Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Technorati's Blogger Content Bias!

What does a site like Technorati do when pinged with new content from a blog? Well, usually they post it on their site. However, it appears that some content on certain blogs is more acceptable than others.

Case in point.

Take a look at Talk Wisdom's "latest posts" list. [Note: At the time I linked this, there were several missing posts from Talk Wisdom. Most have now been posted.]

Next, type in "Obama Sides With Radical Islamists" in the search box. What do you now see?

Search / No results for Obama Sides With Radical Islamists from http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com
Subscribe Posts
search in entire post tags only from everything http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com
of blogs with any authority a little authority some authority a lot of authority in language all languages Arabic (العربية) Chinese (中文) Dutch (Nederlands) English French (Français) German (Deutsch) Greek (Ελληνικά) Hebrew (עברית) Italian (Italiano) Japanese (日本語) Korean (한국어) Norwegian (Norsk) Persian (فارسی) Polish (Polski) Portuguese (Português) Russian (Русский) Spanish (Español) Swedish (Svenska) Turkish (Türkçe) Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt)
Search in entire post from http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com in English [change]

There are no posts in English with some authority containing Obama Sides With Radical Islamists from http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com .

But wait! There is proof that Technorati is censoring some of Talk Wisdom's posts!
[Note: The same thing has happened several times before - especially when I have posted pro-life essays.]

In the "blog reactions" section, we find a link from "The Village Voice," linking to a blog post that Technorati claims "there are no posts in English with some authority containing Obama Sides With Radical Islamists."

Rightbloggers on Father's Day, Guns, Knives, and Unloved Commuters

naked, arrogant power grab of wartime, war-fighting power by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court... to prevent Congress and the president from protecting you and me!" with the approval of B. Hussein Obama ("Obama Sides With Radical Islamists"). But who cares? It's hot outside, the Conventions are months away, and rightbloggers are much more fun when they're sweating the small stuff. So let us open the floor to fatherhood, frivolous political rhetoric, and assorted ridiculous crap.

18 hours ago in village voice > blogs > Runnin' Scared · Authority: 556


Oh wait! Look! At 10:20 a.m. PT, I pinged the site again and here is what is displayed:

Technorati Talk Wisdom Blogspot

However, notice that the "Obama Sides With Radical Islamists" post is still missing!

Apparently, free speech only goes so far with that site!

Shameful...truly shameful!!

Update @ 3:23 p.m. PT

Here's a copy of the "Obama Sides With Radical Islamists" post:

The magnitude of difference between the two candidates running in our presidential election could not be more stark! After reading the statements of both Obama and McCain regarding the horrible Supreme Court 5-4 decision to allow Gitmo detainees the right to be tried in civilian courts, we can clearly see what a flawed, unfortunate, and terrible direction Obama would take this country if [God forbid!!]elected in November.

Obama's statement:

Barack Obama statement on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today extending civilian legal protections to terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

Um...er...earth to Obama? Foreign terrorists caught in battle against our forces during war have never been eligible for "habeas corpus"! They are not covered by the Constitution of the United States of America. So...what "rule of law" are you referring to?

Ah! Probably European law? Or, more likely, the law opinion of that do-nothing, waste of money, corruption filled United Nations?

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. But I can read and comprehend the fact that this ongoing war against radical Islamic terrorism is very different from any other type of war that the U.S. (and, the world) has fought in before. It requires much more stringent forms of protection for our nation and people!!! Especially when it affects the lives of our military in harms way!!

From Wikipedia:

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

United States federal law affords persons the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus mainly if held by the federal authorities or for violations of the United States Constitution. Habeas corpus petitions are generally argued as ex parte cases. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.
During the Civil War and Reconstruction and during the War on Terrorism the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.

Earth to Obama! Let's read this portion again:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ”

John McCain's statement:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.

Let's not forget that four Supreme Court judges rendered dissenting votes!

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Speaking of "the rule of law" as Obama put it, how hypocritical is it for someone who has had ties with some of the worst characters in our nation to even know what it means to genuinely follow the rule of law?

But that's another topic.

Apparently, there is an investigation going on that might reveal, once and for all, the REAL OBAMA! Keep your eyes and ears open come this Wednesday, June 18th.



Carlotta Morrow said...

Christine, I was taking a good look at technorati for the first time since you mentioned it, and I'm noticing that they don't even have a religion category. Is that the case or am I looking in the wrong place? I see their subcategories under "Lifestyles" and there's nothing about religion.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Carlotta,

That's quite typical, actually. I have an account with Digg and they don't have a religion category either. Secular humanism is at work. It continues to be alive and well at most blog aggregate sites.

With Digg, you can choose your friends list. I was a member for several months without any friends! My husband got quite the laugh about that. It was kinda funny. ;-) But once I started commenting on articles of interest, I found several Christian friends on Digg. We now have our own little communities there via our friends lists.

I wanted to point out to readers here that the MSM bias towards favortism for Obama has even reached aggregate sites like Technorati! They are supposed to be non-biased (except in cases were porn or any evil threats are posted - which is entirely understandable, of course!) but my little illustration here shows, quite unequivocally, that they are also biased.

Obviously, they didn't want my post to come up under the tag of "Obama." Therefore, their site is guilty of censoring free speech.

Carlotta Morrow said...

Not having a religion category immediately informs me that they are going to have a bias anyways about things of a Christian nature.

And you're right, there's obvious bias if it picks and chooses what to tag. Wow, real evidence of the censorship against us that's out there!

Great work in finding that out Christine!

Christinewjc said...

It's only the tip of the iceberg. Read my new post! The push for censorship is increasing at an alarming rate!