Since then, I have noticed dozens of separate incidences where conservative and/or Christian viewpoint ads are censored, banned and labeled as "hate speech". But Google continues to run porn site ads.
What's wrong with this picture??
I'll tell you what's wrong. It's downright discrimination and censorship and a blatant snub to the First Amendment right to free speech.
Had enough?
Well then change your search engine! New Media Journal has an anti-google search engine index with many search engines to choose from. Plus, you can add a search engine that you like if it is not already listed.
Here's a quote from New Media Journal website:
(HT: The Conservative Voice)
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." - Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that all entities, whether government or free-market, need to protect the sanctity of free speech. This is a basic civic responsibility. Those who do not are cowards. Sadly, we live in an era where civic responsibility is disposable, considered a burden instead of a privilege." - Frank Salvato, publisher of The New Media Journal
They banned The New Media Journal. They banned MichNews.com. They banned The Jawa Report. Google News and Google Search Engine are on a campaign of political correctness that sees them denying access to their service to any website - be it news, opinion or a hybrid of both - that dares to address the subject of radical Islam.
Click here to read the original, unedited email.
This sets a dangerous precedent. What will the next subject be that serves as a catalyst for Google to promote their unique brand of corporate censorship? Which website will be the next to have it's Internet presence diminished at the hands of Google's "progressive" ideological agenda? WorldNetDaily? JihadWatch? NewsMax?
It is because of this - and our dedication to American Free Enterprise and the free market - that we have established The Anti-Google Search Engine Index. This index offers an ever-expanding list of search engines, many more comprehensive and many who do not manipulate content based on the ideology of political correctness.
We urge you to switch from using Google as your search engine and try the ones listed below. If you would like to suggest a search engine for inclusion on the list click here.
We may not be able to force Google to stop censoring free speech, but we can affect their bottom line.
Posts
16 comments:
I wouldn't immediately buy the theory of bias by Google--it all might well be a combination of timing and the way ad words work.
In any case, I applaud your acting on principle, and moving your business away from them--they have the right to accept whatever ads they like, and that can and should have consequences in a free market.
You do know that Blogger belongs to Google, no? Are you moving this blog somewhere else?
More about Google's bias and their liberalism at World Net Daily. What a shame it is that they chose to not honor our war dead on Memorial Day.
In addition to all of this, the Google money engine is for Democrats only.
One letter writer at WND had switched to Dogpile search engine. I have used them a lot too.
Her letter (plus another):
Searching's gone to the dogs
I have used Dogpile search engine for about a year now because of stories I have read about Google's liberalism. Monday, Dogpile had a beautiful Memorial Day logo with the Vietnam Wall, flowers and an American flag. I hope you will show it and give them the publicity they deserve. They are just as thorough and fast as Google and I use them with a clear conscience.
Susan Jones
No favorites of Google
Thanks for providing a list of sites being banned by Google because of their reporting on radical Islam. I have now added those sites to my Favorites list.
Dave Dahlke
I'm sure that you would most likely rather see it gone altogether. You obviously do not agree with anything that I post.
1) False
2) True
The main thing we disagree upon Christine, the thing that makes for a gap that will never be crossed, is your conviction that righteousness is a monopoly of Christians. I highly disagree with most of your worldview. But I would never want your opinions censored. If it came to it, I would fight for your right to express them. Would *you* fight for my right to express, say, the goodness of sexual diversity, or the need to legalize gay marriage?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Juan,
No. I didn't realize that Google and Blogger were affiliated. I'm not sure about moving my blog (mostly because of the work involved to change it), but it is something to consider.
Ha! Wouldn't it be ironic if they ended up censoring my blog because of my post? Wouldn't put it past them...but my blog is a small fish in an enormous pond. They probably would be more likely to censor huge audience bloggers like Michele Malkin if she was using their service.
It was a real disappointment to discover that even the internet is trying to be regulated by individuals (such as those at Google) who adhere to the mantra, goals, ideology, and media bias of the liberal left.
As far as your comment about "moving this blog" is concerned, I'm sure that you would most likely rather see it gone altogether. You obviously do not agree with anything that I post.
Juan said, "If it came to it, I would fight for your right to express them."
Oh really? How about putting your money where your mouth is by donating to The Alliance Defense Fund in honor of their new client? Are you willing to fight for the artist whose work was illegally censored by a Colorado town?
Juan said, "Would *you* fight for my right to express, say, the goodness of sexual diversity, or the need to legalize gay marriage?"
No. I wouldn't. At least I'm honest about it. There are way too many gay activists with huge organizations behind them (like the ACLU) so you wouldn't need my little ole' voice anyway...now would you...
There is no 'need to' legalize 'gay' marriage. It's an oxymoron anyway. Marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. Every other type of union has a different title (e.g. polygamy). We have seen the havoc that has reigned upon ordinary citizens (especially parents) in Massachusetts since 'gay' marriage was 'legalized' there by one looney leftist rogue judge.
People there are suffering with the huge consequences of such a anarchical ruling and the ones who will most likely suffer the most are the children who are being indoctrinated in the public schools there.
There is much more at stake than just the 'right' of gay people to get married. This is why I will fight against it here in CA. I've seen the battle that has transpired in Massachusetts and it certainly is ugly.
I answered about the Colorado issue on your other topic. I believe that contributing to the AFC would work against separation of church and state and towards letting people like you impose their views on people like me.
So you would only fight for freedom of speech when it affects your own speech. Nice.
Does that mean that you would be up for establishing America as a theocracy, with laws based on the Bible and execution of heretics, atheists and gays? I'm starting to think that this is what you'd really want.
Burning a few infidels that are going to burn for eternity anyway should be a small price to pay to save your loved ones from hell, shouldn't it?
I'm just trying to take your position to its logical consequences.
A Google Search on the Net Neutrality Act
Juan,
If you were willing to "fight for your (my) right to express them(my opinions)," then why won't you donate to ADF on my behalf? Oh. You answered that. You said, " I believe that contributing to the AFC would work against separation of church and state and towards letting people like you impose their views on people like me."
So...taking this to it's logical conclusion...you wouldn't be willing to actually "fight for my rights and opinions" after all...now would you.
There is quite a difference between tolerance for another's opinions and worldview and the "fighting for the right" claim you made to express said opinions.
Allow me to borrow your paragraph and turn it around a bit.
" I believe that contributing to the ACLU would work against what the Constitution actually says regarding religious freedom and speech (it doesn't say, "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution) and towards letting people like you impose their views on people like me."
Religious displays in public spaces go against the separation of church and state, as provided by the most common interpretations of the establishment clause in the first ammendment.
You are free to worship. Nobody is censoring your speech. If you want to undermine the First Ammendment you need to be careful--unless you get to dictate the new laws, you might lose the right to worship that you have now.
I really cannot imagine, let alone desire, a situation in which people like me would impose views on people like you. My ideal society is in that sense similar to this one: you are free to choose your own set of beliefs. The opposite, a Christian theocracy, seems to be what you advocate. You haven't answered to that, so I'll assume that's what you want.
About network neutrality: The guy whose comment you link to says:
To endorse legislation that would establish government oversight of free-market enterprise would be hypocritical, yet the issue isn't that simple.
There's a little light of reason in that last "isn't that simple." Too bad he is not bright enough to pursue that line of thought.
We have plenty of "government oversight" of the free market. Our money is printed by the government. We have commerce laws. We have police, to make sure our property laws are enforced. We have anti-monoHow much "government oversight" would you like to get rid of?
Googling "Impartiality + Conservative Websites."
Juan,
Whose interpretation of the establishment clause? Atheists? They are a minority in this country.
Although the ACLU wants to use the mantra of "separation of church and state" as an excuse to kick God out of the public arena, here's an interesting article about the fact that our history shows that there never was an intention for the separation of God and state:
Separation of God and state?
Posted: October 11, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By William J. Federer
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledged God in their state constitutions:
Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama ... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ...
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ...
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government ...
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe ...
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ...
Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution ...
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution ...
Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...
Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ...
Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ...
Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution ...
Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution ...
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties ...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ...
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction ...
Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ...
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ... and devoutly imploring His direction ...
Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution ...
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ...
Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work ...
Missouri 1945, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ... establish this Constitution ...
Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...
Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... establish this Constitution ...
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ...
New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors …
New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ...
New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings ...
North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for ... our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those ...
North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ...
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ...
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences ...
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ...
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island ... grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing ...
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina ... grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...
South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ...
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience ...
Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God ...
Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we ... establish this Constitution ...
Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia ... reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ...
After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong.
William Federer is a best-selling author and president of Amerisearch Inc., a publishing company dedicated to researching America's noble heritage. Federer's "American Minute" is featured each day in WorldNetDaily
Here is a post that I found in the archives of my message board:
Two Cents: The ACLU's Very Own Constitution
For years now, conservatives have repeatedly shouted their frustrations with attempts by many on the Left to remove God from our society. Liberals love to tout a "wall of separation between church and state" that is somehow constitutional. But as Michael Tremoglie points out in his HUMAN EVENTS Online piece ("Theophobia -- Part I") today:
"The advocates of this bowdlerization campaign display a clever sophistry. They claim that by removing religion from government they are merely being faithful to the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. The Theophobes routinely refer to a 'wall between church and state' as if it were mentioned in the Constitution.
"However, there is no such Constitutional doctrine. The phrase, 'wall between church and state,' was used by Thomas Jefferson -- who was not involved with writing the Constitution. Jefferson wrote this in a letter. How his personal correspondence became Constitutional law is not known. If Jefferson's correspondence is a precept of Constitutional law then segregation should be Constitutional as well. Jefferson wrote in an 1814 letter to Edward Coles that, 'Their (blacks) amalgamation with any other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country...can innocently consent.'"
Yes, the "anti-God" practices of many on the Left have confounded and enraged many of their fellow Americans on the right. Other than thinking liberals to be "anti-religious" or "God-hating" or "un-American," we've never been able to figure out why groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU preach the things they do about religion in public.
But now, at least in the case of the ACLU, the reason has been made clear: the ACLU uses a different Constitution than the rest of America.
This week the Opinion Journal's James Taranto, in his daily "Best of the Web," cited the following passage from the ACLU's "Free Speech" online page (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm):
"It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."*
Notice anything missing?
See those ellipses in the ACLU's quotation of the 1st Amendment? Do you know what portion of the Amendment the ACLU "censored"?
Here's the 1st Amendment in its entirety:
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No wonder the ACLU is usually wrong on religious issues: The ACLU version doesn't include religious protections.
Instead, the organization found a handy-dandy version that supports its claim that the Framers considered the freedom of speech so important that they put it at the very tip-top of the Bill of Rights.
If the ACLU (and its constitutional editors) had any integrity at all, it would tout the importance of the freedom of religion, since, in copies of the Constitution that everyone else has, religion is listed first. But I doubt that such a move will ever happen, considering how much the ACLU must focus on the sanctity of speech in order to protect pornographers, flag-burners, and strippers. Of course, the only reason free speech is listed first in the ACLU's copy is that it cut out all the constitutional "God-talk" of our supposedly atheist, deist, irreligious Founders.
Surely, though, an organization like the ACLU -- one that loves to defend the constitutional rights of "all" Americans and claims to stand up for religious liberty -- believes in the Freedom of Religion as stated in the 1st Amendment, right?
Well, on the ACLU's "Religious Liberty" online page (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLibert...LibertyMain.cfm) the group fails to quote the Constitution at all. Instead it refers to "the establishment clause" that "requires the separation of church and state."
I suppose, though, if the ACLU did quote the Constitution, it would have to explain how the organization gets around the fact that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Since prohibiting the free exercise of religion is something at which it excels, the ACLU doesn't want to be painted into that corner.
No liberals want that.
*Note: The paragraph at the ACLU website has since been altered; but it does reflect the thinking of that organization back in July of 2004 (when the original post was done).
Their "About Us" page now says:
"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state."
Jefferson headed a committee of five in drafting the Declaration of Independence. Note that God is mentioned twice within the first few paragraphs. It appears, at least, that perhaps Jefferson wasn't so concerned with any so-called "wall of separation between God and state or founding documents" afterall...
In Congress, July 4, 1776,
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (bold mine)
Christine, you have a way of ignoring some parts of my comments, which I consider the most important ones. So here is a direct question for you:
Would you want America to become a theocracy, ruled by the laws in the Bible?
What is *your* opinion on this?
No. I don't advocate for a theocracy. I do believe in the strict constructionalism (meaning, to construe and interpret our laws and constitution in the manner which adhers to the original intent of our Founding Fathers) which were mostly based on Judeo-Christian ethics and values.
The term "theocracy" can have several meanings. In the first definition of the term, "1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme ruler" can apply to our own founding documents. However, the second definition of the term, "2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission" would not have allowed for our current Democratic Republic form of government. Hence, I would oppose that kind of system.
Recognizing that our country was founded upon the Judeo-Christian morals, values, ethics and laws (e.g. The Ten Commandments) does not infringe upon people of other faiths (or no faith). In fact, it is the one system of government that allows for more freedom for those who do not hold towards the Judeo-Christian faith. For example, a theocracy like the former Taliban one in Afghanistan was so strict that anyone who would deny Allah as God would be in danger of being sent to prison or killed. I don't see that happening in America when people do not adhere to Judeo-Christian values. It is sad that we have drifted quite far away from them (e.g. when Bible reading and mention of God was kicked out of our public schools, crimes in schools escalated and became more vicious, cruel and deadly)over the last 50 years, but there is still a remnant of people whose families and friends adhere to them. That is what freedom is all about. However, when legislators and judges make laws (or attempt to do so) that would infringe upon the rights of Christians and their free expression of religion and training up their children with the moral values and ethics that they want for them, it is then that Christians must speak out against their imposition upon parent's rights and our children's upbringing (like what S.B.1437 would do).
My answer here is not meant to be an exhaustive account of my opinion, but just a general answer to your question. If it is not satisfactory, then let me know and I will clarify as best I can in a future post.
Post a Comment