Posts Tagged ‘Google Search’

Warning: Obama’s Secret Police Know You Are Reading This

by John Myers on Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

This is article 327 of 471 in the topic Government Corruption
Warning: Obama’s Secret Police Know You Are Reading This


“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

Do you feel safer knowing President Barack Obama’s Secret Police — whoops, I mean his National Security Agency (NSA) — are monitoring your communications and everything you read on the Internet, including these very words? Certainly, you are supposed to feel safer. Just ask almost anyone in the mainstream media, as well as most Democrats and even Republicans in Congress (the very members we trust to protect our liberties). They are busy acquiescing to Obama’s tyranny all in the name of national security.

It seems the Obama-media and members of Congress have not read a word of history. They seem to have never heard of a democratically elected leader who enslaved Europe and started a war that killed 60 million people while his government, police and justice system turned a blind eye to every excess. All they have to do is a Google search for “Adolf Hitler.” Maybe they don’t do that because it would be a record of subversive inquiries.

James Bamford writes in The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America: “There is now the capacity to make tyranny total in America.”
Yet hardly anybody seems to care, other than Libertarians like former Congressman Ron Paul, who said the NSA revelations are “a predictable result of a government that continues to erode our liberties while promising some glimmering hope of security.”

I was naïve enough to believe that others, like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), would be outraged by the Obama Administration’s attack on the 1st and 4th Amendments. Graham says he is not sure who is entitled to 1st Amendment rights. It could be that Personal Liberty Digest and the people who comment on the columns and stories don’t have guaranteed protection.

“Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves,” Graham said. “Is any blogger out there saying anything — do they deserve 1st Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times.”

The French Trusted Hitler

Graham said last week he is unconcerned that the Obama Administration has his Verizon phone records because he’s not “talking to terrorists.”
Graham told FOX News: “I am glad the NSA is trying to find out what terrorists are up to overseas and inside the country.”

The host said he was a Verizon subscriber and was, therefore, being tracked by the federal government. Graham weighed:

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States,” he said.

“I don’t think you’re talking to terrorists, I know you’re not, I know I’m not, so we don’t have anything to worry about,” Graham said. “I’m glad the activity’s going on, but it is limited to tracking people who are suspected to be terrorists and who they may be talking to.”

Graham also admitted that it wasn’t until the news broke about the NSA the day before that he knew anything about what the top secret agency was doing. I am glad Graham is sure they aren’t doing anything bad.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Whoopi Goldberg fails to perform simple Google search before posing ‘gotcha’ question to Ann Romney

by Lloyd Marcus on Thursday, October 18th, 2012

This is article 1108 of 1298 in the topic 2012 Elections

Ann Romney appeared on The View and fielded what was an attempt at a “gotcha” question from Whoopi Goldberg, but I don’t think Whoopi got the payoff she was looking for:

Goldberg: As first lady — if you get the job — it’s going to entail a lot of things. And one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, ya know… uh, from wars. Now I know, I believe that your religion doesn’t allow you to go fight…

Romney: No, that’s not correct

Goldberg: Ok, so…

Romney: We have many, many members of our faith that are serving in the armed services.

Goldberg: Ok, umm…

It went on a little from there, but Goldberg helps us segue into today’s talk show host protip: Always try to know what the answer’s going to be before reaching into the bag of trick questions out of an eagerness to put your guest on the spot, lest you fall into your own trap:

Does Goldberg have an aversion to a simple Internet search that could have helped her avoid looking foolish? For example, it took me all of 15 seconds to find this page.

Ann Romney’s response totally ruined a follow up question that Whoopi had in the hopper: “So what’s up with your people churning butter all the time?”

Go straight to Post

The real Velvet Revolution and Brett Kimberlin

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, June 14th, 2012

This is article 65 of 114 in the topic Free Speech

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Bloggers are letting it shine, shine, shine down on convicted Speedway Bomber/vexatious litigant/online harasser Brett Kimberlin and his shady Velvet Revolution.

You can help by spreading the word, Facebooking, tweeting, blogging, and e-mailing the truth:

Brett Kimberlin stole the Velvet Revolution. We’re stealing it back.

Brett Kimberlin, and his associate Brad Friedman, do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. They do not, and cannot, claim trademark or copyright protection in the term, because in the realm of politics, where Kimberlin and Friedman seek to meddle, the term “Velvet Revolution” is more generic than “Jell-O”.

Likewise, we do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. No one owns the term. The Czechs and Slovaks who put their lives on the line in 1989 have a pretty strong moral claim, but they’re all in MittelEuropa. The Czechs and Slovaks have bigger problems than one terrorist moonbat making a mockery of a First Amendment that they don’t have anyway.

So we’re taking the name back, for them.

What are your demands?

Our needs are simple. We seek to drive Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution into third place, or lower, on a Google search for the term. We estimate that we can do this within six months. Eventually we’d like to knock Wikipedia out of the top spot, but all things in their time.

We seek to replace Brett Kimberlin’s fake Velvet Revolution with a fake Velvet Revolution of our own, a Velvet Revolution that tells the truth about Kimberlin and his henchmen, in order that past and potential donors to Kimberlin, such as George Soros, may be fully informed about who is cashing the checks.

Great. How do you propose to accomplish this?

Imagine Google, and its competitors Bing and Yahoo, in terms of politics.

Individual searches are like issues. The websites to which those searches lead are like constituencies. Large, highly trafficked websites, like Boing Boing, tend to be heard first where smaller, non-specialist websites are relegated to page 10, just as the bankers at J. P. Morgan get private White House audiences when ordinary citizens who want to meet the President have to pay $15.00 to enter a lottery and pray that Sarah Jessica Parker draws their names out of a hat.

But just as little people can gather to make their voices heard on important issues, a multitude of smaller websites can drown out the majors, through links. Eventually, whatever they’re linking to rises to the top of the search result…

…We’re in it because we are offended, because we are committed anti-Communists, committed Czechophiles, and because we hate what Brett Kimberlin and his ilk are doing to this country.

Our only reward is the satisfaction of a job well done, and eventually, an enraged frivolous lawsuit from Brett Kimberlin or VelvetRevolution.US, Inc.

We recognize that this site will live or die, will rise or fall, on its own merits and the quality of its writing. We’re confident in ourselves, and we’re confident in you, our readers. All four of you.

Do it for the Czechs.

Do it to support and protect the freedom to blog.

Go straight to Post

Google moving to complete a comprehensive profile of people that includes searches, information in emails, purchases, basically everything

by John Lott on Thursday, January 26th, 2012

This is article 23 of 45 in the topic Cyber space

Is there anything that Google won’t know about people? Linking what is in your emails to what is in your internet searches and purchases leaves almost nothing that they don’t know. From the Washington Post:

Google said Tuesday it will require users to allow the company to follow their activities across e-mail, search, YouTube and other services, a radical shift in strategy that is expected to invite greater scrutiny of its privacy and competitive practices.

The information will enable Google to develop a fuller picture of how people use its growing empire of Web sites. Consumers will have no choice but to accept the changes.

The policy will take effect March 1 and will also impact Android mobile phone users, who are required to log in to Google accounts when they activate their phones. . . .

A user of Gmail, for instance, may send messages about a private meeting with a colleague and may not want the location of that meeting to be thrown into Google’s massive cauldron of data or used for Google’s maps application. . . .

Google has also faced greater scrutiny that it is using its dominance in online search to favor its other applications. Google’s decision to blend Google+ data into search results has been included into a broad FTC antitrust investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Engineers from Twitter, Facebook and MySpace responded by launching a Web tool that they say shows Google is moving away from its stated mission to be a neutral Web directory.

On the Web site for the plug-in, the engineers wrote that searches for generic terms such as “movies” or “music” prioritize Google+ results over more relevant content.

Here is a nice summary of what Google knows about you. Not only does Google know about what movies you like and what you buy, it also knows this type of information:

You agreed to let Google know about your contacts and mails when you started using Gmail.
You agreed to let Google know about your photos when you started using Picasa.
You agreed to let Google know where you are when you started using Latitude.
You agreed to let Google know what people you interact with and what you are interested in when you started using Google+.
You agreed to let Google store your documents for you when you started using Docs. . . .

Go straight to Post

Editor’s Note of the Day

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, January 19th, 2012

This is article 209 of 576 in the topic Media

This was attached to the end of a nauseating Boston Globe article celebrating the amorous relations between Occupy protesters:

Editor’s note: This story about relationships that began during Occupy Boston featured a man, Robert Stitham, who is a registered sex offender, according to state records. Had his status been discovered during reporting, the story would not have been published.


The Boston Herald called out the Globe for its lazy vetting:

Looks like somebody forgot to Google.

The Monday Boston Globe featured a photo on the front page of its Metro section of a lip-locked couple who “found romance” at Occupy Boston.

“Holding hands outside the food tent before the encampment disbanded,” read the accompanying story, “they were the archetype of an Occupy couple: he, a red-headed Mainer with tattoos on his arms; she, a petite upstate New York girl with a heart-shaped face and a boyish haircut, wearing a knit grandmother sweater three sizes too big.”

Good details — but the story failed to mention one big one: Robert “Red” Stitham, the 25 year-old beau whose relationship with Anya Karasik, 18, is the focus of the piece, is a Level 3 sex offender.

A quick Google search of his name turns up his sex offender notification — complete with his photo — on the website of the police department in Plymouth, where Stitham grew up. A search on the state Sex Offender Registry Board website shows Stitham now lives in a homeless shelter in Boston.

“The Board has determined that these individuals have a high risk to re-offend and that the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active community notification,” the registry site reads.

In 2007, a Barnstable County jury convicted Stitham of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14, and he was sentenced to 18 months with time served, court records state.

Bias? What bias? Congrats, Boston Globe. You get the Honorary Fishwrap of Record Award.

Go straight to Post

My Goodness, Harry Reid’s Unicorns Are Truly Magical!

by Jimmie Bise Jr. on Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

I apologize for the return of Harry Reid’s glowering mug on the front page, but someone delivered a smackdown of Reid’s egregious “unicorn” statement so thorough that it’s worth staring at Reid to get it. You may remember a couple of weeks ago when Senator Reid, who by the way is the third most powerful Democrat in the country, said that millionaires who create jobs are as rare as unicorns. I lit into Reid in this post, but Paul Roderick Gregory took up a handful of facts directly from the government itself, and beat Reid’s “argument” into a thin paste. Here is the beginning of what Gregory found right out in the open.

There are 236,883 tax filers with incomes of a million dollars or more. By Harry Reid’s count, only one percent, or 2,361 of them, are business owners, and a tiny fraction of them create jobs. I do not know what Harry means when he says “a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.” If we let 5 percent represent Harry’s “tiny fraction,” we are left with 118 businesses owners who earn a million or more and create jobs. Yes, they are only slightly less rare than unicorns, if Harry is to be believed.

This leaves 236,765 million-dollar-plus tax payers, most of whom are “hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers” who “don’t create jobs and don’t need tax breaks.”

My Google search for Harry Reid’s quarter million hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers came up empty handed. I could identify at most sixteen thousand “wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers,” not Harry Reid’s quarter million.

Like I said, that was only the beginning. Gregory then looked at how much those millionaire business owners declared and deduced that, for Reid to be correct, all but 118 of the 2,361 would have to run a hundred-million dollar a year business without a single employee.

Well, unicorns are said to be magical creatures, so maybe they’re capable of running businesses that large all by themselves. Perhaps the Republican Party can make a point of asking Senator Reid and his fellow Democrats whether they believe these millionaires are truly legendary creatures or not.

(via Maggie’s Notebook)

Go straight to Post

Charge: Fishwrap of Record virtually outed Sandusky rape victim

by Michelle Malkin on Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

This is article 187 of 576 in the topic Media

Will the New York Times ombudsman respond to this serious charge from a fellow mainstream journalist — or will it be whitewashed away?

David Newhouse, editor of the Patriot-News, has blown the whistle on the Fishwrap of Record’s reckless disclosure of identifying details about one of Penn State accused child predator/rapist Jerry Sandusky’s victims:

The Patriot-News, the newspaper that broke the story of the child sex-abuse case against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, has been careful not to reveal the names of the alleged victims in its reporting.

But David Newhouse, editor of the Patriot-News, is livid that the New York Times revealed too much information about one of the alleged victims in a story last week.

Newhouse says that a Times’ piece (“For a Reported Penn State Victim, a Search for Trust”) written by Nare Schweber and Jo Becker published Wednesday is “so detailed,” a simple Google search of its contents “results in the young man’s name within seconds.”

Newhouse’s open statement is here. A damning indictment:

n Wednesday’s story in The New York Times, for example, a profile entitled “For a Reported Penn State Victim, a Search for Trust,” reporters Nate Schweber and Jo Becker write a profile so detailed that, even though they do not name him, googling certain information in the profile results in the young man’s name within seconds. The Patriot-News has learned that other news organizations, which did not have the young man’s name, have already done so.

Although the Times story has been all over the web, and of course the Times web site draws a huge amount of traffic on its own, we decline to link to it here.

The story quotes his next-door neighbor and names his neighborhood. It describes the detailed circumstances of a car accident which was reported in local papers at the time. It says he liked to wear tie-dyed socks.

None of these details have the slightest to do with why or how the boy was allegedly befriended and then assaulted over several years by Sandusky. They do not serve the story of Jerry Sandusky. They only serve to make an alleged victim of sexual assault easily identifiable.

You could call the anonymity maintained in the story a polite fiction, but there is nothing polite about it.

To be clear, the Times story is not alone. It is just the latest and most prominent example so far of such reporting.

The pledge of most news organizations to withhold the names of sexual assault victims – men and women, children and adults – is not some journalistic game of who can say the most while following some arbitrary rule. Most media have adopted it because, tragically, reporting sexual assaults still carries a stigma. It is no accident that Victim One was only the second boy to come forward to authorities in what is alleged to have been more than 15 years of assaults by Sandusky. Stories like these, if anything, could discourage future victims from speaking up.

Victim One told the grand jury that he had been victimized by Jerry Sandusky.

Click to continue reading “Charge: Fishwrap of Record virtually outed Sandusky rape victim”
Go straight to Post

Obama moves on patent reform to help out Google

by John Lott on Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

Obama is trying to change the patent rules so as to help out his friends over at Google. Here is a useful piece from the WSJ:

Google has come from nowhere to build a dominant position in smartphone software based on tying a free Android to Google search advertising (which is fine) and, arguably, by helping itself to seminal Apple innovations that created today’s smartphone industry (not so fine).

Google’s approach implicitly assumes that nobody has a right to exclude Google from use of their intellectual property. At best, after litigation, they might have a right to be compensated by Google.

But this is not how the patent system is supposed to work. Let us understand that Google’s purchase of Motorola is the purchase of a bargaining asset; it does not automatically put Google in the right. Apple, as a patent holder, has every right to seek to preserve exclusive use of its inventions. In its eBay decision, the Supreme Court allowed that the possibility of “irreparable harm” might justify banning an infringing product outright, equivalent to an ITC import exclusion.

Those given to hyperbole might wonder what could be a clearer example of “irreparable harm” than Google stealing an industry. . . .

Go straight to Post

Dr. Drew on Kenneth Thomas, Mental Health Issues, and the Famous Ephblog Website

by John C. Drew Ph.D. on Sunday, May 15th, 2011

This is article 14 of 259 in the topic Education

While I was teaching at Williams College in MA, two of the 120 professors committed suicide.  I have always wondered if there was something wrong about the school.  The three years I taught there were sort of alarming in that I discovered a lot of hatred expressed against white people and – especially – young white men.  I remember leaving the place in 1989 thinking that it was an unhealthy institution.

In my experience, I think the money and prestige of Williams can also be used to disguise a lot of deviant behavior and mental illness – as long as it is packaged as advanced liberal theory, theory too hard for the rest of us to understand.

To give you just one tiny insight into this institution, I should report that one of its most recent former presidents killed himself by jumping out of a window in 2008.

Harry C. “Hank” Payne, pictured above, jumped from an eighth-floor hotel room in Atlanta, GA.  In my view, the twisted policies of this institution – including its absolutely evil record regarding reverse discimination – imply that any white guy that rose to power in that environment would have to have some serious internal conflicts and perhaps a startling level of self-hatred.

Ironically, I have been thinking about mental illness and Williams College just this week.  I was sort of startled by the hostility I faced at the Ephblog website, which – of course – is unrelated to Williams College itself.  It turns out one of the most visible and famous people attacking me, censoring me and seeking to control my posts was also one of the saddest people imaginable – a failed Ph.D. candidate.

In this regard, I did a little Google search on one of the famous pundits I was debating at Ephblog. It turns out, in real life, the guy’s name is Kenneth Thomas.  He claims he knows me from my teaching days, and I vaguely remember him as an extremely bright but socially isolated, arrogant and emotionally immature kid.  After I left, he apparently left too and ended up in a sort of dude ranch, work camp, isolated boys only school here in California called Deep Springs College.

As far as I can tell, Deep Springs College is more known for the quality of its students than its professors.

It glorifies having the students do farmwork and gardening as a character building enterprise.  (Please…)  To me, it looks more like a mental hospital specializing in occupational therapy than a legitimate college.  It is socially and physically isolated.  It is the perfect place to send a young, irresponsible kid who needs to dry out and take his anti-psychotic meds.  According to their literature, about 1/3 of their students go on to become college professors.  I doubt that is true.  At any rate, I guess that program didn’t work out too well for the troubled young Mr.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Why Fox News viewers are better informed than others

by John Lott on Sunday, December 26th, 2010

A George Soros funded poll is used to claim that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. The report, which doesn’t explain how those who wrote it determined what answers were correct, is available here. The survey is here. And it has gotten incredible news coverage, with a google search of (fox news viewers misinformed “university of maryland”) showing 210,000 hits. I have really only gone over the first four of their claims carefully.

— The poll question was: “Most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created a few jobs or caused job losses.” The way it is phrased in the text regarding Fox News viewers being misinformed: “most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses.” The two statements are obviously not the same.

In any case, the report cites two pieces of evidence to support their opinion. First, is the claim by the CBO about the number of full time-equivalent jobs created. But adding up the number of jobs that the money is spent on is not the same thing as a net increase in jobs. The money has to come from someplace. In addition, the Keynesian notion of multipliers is debatable.

Second, they cite one survey from the WSJ of 54 economists from March 2010 to support their claim that most economists believe that the stimulus was helpful, though even these economists said that about a million jobs had been “created or saved,” not the several million claimed. But they ignore other surveys. Here are the results from a more recent survey of 68 economists: 73 percent of National Association for Business Economics respondents thought that the stimulus had no impact of the recovery.
Would Unemployment Really Have Been Worse Without the Stimulus?
The Worst Recovery on Record

— “Among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, more think it will increase the deficit”
The CBO initially estimated that Obamacare would run a $124 billion surplus, and this is what the reports cites on page 6. But just two readjustments by the CBO and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the health care bill passed added $149 billion to estimated spending and eliminated the predicted surplus.
“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded in April that Democrats double-counted projected Medicare spending cuts as savings and for helping ease existing financial strains on the Medicare system. It can’t do both. Correcting this accounting gimmick adds $89 billion to government medical costs over the next decade.”
“the Congressional Budget Office finally got around to answering a question posed by California Rep. Jerry Lewis, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, about discretionary health care spending. It turns out that under the new law, discretionary spending will be more than twice as much as originally estimated by CBO.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin