Grinches Stealing Christmas And Elections

Grinch-animation-magazineA.O.B. First

I’ll open with an update for last week’s post: the day after it went up, probably later the same day, I learned that the same Democrats who were all for invading Libya and running away while anarchy filled the vacuum of power are attacking President Trump for leaving Syria. Moreover, they can’t get their message straight with hardened Lefty anti-Trump ideologue Chris Matthews actually taking Trump’s side. It’s weird to see Matthews side with Trump against Republicans and the Democratic establishment, but there you go.

Onward And Backward

Russian Bots! Russian Bots! Russian Bots! The whole thing is rigged, except when Democrats win. But Russia and as you’ll read soon are apparently the only groups that have now or ever tried to rig elections in this country.

No one will believe some of the midterm races anymore than Democrats believe Trump won fair and square. Even Democrats are now admitting voter fraud is possible, when before we had an ironclad foolproof supersystem that was impossible for anyone to abuse (except Russian hackers) according to them. They told us that all attempts at Voter ID laws, purging dead people and people who don’t vote from voter rolls, and attempts to curb voter fraud were unnecessary. Worse still, Democrats invented nefarious motives for voter laws- racism. The claim from Democrats was that since minorities have no form of I.D. and are so ignorant that they were incapable of obtaining them, stronger voting protections would oppress these groups.

But Democrats have changed their tune, once they found an incident they could pin on Republicans. Apparently someone in North Carolina for an utterly irrelevant Congressional seat decided to screw around (no offense to folks in that area, it’s just that I don’t understand why Republicans would participate in fraud for such a small gain given the losses they had, better to lose but keep your dignity right? It’s not like a major Congressional leader was going to be ousted or this was the district that’d determine control of the House). An outside contractor decided to collect absentee ballots, and a few of them went missing. It just happens that collecting them was illegal and this contractor was tied pretty well to the Republicans. There were also fraudulent activity that the Democratic candidate himself reported. Well, silver lining, at least Democrats now acknowledge voter fraud happens. They might re-do the election, but that won’t be decided until January.

Down 95 A Ways

Failed liberal Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is trying to say that their must be fraud because she lost.


Stacey Abrams, image from the Weekly Standard

She made an interesting point, yet Democrats fought tooth and claw against any reform efforts. As established above, these are all racist and evil. She also mentions the “handwriting police”. So I guess if someone made an X voting in my name, Abrams wants there to be nothing stopping that vote for counting. Speaking of which, my vote was not counted. Oh I mailed it in plenty of time, but they claim they received it 3 days too late. Maybe Democrats in my home state suppressed my vote? Abrams certainly would agree if my vote had been for Democrats, and I’m sure the liberal gubernatorial candidate in Florida who says every vote must count would have said the same thing for my vote had it been for a Democrat.

Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown said it best- if Democrats lose then Republicans stole the election, meaning there is no legitimate way Republicans win any elections.

At The Bottom Of 95

I’m sure you’ve heard by now about Florida, mostly since I wrote about it. In summary: an election board member with a court-ruling against her about her inability to handle voting in a situation where her alleged incompetence helped an establishment Democrat win is found to have messed up again. Ballots mishandled, probably illegally, and of course magically appearing like an early Christmas miracle with the results pushing the Democrat closer to victory. We have a witness saying Democrats were altering ballots. Nothing suspicious there, but the Left went nuts over North Carolina while being dismissive of Florida.


While searching for data on this topic, I found a point I’d like to address. Let me just point out that the “Intelligencer” is lacking in its titular boast, chiding Republicans for spinning a poor election showing when that’s everything NYMag has ever done for Democratic races. I assure you, reading gossip columns like New York Magazine does NOT lead to more intelligence, except perhaps better reading skills and a broadened vocabulary.


I believe everything New York Magazine says.

At the link above you’ll notice that liberal NYMag is accusing Republicans of inventing fake voter fraud to cover election losses in California. Republicans already have a snowball’s chance in South Town of winning an election in California outside a handful of bizarre districts, so why the NYMag turns keeping California into a boast about how great Democrats did is a little beyond my intelligence. NYMag attacks in particular a line from a Republican party official about it being fishy that their candidate lost despite a 14-point lead (according to polling on election day). Democrats believe that Russia literally changed the vote count to let Trump win and absolutely believe his win was not above-board, in part because Hillary was always up in the polls, so surely NYMag can understand the shoe being on the other foot, if their “Intelligencer” section were to live up to the title.

As to suspicions of voter fraud in California and the characterization that Republicans just want to make voting as hard a possible for people, there’s a good reason for that. They’re letting illegal immigrants vote in elections, legitimately, brazenly and openly. As opposed to their methods of letting illegals vote wherein they simply issue them driver’s licenses and pretend that those aren’t used to obtain ballots. There’s a 46% chance that anyone who professes that the system is safe is someone who already believes illegals should be allowed to vote (and a 100% chance that someone in that other 54% would believe the people professing it to be safe), so you can’t really believe it anymore than you could believe a wolf with bloody feathers covering it when it says all your chickens are safe

Historical Context

Stealing elections is nothing new for Democrats. Because variety is the spice of life, let’s go to bullet points:

  • Boss Tweed. Democrat notorious for voter fraud in the 19th century.
  • Democrat Lyndon Johnson won in Texas, in alphabetical order even!
  • And no, the alleged migration of the 60s where the Left alleges all the racists and presumably vote-riggers left the party didn’t purge the Democrats’ pure ranks of this disease: disgraced sexual harasser Al Franken won his Senate seat in the first place because of 312 fraudulent votes (over a thousand felons voted when they should not have, and thanks to Minnesota law they could just claim they didn’t know any better and avoid prosecution, much like I’d imagine San Francisco’s standards for illegals voting would be).

Sure seems to me like voter fraud happens. Let’s look at suppression and intimidation now, since they allege that is what Republicans want to do.

  • Democrats passed laws banning interracial marriages and creating segregation in the late 1800s, and also not an insignificant number of laws stopping blacks from voting. This was after Democrats fought a war to keep slavery intact (among other things, a bone for those who have read Jefferson Davis’ book “A Short History of the Confederate States of America” and think Lincoln/the Union were jerks) which as you can imagine suppressed the democratic process among the African-American population.
  • The 1900s weren’t any better in the Democrat-controlled Deep South.
  • The Ku Klux Klan gets its own mention here- it was a group of Democrats (née Confederates) created to stop blacks from having rights, such as the right to vote. It came back in the 1910s in-part to do the same, with a highly praised (allegedly from Democrat, segregationist, and MODERN Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson) pro-KKK propaganda film inspiring the resurgence’s founder.

A bit more contemporary, after the alleged party switch I like mentioning never happened (also, why would it not have happened earlier, since even though Democrats were suppressing black voters we saw the black community voting heavily Democrat for 20 years before the alleged switch), we have:

  • Huffington Post talks about Democrats suppressing their own voters in 2016
  • CNN admits that Democrats are more than happy to engage in voter suppression, right now as you read this, two years after the alleged “Russian hacking”, wherein we are told Russia essentially did the job of a journalist in lieu of the “real” journalists (who were and are basically unpaid advertisers for the DNC, something else the emails showed) by exposing to the public how the Democrats rigged the system.
  • Black Panthers intimidating voters (DOJ dropped it because they didn’t want to sue black people, as they phrased it, Federal Court found Obama appointees messed with it, Obama himself knew the defendants’ leadership and probably had one in the White House). And the Black Panthers did not stop.

So they went from oppressing physical minorities to oppressing ideological minorities… and any physical/sexual minorities that disagree with them.

From The Other Side


He looks creepy. Image from wikimedia commons

Ever read what Democratic Representative John Yarmuth (KY) proposed? He wanted the government to be able to pick the candidates. His proposition was that the only funding for any federal-level campaigns (House, Senate, President) would come from the government. That means the government would pick who gets to run, and who doesn’t. If you can’t steal the votes, steal the candidate. In Khrushchev Remembers, we learned from him that the Soviets had a system very much like this, where the NKVD (the secret police who had a sloped basement so they could easily hose off the blood from the people they shot) always had pre-approved the candidates running for leadership positions.

And if you can’t steal the candidate, steal the district. I of course mean gerrymandering. Democrats routinely badger Republicans over doing this, but in Maryland we have Democrats going to the Supreme Court to defend THEIR gerrymandering practices.

What Else Do These Election-Stealing Grinches Want?

Christmas. Duh. Our sticky-bandit friends on the Left aren’t content with taking elections for themselves, it seems they want to take holidays from the Christian community.  We can’t even say “Merry Christmas”, because that is a “racist dog whistle”. Obviously the only things they want celebrated are Democratic victories. Don’t worry, they’re not going to touch other religions… yet.

Merry Melodies

Baby It’s Cold Outsideit’s just some guy saying he likes the girl and wants her to stay. Based on the backlash that allegedly represents the feelings of all women, women don’t want men to express any kind of positive emotion towards them, so here’s what the lyrics should read: “Lady just go outside!”. I won’t lend you a coat, and it’s freezing out there. Sorry, but if I gave you a coat you might accuse me of trying to put a straight-jacket over you so that I could rape you.

So I guess the moral of this uproar is: if you like a girl and want to convince her to stay at your house longer because you’re both having a good time, don’t. Because that’s rape. I assume if women don’t want to hear anything positive about them, don’t want to hear that a man likes there company, don’t want to hear a man beg them to stay, then women must either want to hear nothing, want nothing to do with men, or want to hear only something negative.

I think the negative, because they are doing everything they can to anger men. It’s no wonder homosexuality is on the rise– women don’t want to even see a man let alone talk with one.


An aging feminist showing support on World Hijab Day. CNN thinks it’s good to encourage women to cover up. Image from wikimedia commons

What I like is this: these #MeToo women who think it’s rape when a man accidentally glances in their direction, they grow up to be alone and unfulfilled, and are miserable later in life unless they happen to be lesbians, trans, or find one of the increasing numbers of woke emasculated Pajama Boys. There aren’t that many men like that… yet, but with schools weakening male students and neutralizing male kids with drugs this seems to be the wave of the future (which isn’t much of a future, because sciencey things like space exploration are signs of toxic masculinity, and science is sexist.).

But the present lonely old spinsters blame the patriarchy for their bitter golden years, and so start organizing younger activists to start the same sad cycle all over again. I guess it’s good that such women don’t have kids- keeps their genes from passing on, so less people will be genetically programmed to be receptive to their hate-based ideology.

On The Chopping Block

  • White Christmas. You can probably guess why this one is a problem. Sorry folks, no snow days for you. Snow is racist.
  • Jingle Bells.
  • Do They Know It’s Christmas? Not exactly a traditional one, but I like how some Lefty celebs decided to do something charitable, and now end up on the wrong side of the PC Police’s nightstick for raising money to help. And let’s face it- despite the BBC’s spin, there isn’t a part of Africa that isn’t going under.

Broadcasting Their Hate

Charlie Brown is on the chopping block over his Thanksgiving debacle, so I can imagine that his Christmas special isn’t that far off from being banned. Then we come to the most famous reindeer of them all. Only liberals (except The View for once) could take an anti-bullying Christmas PSA and decide that it’s actually telling you to bully. Huffington Post was ground zero for this PC bomb. The point of the story is that bigots learn their lessons not to be bigoted. So maybe


Farrakhan was totally a cool guy, but Rudolph is a little punk! Image from talkingpointsmemo.

HuffPost’s problem is that it shows bigots aren’t beyond redemption. If bigots could learn their lesson, doesn’t that mean they’re not all deplorable and not beyond redemption as Hillary Clinton opined and the Left agreed? Once a bigot, always a bigot, stained for life. But only if the Left dislikes you. Folks like Sen. Robert Byrd (Democrat, Hillary’s mentor) get a free pass of course. And people like Louis Farrakhan, while bigoted, are bigoted against the right kind of people.

Personally, I think it has more to do with their egos. They have to be the civil rights leaders, they want to be the ones in the history books. Thus nothing good could have come before them. Those nice words about equality for the founding of the country, followed by various amendments to ensure it? Forget about them. Racist sexist slaveholders. Martin Luther King jr? LGBTQ/Feminist-exclusive, so strike his name from your buildings.

Your Candy Too

Candy canes look like the letter “J”, “J” stands for “Jesus”, therefore Candy Canes should be banned. And they were. The logic is incredible.

Crumbs Too Small For A Mouse

Remember that tax reform bill that gave us on average $1000? Our incoming House Majority Leader said these dollars were crumbs, and much like the Grinch she and her colleagues are coming to take them away. Maybe her reasoning is that no one will miss them because they’re so small. Just look at her district- no one there would miss $1000. She’s spent decades representing them, rubbing elbows with people who don’t blink when they drop $1000 for fancy meals with portions so small that we’d describe them as “crumbs”.

So Happy New Year, happy misc Holidays, and enjoy your crumbs before the Democrats America put in charge of the House come for them.


$1000 just for dessert? Merry Christmas indeed! Image from howtocookthat

Flight Of The Intruder (NES, 1991, residual from the War Games series)


It was ported to the NES in 1991, but still says 1990 on the title screen. Believe it or not, I played this game in July of 2018- it took 5.5 months to review it.

As promised, here is one of the leftovers I mentioned from the midterm series I did. I suppose I should’ve just finished up on a current events post I was working on, but I have less than 3 hours and my day job to do, so here we all are. Lesson learned: don’t gamble on your sleeping schedule.

The Game

It’s a fairly generic flight sim. It didn’t seem appreciably different from games like F/A-18 Hornet on the Game Boy Advance or G-LOC on the Game Gear. A step up from After Burner, but a step down from full-on flight simulator.

You takeoff from an aircraft carrier in an F-4 Phantom II, your thrust readout looks like the silhouette of a Harrier, you fight what appear to be F-18 Hornets, and then you bomb surface targets and land your airplane as the titular A-6 Intruder. Take a look at the pictures and tell me that I’m wrong.










I’m willing to allow for the possibility that in this game you start as an F-4 to soften the enemy’s defenses, and then come in playing a separate pilot in an A-6 to attack surface targets. It would be nice if there was a definite transition indicating this was the case. Perhaps it was in the manual, I don’t know because I bought it used.

Flight_Of_The_Intruder-NES-Mission_MapThe first mission, the only one I could play because I could not land my plane, has you in the Gulf of Tonkin, so presumably this is happening during the Vietnam War, back when F-18s did not exist.

Aside from magical transforming aircraft, there isn’t much of note here. If you want a slower paced version of After Burner, this will work alright if you figure out the carrier landing portion.

Brief Background On The Game

It was released for computers first, and was almost as loosely based on the book it takes its title from as the movie “Battle of the Bulge” was based on the real event (I just watched it again last Sunday, so bear with the references to the 167 minute time eater).

What Would You Have Said If This Were Part Of The Midterm Stuff?

I would’ve lumped it in with After Burner, but then that post might have turned out way different. Granted, Vietnam I suppose was the prototypical Democrat war in some respects. The Democrats in Congress decided to bail on South Vietnam when a Republican was in office advocating continuing funding for South Vietnam, which as I mentioned would’ve led to a different outcome. We would naturally see this Democrat change on war with the Iraq War, which was fantastic when it started but quickly denounced by Democrats.

So that’s what they do when they have the advantage of not being in power- they support the war until it becomes unpopular in the public, or perhaps until they themselves make it unpopular just to score points against the Republican Administration. Then they denounce the war they once were united behind.


I suspect she will run for President again in 2020. Conditions are favorable for her to win the DNC nomination- the media has a shortlist of 40+ candidates that will run for President. All Hillary has to do is win a little more than the others, which shouldn’t be a problem even if it’s her winning 5 votes compared to 4 for everyone else.

Democrats also learned something else- make your wars short. Even though Eisenhower started sending advisers, it was Democrats JFK and Lyndon Johnson who escalated our involvement. So we ended up with 18 years of Vietnam in one form or another, trying to save a friendly regime (and topple it to replace it with another friendly regime, because CIA or something). Now with Libya, Democrats showed they had studied well. Go in, destroy the guy you inexplicably hate after lying about what he’s doing (actually doing what they alleged George W. did), and then hurry on to the next headline.

No wonder Hollywood votes Democrat- it’s like a war movie to them! In “Battle of the Bulge” we don’t see the months of training or Nazi staff officers sitting around for hours doing the calculations about how much fuel a Tiger tank guzzles, we don’t see the rest of World War II up to that point, we just see a vaguely accurate dramatization of the battle (“vaguely” in the sense of if you squint real hard at a Ferrari Testarossa it will look vaguely like a Ford Focus). We don’t see what happens after the battle either- the fall of Berlin for example. Just like in Libya- Democrats hid the buildup with their shroud of lies which ignored how Gaddhafi was actually playing nice for years, and Democrats didn’t bother filming the aftermath either. Like anyone viewing “Battle of the Bulge” where everything not in the movie was ignored, everything not depicted by Democrats with Libya was ignored. At least until Trump came into office and they could finally start yelling at a Republican about the chaos Hillary Clinton created.

So… I guess I’m saying it wouldn’t look much different to what I said in the After Burner post afterall, since I covered the same Vietnam and Libya ground.

Anything To Say Now?

Not really. Hard to make this apply to Trump backing down on the border wall, Comey yet again saying nothing to Congress, Trump still not ordering unredacted FISA warrants on Carter Page be released, and noted liar Michael Cohen getting tangled in his own web. Look forward to me touching on some of these items coming up.


You’ll be seeing this a lot if you can’t figure out how to land. I heard that Top Gun on the NES was quite similar to this game.

The Only Good Republican Is A Dead One


R.I.P., guy who was shot down near the Sevii Islands during WWII. That’s probably the most politically neutral obituary he got, so take what you can get.

While the country mourned the passing of former President George H.W. Bush, the media tried its best to act civil towards him. We had Maureen Dowd, noted Bush critic who used to lash at him over things as petty as the way he talks and what TV shows he watched because let’s face it the NYT has been a bunch of petty snobs pretending to be relevant for its entire history (why else would a NATIONAL NEWSpaper have a section reviewing local plays except to show off how snobby they are?), Dowd was someone who was the go-to reporter for the Left when they needed to bash the Bush family, someone who made her career lying about them and generating hate towards them (and fantasizing about kicking George Bush jr’s VP in the shins), suddenly talk about how great they were, in an attack on Trump. Well, it sure would’ve been nice if you said that about George and his family during his life!

You know, I think all these whiplash-inducing turnarounds- when the Left suddenly decides a villain is now a hero because someone they don’t like even more has appeared- has made it easier for me to believe plotlines in WWE. You never know one week from the next when a creative change or real-life injury will make a bad guy into a good guy to fill a gap in a program, or vice versa. While the badly done ones are a put-off to fans, I can just go right along with it because I see the media and politicians undergo worse attitude adjustments all the time. Undertaker going from zombie-thing to motorcycle-midlife-crisis-dad? Believable. Just look at Ann Navarro going from battle-hardened defender of the GOP to liberal pundit. Daniel Bryan going from prototypical good guy to some weird bad guy with poorly-developed motivations? Believable. Just look at Maureen Dowd going from Bush critic to Bush praiser. I bet one of the most pivotal and shocking moments in wrestling history: when Hulk Hogan, who made his career as a good guy, turned bad in 1996 wouldn’t have surprised anyone monitoring the contemporary transition of then-far-right activist (now liberal millionaire hit squad ringleader) David Brock. Based on the info at one of the links provided, it seems that being a turncoat was David Brock’s answer to “whatcha gonna do when Clintonmania runs wild on you?”.

Using The Past, Past Presidents, and Past Precedents To Attack The Present President’s Precedents

They’ve cried wolf over the next Republican SCOTUS nominee making abortion illegal (27 years since Clarence Thomas was supposedly going to end Roe V. Wade, 13 since Alito and Roberts were going to, yet we still have it… their predictions for the abortion apocalypse are as accurate as their prediction on the climate change apocalypse) and the next Republican President being fascist so many times, that now they finally acknowledge their past hyperbole and openly admit in the case of Trump “we were wrong then (but we’re right on him)”. When the Left cries “demon”, it’s about as believable as when they lie about Trump putting his hand over his heart at George H.W. Bush’s funeral… which is to say, it is as believable as when the Left claims to even care about patriotic displays.


According to a Vox headline, for the article this image came from, President Obama and I agree on something: “President Obama really really really really hates Maureen Dowd”.

The aforementioned reversal on who the evil Republicans are turns up as of late at the funerals for Republicans. Like with Maureen Dowd above- she despised those “Bushies(and all men in general), until the day one died and she could insult Republicans for electing Trump because Trump is worse than one of their old leaders. I assume that’s her reasoning, though it could just be she genuinely forgot she hated George H.W. It’s hard to tell with the Left, whether their lack of memory is feigned or genuine.

As for Dowd herself, you’ll notice she loves the word “chutzpah”. Fitting she’d overuse a Yiddish word I guess, since “haza” is an accurate description of her.

John McCain


Isn’t your hair supposed to turn gray when you gaze upon Him? Image from

This opinion piece pretty much makes my point. You should


Obama on the Left, McCain on the Right. It’s 2008 all over again. Image from

really read my links, no telling what nuggets of info are in them. As you may have guessed, the assertion is that prior to dying John McCain was the media’s enemy. 2008 probably didn’t help much, when the media’s ideal perfect messiah suddenly came down from heaven and poor McCain was stuck opposing him.

Before McCain’s death, the Left danced on his grave. After McCain’s death, the media called for civility. Called for unity. And attacked Trump’s daughter for showing up at McCain’s funeral to pay her respects. She was invited, by the way. Civility! And using the funeral as a rallying point for attacking Trump is apparently what “unity” means.

Antonin Scalia


Image From Ballotpedia

Just two months before he died, he was a crazy racist according to the media. After his death, he was a praised legend, and the Left attacked the GOP for quickly rushing to block any Obama nominees, despite that being the then-Vice President’s own idea (I picked that Politico link just so I could attack one of its points- does Obama look like the kind of guy who’d pick a nominee the GOP would compromise with? Just look at his approach– “If I want it, it’s your job to make it happen GOP whether you agree or not”).

That’s about the best the Left got out of Scalia’s passing, since the future was bright with what they thought was a guaranteed Hillary win they were quite open about their contempt for a conservative like Scalia. Since it was a Democrat in the White House, rather than criticizing the Republican in power as not worthy of the guy who passed, they opted for hoping the bad guy who was there would be replaced by a good guy in a “historic” moment.

Bonus: Gerald Ford


Image From Ballotpedia

2006, back when George W. Bush was still a demon being controlled by the king of darkness Dick Cheney. We learn that the media actually liked Gerald Ford (even saying he was too nice of a guy), whom hitherto was portrayed as incompetent and stupid. The reason for their newfound respect was some last-minute criticism of the soon-departing ex-President, directed at George W.

Get The Point?

I hope so, I’m running out of prominent dead people. Keep in mind it’s the mainstream media we’re talking about with the duplicitous praise. The liberal base has always been quite vocal about its true feelings, even in times of death.

Hey! These S.O.B.’s stole my idea! (To be fair, I only thought to write this 2 days after New York Post wrote theirs, but I didn’t see theirs until the morning of the day this post was published).




Google Search Algorithms


A lot changed since 1997. Image from Wikimedia commons

Google needs to fight to ensure that populist movements around the world are merely a “blip” and a “hiccup” in the arc of history that “bends towards progress.”   – Google Global Affairs VP Kent Walker

“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. FUCK. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL… I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” – Google Design Lead Dave Hogue

Much has been made about bias at Google. Leaked internal documents show bias, they’ve gone on the record being biased, employees were penalized over fighting this bias. They’ve considered everything from censorship, rigging search results, and outright murder. Here I’ll be looking just at the searches.

When it comes to search results, I hardly look for patterns. My first assumption is always user error, as I am a user who makes a lot of errors. Sometimes though a few things leap out at me, especially if the pattern is recurring over the course of several searches.


As evidence here, since at least 1974 liberals have been of the “you’re either with us or evil” attitude. Outlets like “The Nation” and “New Republic” would have you believe this film and other such things are myths.

I’ve referenced this phenomenon before, when trying to find information on North Vietnamese atrocities. While the reason for there not being much info about that on the internet likely is because any scholars or web-based outlets writing about it support Hanoi Jane, think “The Trial of Billy Jack” is a documentary, and would’ve spat on our soldiers at the time if they could, it still wouldn’t explain why the top search results for “North Vietnamese atrocities”, “atrocities committed by North Vietnam”, and similar searches didn’t give me results about North Vietnamese atrocities on the first page. Instead, the results I was greeted with first and foremost, and as the overwhelming majority of search results, were items related to American misconduct. I know supposedly Google ranks results by popularity and reliability, but here it was like searching for a sushi recipe and getting a thousand ways to make sake instead.

I had considered referencing such matters as I went along in the posts, and may do so in the future, but while doing the midterm stuff I decided to just pile everything here. Besides, I think it’s more potent if you see all the search issues I’ve had in one spot, instead of scattering them in each article. Granted, it’s more likely you’ll see it should I complain about it more often, but it doesn’t have so big an impact as seeing it all at once if it just becomes steady background noise.

Anyway, let’s get to it.

Burying Scalise

On August 5 I tried to find an article showing that the claim Steve Scalise spoke at a white nationalist rally was debunked. Page 4 is where I found it in one of my searches. I tried several before that, but the first one or two pages of each were completely full of Leftwing news sources and even blogs or forums talking about how he was guilty of it. The search that I finally found the article in, it was 3 pages of all that before I got to the truth. Full disclosure- it didn’t help matters that Scalise admitted to it- assuming that the allegations made by a loser Democrat’s son, a loser Democrat who claimed that Scalise’s district was mostly composed of bigots because they wouldn’t vote for her, was true. By the way- even after Scalise was shot, vaunted liberal outlets like Mic were still repeating this debunked conspiracy theory as truth.

Memory Holed History

I tried to find an article on August 8 dealing with how the Mexicans, in colonizing the Southwest, killed the natives instead of merely pushing them out as Americans tended to do (we had reservations and guns, the Mexicans just had guns). Particularly this was an issue near Texas, around the southern part of the 4 corners states. No luck, aside from a wikipedia page I found nothing, even though such things did happen. The search results were solely devoted to what Americans and centuries prior Spanish Conquistadors did to the natives. In other words- Mexico is given a pass. Maybe that’s a reflection of Google’s algorithms, or a reflection how the researchers at our universities believe Mexico should reclaim the lands that were given to us after they defaulted on their debt and started a war that left 13,000 Americans dead.

Hellraisin’ Hillary


The only face she or Google want you to see. Image from AP

Each time I reference Hillary Clinton being an angry monster behind closed doors, I need to find the link again. I end up trying different searches to find this article, usually searching for content related to the part on Hillary demanding that soldiers wear business suits while in the White House. Usually one of the first two results glorifies Hillary, the rest are mostly unrelated or positive about her.

Specific Searches

  • “trent franks resigned” -the first page was entirely liberal outlets. Page two had a Fox News link in the middle, but was liberal otherwise.
  • “violence against trump supporters” –first result is “FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?” from snopes. Found to be true of course. Snopes does not believe Tim Kaine, Loretta Lynch, New York Times columnists, and ACLU lawyers called for violence (either through ignoring/hiding/burying or “debunking” these claims… “debunking” in quotations because it’s kind of hard to say “that person never said what they are on tape saying” as Snopes does, and still be considered credible by anyone not partisan like they are).
  • “press make death threats against trump” mostly yielded threats against the press or Maxine Waters or people on Trump’s enemy’s list, rather than results about an NYT columnist who made a death threat against Trump.
  • “death threats against trump” started with Maxine Waters, but gave like a 60-40 mix of death threats against journos and anti-Trumpers vs threats against Trump. For both this and the “press make death threats against trump” searches, the wikipedia article for assassination threats against Obama came up.
  • “former government official threatens trump” led to top stories about Trump threatening to take away the clearances of former government officials.
  • “dc police 1990 illiterate scandal mayor”/”dc police academy illiterate graduates”/”marion barry police illiterate” – not one result I wanted, with that last search only getting 2 pages. The story here is that DC’s mayor at the time, literally a crack smoker, lowered the standards for the police such that illiterate people were allowed in. Gang members, drug dealers, even people arrested recently were allowed in. But the mayor was a black liberal, so it’s natural any relevant search results would be hidden. Or perhaps even nonexistent.
  • “Trump, without citing evidence, says China hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails” – Washington Post headline, top news story for the search “comey hillary not hacked” according to Google. One minor problem- WaPo is right that Trump cited no evidence, but wrong in the implication that there isn’t any. A reporter at the Daily Caller had discovered that the FBI knew China had breached Hillary’s emails in 2015 and did nothing about it. WaPo, either jealous of not getting that story in its anti-Trump anti-Russia fervor or jealously guarding Hillary, sent out this misleading headline with Google more than happy to promote it to the top result.
  • “hillary intent Saucier” – the first result is a Snopes story claiming that Navy sailor Saucier was not held to a different standard than Hillary Clinton in regards to the treatment of classified information. Saucier was arrested while Hillary nearly became President. According to the FBI’s one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law, Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. Saucier didn’t want to endanger the country, and he was put in prison. As for the difference being that the sailor (Saucier) knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, and B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes or even Google since Snopes is their first result seem to have forgotten, lest it make the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, or something worse given the emails about stripping classification headings from her messages (a Google search for this info had politifact,, and politico as the top sources, such bastions of liberalism). 
  • The first PAGE of results for “clinton emails remove classification” consisted of politifact, 2 factchecks, 2 politicos, a dailybeast, ABC News where Clinton crony/former Clinton White House operative George Stephenopolous resides, USA Today, theconversation, and wikipedia. ALL left-leaning or outright leftwing media outlets. On Aug. 5 2018, the 3rd result from the bottom of page 2 was the first rightwing outlet, Fox News. The next was WSJ at the top of page 3

To ruin one result may be regarded as a misfortune, to ruin two looks like carelessness, but twelve times…?


Pretty sure the section header came word-for-word from “The Importance of Being Earnest”. Image from Encyclopedia Britannica

Well what do you think? Am I just bad at using Google, does Google’s search algorithm favor Leftwing sites because Google employees think they are reliable, or is it more malicious with the search algorithm targetting thought that Google disagrees with and ensuring it is rarely the first thing we see, or perhaps even not showing it at all? (One last personal experience, there was once an article for rightwing outlet “The Stream” that did not show up AT ALL well after it had been published, even when I quoted the title or quoted chunks of it.)

Now, some people try to spin Google’s actions. In the case of the employee they fired, Laurie Penny at The Guardian headlined “James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies”. It may interest her to know that the Left is starting to believe Dr. Martin Luther King jr was not tolerant enough. So Ms. Penny, are you just hoping to keep ahead of the Leftist wave until you die a natural death or are you prepared for the day when you too aren’t tolerant enough and someone says it’s ok to discriminate against you? I’ll refer you to Khrushchev Remembers, wherein we learn of real people like you- radicals saying it’s ok to discriminate based on subjective and ever-changing notions like “bigot” and “bully”- ended up being killed by the crusading government they created.

We also get efforts to spend Google’s own leaked docs to say that they’re struggling with censorship, but these defenders of Big Tech give away their partisan cheerleading, like the poor bloke at Techdirt who wrote “The Good Censor Document Shows Google Struggling With The Challenges Of Content Moderation”. In that piece, the author states that an 85-page leaked document on censorship that “Trumpkins” (DailyWire reported negatively on the document, and they are often at odds with Trump) jumped on as proof of Google censorship showed that Google was in fact struggling not to censor results. The insults at Trump supporters gave away the bias, the cheerleading happens when the author stupidly states that Google doesn’t want governments to abuse its platform. It looks REALLY bad now that we know Google had considered censoring conservative news outlets.


ÇINLI!!!!! Image from M*A*S*H season 3 episode 12

I say the cheerleading “stupidly” happened because it was a well-known public FACT at the time that Google built a censorship engine for the Chinese government. So we are left with this: the author must have known this, and decided to “forget” about it. And if Google truly wonders about evil governments abusing its platform in that 85-page document, then Google has some serious issues with self-delusion. Or, maybe, Google thinks the Chinese government is NOT a government that would abuse its censorship powers. Worse, and probably true, maybe Google doesn’t care about what the Chinese government does because they AGREE with its decisions. None of this looks good for Google, and certainly not for the Techdirt writer supporting them. Maybe that writer loves what China is doing too.

Oddly enough, the Techdirt piece was the 2nd search result for “Google “the good censor””. The first was the original Breitbart article talking about it. I find it odd because A: Breitbart is the first result and B: there isn’t a more reliable source as one of the top two results to counter Breitbart’s assertion.