Google’s Biased Search Engine Exposed – Can They Be Trusted Anymore? - By Martin Armstrong

Hillary Clinton’s ties to Google, CNN, PBS, and The New York Times illustrate the conspiracy among these organization who tried to help Hillary be crowned leader of the free world. New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has admitted that his paper was unconstitutionally biased and disgraced the very principle of the First Amendment.

Sulzberger admits the paper was biased by saying they underestimated Donald Trump’s support among American voters. He then claimed they would “rededicate ourselves” to the newspaper’s standards of “honestly” reporting the news. At least he admitted they were rigging the game.

A new study has been released on Google and the rumors that they skewed their search engine to support Hillary. They reported: “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.”

https://youtu.be/PFxFRqNmXKg

Of course, these stories of Google manipulating search returns to support Hillary have been all over the internet. Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt was forced to come out and state publicly that Google will not endorse Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump for president given all the allegations. Schmidt stated, “We have not taken a position on the American election and nor do I expect us to.” 

Eric Schmidt worked with a technology focus to help the Clinton campaign. He is also an adviser to the Pentagon. He is linked to government and appears to have manipulated the Google search engine to benefit Hillary. The video itself is a very interesting example comparing Google, Yahoo, and Bing. There was obviously something serious wrong with the Google search engine when they typed in Hillary.

Google has called its integrity into question and one must ask what is going on here. If I were Trump, I would immediately propose legislation to make this a crime. If anyone in such a position deliberately attempts to manipulate the people, it should be life in prison, or death — their choice. Those who work for Google must be shocked to have the integrity of who they work for questioned in such a manner. Perhaps we need an another Snowden to emerge from Google to show how dangerous this can be.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/martin-armstrong/googles-biased-search-engine-exposed/

Vox Popoli: A tale of two Pizzagates - In case you didn't understand how important INFOGALACTIC is already proving to be, compared to WIKIPEDIA

A tale of two Pizzagates

In case you didn't understand how important Infogalactic is already proving to be, given the online war to control the information you are permitted to access, this should suffice to demonstrate as much.

WIKIPEDIA:

Pizzagate may refer to:

Pizzagate, pizza thrown at former football manager and player Sir Alex Ferguson by an Arsenal Football Club player in the 2004 "Battle of the Buffet"
Pizzagate, a 2016 conspiracy theory falsely claiming the existence of a child trafficking ring involving the Washington, D.C. restaurant Comet Ping Pong


INFOGALACTIC:

Pizzagate is a crowdsourced investigation by citizen journalists into an alleged connection between child trafficking and people closely associated with Hillary Clinton. The investigation began in October 2016 after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails, which contain 58,660 emails[1] from the Gmail account of John Podesta, who was the chairman of Clinton's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Investigators exchanged information online via Twitter, Gab, 4chan, Reddit, and Voat.[2][3]

It's not Infogalactic's purpose to take sides on anything. Indeed, its objective is quite the opposite, which is to permit the user to dictate the perspective filter through which he wishes to view the known facts. Wikipedia, obviously, takes a very different stance.

Notice how Wikipedia's 526 thought police are not providing accurate information relevant to the subject, but are instead aggressively acting as gatekeepers in precisely the same manner as the corrupt media they declare to be the only reliable sources acceptable. It's a bit ironic, too, that it is the wealthy foundation with more than $70 million in annual revenue has a giant banner stretched across the page demanding more donations, not the shoe-string startup.

We're getting close to addressing our primary issue as the initial round of speedups should be in place well before the end of the month. If you would like help us provide the world with a more accurate and less biased planetary knowledge core that is free of SJW corruption, you can join the Burn Unit or make a one-time donation towards the ongoing Phase Two development here.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-tale-of-two-pizzagates.html?m=1

How Trump Could Ruin His Presidency - by Ann Coulter

Soon after Trump’s announcement speech, I said he would win the nomination and likely the election. It wasn’t that hard to predict. For anyone familiar with the Republican Party’s repeated betrayals of the American people, it was a 2-foot putt.

I issue this warning with the same certitude — in fact, for the exact same reason I knew anyone running on Trump’s platform would have unbreakable support from millions of voters.

What coalesced Trump’s base, what made his support tempered steel, was the fact that voters had been lied to, over and over again — on many things, but most smugly and repeatedly on immigration.

How many times did we have to see the GOP choke? There’s 30 seconds left in the game, Republicans are down by two, they move the ball up the court, have a man in position — and, every time, the GOP would do anything to avoid taking the 3-point shot.

That is the beating heart of the anger that voters felt toward the party. No one trusted Republicans to ever score when they had the ball.

It’s why Trump’s supporters stuck with him through thick and thin — his attack on war hero John McCain (he deserved it), his mocking a disabled reporter (a lie), his lazy first debate performance (totally true) and the “Access Hollywood” tape (oh well).

After he gave that Mexican rapists speech, and never backed down, Trump’s base would have brushed off six more “Access Hollywood” tapes. All because they think Trump will take the shot.

He’d better! As the popular vote proves, we don’t have 30 seconds on the clock. It’s only three.

But if he breaks a major campaign promise, his supporters will turn on him with a blind ferocity, dwarfing their rage toward Jeb! because Trump’s is the more exquisite con. He will have duped them. And he will never, ever, ever get them back.

Most of his promises can be kept with little trouble: He will appoint good judges, cut regulations, replace Obamacare and renegotiate trade deals. In other words, he’ll do all the things any Republican president would do — plus the trade deals.

But the moment Trump attempts to make good on his central promise — to remove troublesome immigrants and give us our country back — every major institution in America will declare war on him.

Trump knows that. In his Phoenix immigration speech, he said: “To all the politicians, donors and special interests, hear these words from me and all of you today. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.”

If powerful interests were not furiously opposed to Trump’s idea that immigration should benefit Americans, rather than foreigners, our immigration policies would already do so.

It will surprise consumers of American media to learn this, but every promise Trump made on immigration is already the law. Why? Because politicians know that’s what the public wants. So they pass the laws — and then refuse to enforce them.

But if Trump doesn’t appoint the sort of people capable of fulfilling his campaign promises on immigration, he will fail. He’ll be just another lying politician, and his supporters will watch in horror as rapists, terrorists and drug dealers continue living in our country.

There will be no one person to blame. No one is ever to blame in Washington. They just won’t get it done.

Then, well into the Trump presidency, some Muslim will commit a machete attack, shoot up a community center, stage a mass slaughter at a gay nightclub or bomb a marathon. There’s no question but that the terrorist attacks won’t stop — unless Trump nominates people who know what needs to be done and aren’t intimidated by testy New York Times editorials.

There will be more Americans like Kate Steinle, Grant Ronnebeck and Joshua Wilkerson killed by illegal aliens. There will be more children addicted to heroin brought in by Mexican drug cartels. There will be more parents joining the Remembrance Project.

But this time, they’ll blame Trump.

And then it will be Trump’s opponents saying, “What is wrong with our politicians, our leaders — if we can call them that. What the hell are we doing?”

If Trump betrays voters on immigration, he can have as many rallies as he wants, but Americans will say, Been there, done that — you screwed us.He will never escape the stink of broken campaign promises.

So unless Trump has another 60 million voters hiding someplace, the appointments he makes today — to State, Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, even the IRS — will determine whether he is remembered as America’s greatest president, or if the Trump name becomes a cautionary tale in American politics.

At this precise moment — not after his inauguration, not in year two of his administration, but today, as he fills his Cabinet — Trump has to decide if he’s going to be like every other Republican and throw a brick or grab the ball and score.

Whether he’s listening or not, his supporters are screaming: TRUMP! NOW! TAKE THE SHOT!!!

http://humanevents.com/2016/12/01/how-trump-could-ruin-his-presidency/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Self-Driving Catch-22 - by Eric Peters

There are laws in many states forbidding “distracted” driving – but what about the laws that encourage it?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has given GM – and presumably, other car companies, too – the go ahead to offer cars that can drive themselves for extended periods while the “driver” doesn’t.

GM’s system – marketed as SuperCruise – will be available next year in certain Cadillac models, including the CT6 sedan. It’s an advanced form of adaptive or “intelligent” cruise control that steers the car as well as maintains speed – accelerating and braking as needed with the ebb and flow of traffic, no input required from the “driver.”super-snnoze

Who can distract himself with other things.

Which is, of course, the only reason for bothering with this technology. The “driver” doesn’t have to. He can nod off. Text. Space out. Have a chat with his passengers. Maybe watch a YouTube video. That’s the sell.

Ok, great!

But if the person behind the wheel (assuming there’s still a wheel) is also still expected to pay attention to the road and be ready to step in as the driver, it kind of defeats the point – doesn’t it?

But that is precisely what is expected. 

It’s a hilarious juxtaposition, given the endless lecturing about “safety” emanating from NHTSA – the federal busybody-at-gunpoint agency that, somehow, acquired a parental interest (and parental rights) in every adult American.

Naturally, GM’s SuperCruise is fitted with a bevy of bells and whistles that are supposed to rouse the asleep-at-the-wheel “driver” when it becomes necessary for him to … drive. If the “driver” doesn’t wake up – perhaps he is sleeping too soundly and fails to notice the bells and whistles – the car will automatically turn on its emergency blinkers and slow itself down.


Super Cruise, GM’s semi-automated driving technology, will come to market in a new 2017 Cadillac vehicle.

This will probably not be much help if a split-second intervention becomes necessary. As, for example, when a self-driving Tesla drove itself broadside into a big rig that had unexpectedly turned in its path. Which the Tesla’s “driver” didn’t notice in time.

And there, as the saying goes, is the rub.

A driver either is – or he isn’t.

There is no in-between.

It is not a part-time job.

To whatever extent a car drives itself, the driver is necessarily less involved. Less is expected of him. He is encouraged to be passive, inattentive.

To let the car handle things. 

This has been in process for a long time. Anti-lock brakes, for instance. They have been standard in pretty much all cars built since the late 1990s. Before ABS, drivers learned to fear skids – and loss of control. They tended to maintain a safe following distance, the motivation being that if you didn’t and the car up ahead slowed unexpectedly and suddenly, it was probable that you’d skid right into his trunk.

With ABS, people know the car won’t skid – and so tend to tailgate more than they used to and to drive not so much aggressively (a smear word used to bunch fast drivers who can drive in with reckless drivers, who can’t) as they do foolishly. See, for instance, all the jacked-up 4×4 SUVs in the ditch after a snowstorm. They over-drive the physics of traction, expecting the ABS (and traction control, there’s another one) to keep them on the road.

Sometimes, it doesn’t – because technology has its limits, just like human beings.

One of the limits human beings have is reaction time. It takes “x” seconds for a human to notice a change in the driving environment and then react to it. There is a lag even when the human is paying very close attention – for example, a drag racer waiting for the Christmas tree to go green. But reaction times increase when the driver isn’t paying attention.

Imagine our hypothetical drag racer nodding off or texting or fiddling with the stereo’s buttons instead of watching for the green. What do you suppose will happen to his reaction time?

It’s no different on the street.

A driver who has turned over the driving to SuperCruise (or whatever) will by definition be paying less attention, so when something happens that requires his attention, the time it takes for him to become aware of that thing and react to it will necessarily increase. If that thing is something that requires a split-second decision (these things happen out on the road sometimes) the extra second or four it takes for our “driver” to resume the helm may be a second or four too late.

This, arguably, constitutes a threat to the safety of everyone – not just the no-longer-driving “driver.”

Yet NHTSA – Uncle’s “agency” charged with ensuring the “safety” of all us children, who are too weak-brained to know what’s good for us, let alone do it without being prodded – takes no issue with technology that, in a very real sense, is far more a threat to people’s safety than allowing them to disable their mandated-by-government air bags.

If I crash my airbag-defeated car, I harm no one but myself. But if a “driver” who isn’t – because he’s turned the job over to SuperCruise – fails to notice the light up ahead’s gone red and T-bones me because he didn’t take over in time – then I have been hurt by him.self-driving-wreck

More accurately, by Uncle – by NHTSA. Which took the decision to put my “safety” at risk (and yours, too) because the regulatory ayatollahs within have decided it’s ok to do so in order to encourage self-driving car technology, which the regulatory ayatollahs favor.

They do not favor – will not allow – me (or you) to drive around without our seatbelts on, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet – neither thing having any effect on other people, neither thing putting any other person at risk of harm.

But technology that encourages passive/distracted – and delayed reaction – driving?

Sure!ayatollah

The first person whose car gets smashed as a result of this should not only have a tort claim against the “driver” but also against GM and – much more so – NHTSA, which eggs this business on.

But you cannot sue the regulatory ayatollahs (nor the enforcers of their fatwas) personally for the harms they cause. Because of a neat doctrine they invented called sovereign immunity.

That needs to change.

If I can be sued for damages because I nodded off at the wheel and my car plows into a minivan carrying a bunch of kids, why, pray, should the non-driver of a self-driving minivan who fails to react in time and plows into me be immune from the same sort of liability?

Why shouldn’t the company that made such a car be liable? How about the regulatory ayatollahs who encouraged the technology? Who consciously chose to put our lives at risk for the sake of their agenda?

And they ask me why I drink… .

If you have had it with control freak Clovers, Goo-guhl, diversity mongers and like contrarian, liberty-minded media, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depends on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos

721 Hummingbird Lane SE

Copper Hill, VA 24079

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/11/30/self-driving-catch-22/

Time to Say Goodbye… – The Burning Platform - Commentary by Francis Marion on what's happening in the US and Canada

How my wife’s liberal friends see me. Deplorable.

A few months ago my wife and I made a trip into the city from our small rural community for an evening of dining and visiting with some of her old childhood friends. We started our date with just the two of us at a well known vegetarian restaurant. Later we met up with the rest of the crew at a local park near the beach to watch some skits and some dancing while the sun went down over English Bay. It was a beautiful sunset in an amazing setting.

While we’re sitting and chatting in the bleachers of the small amphitheatre my wife’s friend asks us at which restaurant we ate. We told her and with a raised eyebrow she replies: “Really, Francis actually ate in a vegetarian restaurant? Wow. That must have been quite an experience for you!”

I guess I don’t have a reputation amongst her city dwelling friends as being very cultured. But the truth is I like lots of things that aren’t redneck staples. Even vegetarian and vegan food. Hell, I just like to eat and so long as it’s quality it doesn’t much matter to me whether there’s meat on the plate or not. At the end of the meal I am concerned with three things: did I get enough, was it prepared properly and was the service more than adequate? Simple.

But that off the cuff comment set the tone for the evening and it was obvious by the end of it, that with the exception of chit chat about the old days, that I didn’t have much to say to these folks nor they to me. Not that they’re bad people but from my perspective their lives are narrow, kinda fake and frankly, completely out of touch with reality. They rarely leave the city unless it is to hop on a plane to another country or another major metropolitan area and in all the years that we have lived a short one and a half hour drive down the road from them they have never come to visit that I can recall. In fact, when we see them in the city (for me no more than once every two or three years now) the conversation inevitably ends up with them wondering how we can live so “remotely”. We’re an hour and half drive from the city for Pete’s sake. And they figure that’s remote?

What I came to realize from the visit that evening and from others in the past is that our nations have truly begun to polarize themselves culturally along geopolitical lines. We have become nations divided. And it’s not something that’s likely to change. Ever.

Indeed, where there is heavy urban population the social and political culture is highly liberal. In the hinterlands where there is no economy to speak of and the government is the primary employer, well, guess who gets the votes?

2016 Election Results By County

2015 Election Results by Riding (Blue Conservative/Red Liberal/Yellow NDP [socialist])

This is a pattern that has been repeating itself with more and more frequency all cross the western world over a period of decades. The liberals and the elites that grow up around these patterns of ‘decadence and dependency’ are a different breed than those of use from the conservative and normally productive heartlands of our nations. Indeed, I wonder, what do people like this, a product of liberal moral nihilism living in a densely populated urban enclave have in common with the rest of us these days? And they have the nerve to call those of us in flyover country “deplorable”?

Now that’s not to say that there aren’t exceptions to all these patterns, of course there are, but as a rule of thumb the trend has been one of division and distancing ourselves from one another along the lines of both philosophy and geography for at least the last 50 years or more. The last two elections, both south and north of the 49th parallel, prove it.

And as time goes on we are beginning to see just how deep those geographical and cultural divisions truly are. Makes you sort of wonder: Why are we fighting it? Maybe, like a marriage gone sideways, it’s time to admit that we’d be better off living separately than together. Maybe it’s time to say farewell? As a person with a family living in the toe of the conservative heartland of Canada I can tell you I think our posterity would be better off for it.

Moreover, I think the time is approaching when we will have to address this issue one way or the other whether we want to or not. It would be nice to think we can do it peacefully and in a civilized manner. But as the links above show, I’m not real clear on just how civilized the guys on team liberal can act. Frankly, I’m unclear as to whether or not the word is even in their vocabulary. I suppose time will tell.

But whether we want to address it or not the reality is our societies are evenly and very clearly divided. The purpose of elections has now become a contest to see which political ideology can wield the hammer of state so that it can subjugate one side to the other. So perhaps instead of spending the next four to eight years in both countries trying to shore up our defenses so that when the other side wins back the hammer it is harder for them to beat us with it maybe we should just start drawing up the framework to go our separate ways? From my perspective, particularly in the US at this stage, it is better for conservatives of all stripes to begin this dialogue from a position of political power. Not because you wield the hammer of state but because the dialogue right now can be viewed as more honest. Under the current circumstances you can’t be accused of leaving because you are a ‘sore loser’ and in the case of those liberal enclaves who might like to leave you can even appear magnanimous.

On the North side of the line separatist movements are nothing new in either the East or the West. For Canada, our status as a nation has been tenuous for a very long time, with the West occasionally grumbling about leaving on and off since the 80’s and in the East where Quebec nearly made it a reality. Truthfully, many of us wish they’d been successful.

Of course the other option is we can keep doing the same thing over and over again and hope for better results. But we all know how that story ends now, don’t we?

At any rate, these two say it better than I can: https://youtu.be/4L_yCwFD6Jo

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/11/30/time-to-say-goodbye/#more-137349

How to get 'higher education' without getting a college degree - By Mike VanOuse

Although I don't have a college degree, I did attend college for a couple years.  An associate's degree in machine tool technology was requisite for an experimental position at my workplace.  Halfway through my schooling, the experiment fizzled, and with that, my academic career.  Although I was working at the factory seven days a week and teaching the Bible twice a week at one of the bigger churches in town, I maintained a 4.0 GPA.  For contrast, I graduated high school with a 1.75 GPA.

But I was striving for a position, not a piece of paper.  When the position evaporated, so did my academic stint.

AT carried an article on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, titled, "The Decline and Fall of Higher Education," by Michael Thau, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy for 13 years, in which he lamented both what college students are not learning and what they are learning: poor work ethic, low goals, and prioritizing partying over performance.

Anyone can throw rocks at what academia is producing.  It bears weight when the hurler is an academic.  It's an excellent read.

I love reading American Thinker. I strongly suspect that I get more education here than I did while in college – or at least the information is more valuable.

I'd like to compare the GDP of academia to the GDP of the blue-collar arena.  The orchestrators in academia are the faculty.  They set the standards.  In the sweaty-stinky world, the standards are set by the parents, foremen (managers), and commanders (military).

My manager at the factory is an excellent example of doing it right.  He falls into that rare category of managers who, even though they invest 60-plus hours a week doing their job, spend their off-time coaching their kids' softball/football/soccer/etc. team.  Sports coaches understand congenitally that success requires excellence.

As an average public school graduate, you discover pretty soon in the working world that you can clock in, blend in, and clock out, with little effort expended, and receive a paycheck every week.  Technically, that's all that can be expected of you.  Managers who have a coaching background are never satisfied with that type of performance. 

You can't win with that type of ethic, and if that's what you embrace, you are, by default, a loser.  "Not on my watch," says the coach.

Here's a supplementary example from the military: when I was a 19-year-old infantryman, my first sergeant was Myron Kindrick – a feisty Irishman.  I'll never forget his name.  One day, he announced to the company that in anticipation of a forthcoming physical-fitness test, anyone who could not do 50 push-ups, do 50 sit-ups and run 2 miles in under 15 minutes would be placed on "remedial P.T." (physical fitness training after duty hours).

A lone voice sounded out from the formation, crying, "You can't do that, First Sergeant!"

Snapping his glare to the protester, 1SG Kindrick retorted, "I can't do what?"

"Army standards dictate that we're only required to do 40 push-ups, do 40 sit-ups, and run 2 miles in 17 minutes," replied the protester.

"You're absolutely correct, young man!" the 1SG replied.  "Those are the Army's minimum standards, and I cannot set standards below them.  But this is not – and as long as I'm in charge, never will be – a 'minimum standards' outfit."

When the substandard performers had to stay after duty to do P.T., the instructor was 1SG Kindrick.  He'd placed himself on extra duty even though he consistently maxed out the P.T. standards.

I'm 53 now.  That was 34 years ago.  To this day, I cannot bring myself to perform at minimum standards in any arena.  It's unconscionable.  Rock on, 1SG.  Put me in, coach.  I'll perform.

Contrast that perspective with the academic diorama laid out by Dr. Thau's description of low standards and minimum performance.  How did I go from a 1.75 GPA in high school to a 4.0 in college?  You tell me: who truly got the "higher education"?

Mike VanOuse is a Factoryjack (one who works in a factory) from Indiana, right across the river from Purdue University.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/how_to_get_higher_education_without_getting_a_college_degree.html#ixzz4RcI4InUF

The Left is beginning to hyperventilate about the possibility of another American civil war - with comment by Vox Day

Incoming: Round Two

The Left is beginning to hyperventilate about the possibility of another American civil war:

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has collected data on how many Americans think "most people can be trusted." A guy named Josh Morgan graphed it, and while the south has always taken a more "we don't like your kind 'round here" position, most of America started the 70s in a pretty good place:

Now fast-forward to 2012:

"Trust" isn't just an intangible concept when we're talking about the potential for civil warfare. Sinisa Malesevic is a professor who studies the sociology of civil wars and a survivor of the Yugoslavian civil war. He's someone Marvel really should've reached out to for script advice, and he noted the breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, "... in a very short period of time, there is a complete sense of fear, you do not know who is who, who is supporting which side ... that fear spreads."

Sinisa also pointed out that most civil wars start after a loss of trust in the government, particularly law enforcement: "One of the defining features of any state is a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence." In other words, if we trust the police to handle bad guys better than armed groups of vigilantes, we'll probably trust the government more than armed groups of insurgents.

"And if police are not seen as doing their job ... I think that certainly has an impact."

Now, what could possibly have changed since 1972? What could possibly have reduced the sense of community, and trust, and unity to the point that the average percentage of people who believe "most people can be trusted" has fallen from 46.2 percent to 32.4 percent.

Could it, perhaps, be the alteration of the country's population demographic by the largest invasion in human history?

It might make Cracked feel better to know that their reasons for a possible civil war are largely irrelevant. It probably won't make them feel better to be informed that there are much better reasons for a civil war to be almost inevitable at this point.

As I noted previously, Peter Turchin and his team have calculated that the Population Stress Index is already at 1856 levels. While there is no definite trigger point, the USA is already well within the range that civil wars happen. And since the USA is not even a reasonable approximation of a genuine nation anymore, Round Two promises to be considerably less civil than its predecessor.

Donald Trump and the Alt-Right are very likely the last hope for avoiding the balkanization and break-up of the USA. Regardless of what you think of either, you would be wise to support both if you wish there to be domestic peace on the North American continent.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/incoming-round-two.html?m=1