our policy efforts on Google Shopping in the U.S. These principles are:

1) Google Shopping should provide a positive experience to users. Showing users the right products at the right time can truly enhance a user’s experience. When people trust us to deliver them to a destination that’s relevant, original, and easy to navigate this creates a positive online experience to the benefit of both users and merchants.

2 ) Google Shopping should be safe for all users. User safety is everyone’s business, and we can’t do business with those who don’t agree. Scams, phishing, viruses, and other malicious activities on the Internet damage the value of the Internet for everyone. Trying to get around policies or “game the system” is unfair to our users, and we can’t allow that.

3) Google Shopping should comply with local laws and regulations. Many products and services are regulated by law, which can vary from country to country. All advertising, as well as the products and services being advertised, must clearly comply with all applicable laws and regulations. For the most part, our policies aren’t designed to describe every law in every country. All advertisers bear their own responsibility for understanding the laws applicable to their business. Our policies are often more restrictive than the law, because we need to be sure we can offer services that are legal and safe for all users.

4) Google Shopping should be compatible with Google’s brand decisions. Google Shopping must be compatible with company brand decisions. Our company has a strong culture and values, and we’ve chosen not to allow ads that promote products and services that are incompatible with these values. In addition, like all companies, Google sometimes makes decisions based on technical limitations, resource constraints, or requirements from our business partners. Our policies reflect these realities.

We’ve given much thought to our stance on this content, as well as the potential effect our policy decision could have on our Merchants, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.


The Google Shopping Team

© 2012 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google Merchant Center account.