Report: Liberal News Outlets Dominate Google Search Results with 96 Percent of ‘Trump’ Stories

by Jack Davis


New evidence that technology’s giants are muzzling conservatives has emerged after the web site PJ Media wanted to find out if Google did in fact lurch to the left when users wanted the latest information on President Donald Trump.

Writer Paula Bolyard on Saturday reported on the results of her experiment, which the site was fully upfront about admitting was not scientific.

The headline of her article said it all: “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”

The concept was simple. Bolyard typed “Trump” using Google’s “News” tab and let Google do the rest. “I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets,” she wrote, noting that no single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results, and that CNN, dubbed by Trump as “Fake News” for its coverage of him, is far and away the leading site listed

She then looked at the first 100 items, and the trend continued. There were 21 articles from CNN, 11 each from The Washington Post and NBC, and 8 from CNBC. Other sites at the top of the list included The New York Times, Atlantic, Politico, Vox, CBS and the Wall Street Journal.

Fox News was listed twice.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said that tech giants are trying to influence the midterm elections.

“This is their great offensive to try to silence differing opinion,” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends,” Fox News reported. “And make no mistake, it’s not because the conservative voices are offensive. It’s because they are effective.”

Kirk said conservatives must fight the tech giants.

“We need to push back because it could be a huge, huge problem moving forward,” he said.

“The very bottom line is the left hates the idea that there are other ideas. And they control these public forums or these vehicles of conversation. They’re going to use every piece of power and influence they can to try to suppress our voice. And we cannot stand for it,” he added.

Bolward was hardly the first to suggest that Google buries the right while promoting the left.

A 2017 study by the website “Can I Rank” said that the bias in Google was clear.

“Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results,” the study said.

“Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint,” it added.

Google denies doing anything to skew the results.

“Google does not manipulate results,” said Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels. “There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results.”

Bolyard’s conclusion was that Americans need to be aware that their searches are being manipulated.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability —  and perhaps even desire — to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image,” she wrote.




Report: Comey Misled Congress. His FBI Examined Less Than 1% of Hillary Emails

by Cillian Zeal


When he appeared before Congress to explain his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, former FBI Director James Comey assured America that his wizards had worked day and night to make sure that most of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop had been scrutinized before Election Day to make sure voters knew the facts.

“And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails, they found classified information on Anthony Weiner,” Comey said.

“Somehow, her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we’ve only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.”

And so they found that most of it was “duplicates” and nothing new was being found. He assured us all that he had “reviewed all of the communications” and everything was kosher. Or as kosher as it was in the summer, when it wasn’t terribly kosher but you know, whatever. Case closed, right?

Well, not so much. On Thursday, RealClearInvestigations published a piece which revealed “virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.”

I mean, that could be said about so much that’s Comey-related, but this is particularly interesting.

So, firstly, as for that wizardry stuff: “a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.” That’s less than 1 percent.

Or that whole thing about them working shifts like Bullitt protecting Johnny Ross: “Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

The day before? That’s not coincidental at all. It’s almost as if they were rushing to reach a predetermined conclusion which would never happen because James Comey is a man of honor.

“Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” that had been examined in the case which had originally “exonerated” Clinton, an official with knowledge of the investigation said.

“Yet even the ‘extremely narrow’ search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said,” RealClearInvestigations revealed.

“Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.”

It’s almost like Comey was convinced Hillary would win and didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize it. But it’s not like an FBI official would do something because he was convinced someone would win. No one of his stature would do that, though, right?

“Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated ‘damage assessment’ directive,” RCI noted.

“The newly discovered classified material ‘was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review,’ the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

“Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day,” they noted. “One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to ‘bury’ the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.”

There’s a long list of Comey mistakes in RCI’s investigation, and it’s worth pointing out that RCI is one of the more objective sources that there is. What they point out is that Comey either misled Congress about the extent of the problem, was misled by his own staff or outright lied.

This appears to come dangerously close to perjury, considering what we now know about the matter. What they did was simply disregard the investigation because they wanted it closed before the election, lest they be accused of negatively affecting Clinton’s chances for election.

Whoops.



BIill Clinton's Loving Wife

by Dick Morris

 

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary's background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone.  I offer a few corrections.
 
Bill says:  "In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor."

Facts are:  Hillary's main extra-curricular activity in ' Law School ' was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a 'Federal Agent.'  She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a Children's rights project for poor kids.
 
Facts are:  Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party.  She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him

Bill says:  "Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers."
 
Facts are:  She flunked the D.C. bar exam, 'Yes', flunked it, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar.  She had no job offers in Arkansas , 'None', and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there.  She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
 
Bill says:  "President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman."
 
Facts are:  The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy.  Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.
 
Bill says:  "She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital."
 
Facts are: Yes she did.  But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, for a substantial fee.  She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance."
 
Facts are:  Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP.  It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott.  I know; I helped to negotiate the deal.  The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco settlement.  Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says:  "Hillary was the face of America all over the World." (LOL)
 
Facts are:  Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House.  Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
 
Bill says:  "Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for Children's and Women's issues."
 
Facts are:  Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation.  One set up a national park in Puerto Rico .  A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer's or other conditions.  And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire N.Y. delegation.  Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize Woodstock .

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our Country (that's you and me) when it comes to the 'War on Terror'.
 
1.  She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
 
2.  She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA .
 
3.  She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
 
4.  She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA .

5.  She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the Military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.
 
One cannot think of a single 'Bill', Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our Country in the 'War on Terror'.  But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our Country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.  Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
 
Share this with everyone you know, ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong.  Think about it - he's (Dick Morris) said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he'd be liable for 'Defamation of Character' !
 
And you better believe Hillary would sue him. Her winning in 2020 means the final death knell for America!  Her whole public life has been a LIE.
 

 


Dick Morris was a former political advisor to President Bill Clinton







Senate Intel Chair Reprimands Brennan, Provides Cover for Trump Stripping Sec. Clearance

by Randy DeSoto


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sharply rebuked former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday for his allegation in an Op-Ed this week that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential race.

Burr further contended that if Brennan’s claim is purely political with no facts to support it, President Donald Trump was completely justified in pulling his security clearance.

On Wednesday, the White House announced it was revoking the former Obama administration official’s clearance explaining, “Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Brennan responded in an Op-Ed in The New York Times the following day titled, “President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash.”

The piece is subtitled, “That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him.”

Brennan pointed to Trump’s public call in the summer of 2016 for Russia to find his rival Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails as an indication collusion occurred between the GOP candidate’s campaign and Moscow. The former CIA head further contended that if Trump was willing to make such a public call, the question is what was happening privately.
“While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services,” Brennan wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash,” he then proclaimed.

Brennan concluded his piece with an accusation that Trump’s decision to pull his security clearance was “politically motivated” to protect himself.

“Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else,” he argued, “so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve.” [Or to continue his assault on windmills in the finest tradition of Don Quixote - Ed]

Burr issued a statement in response to Brennan’s Op-Ed noting that the former CIA director included no firm evidence of collusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in early 2017.
“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power,” Burr said. “If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?”

Burr observed that if Brennan’s assertion is based on information he has received since leaving office, publicizing it constitutes a breach of intelligence.  Further, “If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.”

The North Carolina senator then turned to the other alternative: Brennan’s allegation is purely a political attack.

“If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch.”




Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."