Barack Obama
I am not a fan of Fox News. I don't watch it anymore. I haven't since it became so divisive years ago. However, I am a fan of free speech and free press. It is a right in the western world. Therefore, it is illegal and hypocritical that the Obama Administration used the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in an attempt to censor and punish Fox News for promoting a republican candidate on their network. Never mind democrats are constantly promoted on many networks that bash republicans.
When you think about the fact the emails of democrat, Hillary Clinton, which have been made public as apart of a criminal investigation into the presidential candidate's illegal activities, reveal she "has the media on a leash" it is highly hypocritical for her allies in the Obama Administration, which she once belonged to as Secretary of State, to criticize a news outlet for promoting a rival republican.
For years the majority of the media in America has been controlled by democrats. The media in America, much like Hollywood, has a very noticeable liberal slant (pro-democrat) and constantly publishes items that bash, degrade, mock, insult and ridicule conservatives (anti-republican). This imbalance gave rise to Fox News and the influential website the Drudge Report (I do read Drudge Report). Both outlets became hugely successful in America, as they cater to millions of underserved conservatives.
Some democrats in Congress and other branches of the U.S. government have deliberately and repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code, in trying to censor, abuse and shutdown Fox News, Drudge Report and similar conservative outlets, for having a contrasting point of view.
Hillary Clinton
Lawbreaking liberals in the U.S. government and Hollywood have gone to extraordinary and disturbing lengths to silence conservatives, even jeopardizing the name and financial existence of multi-billion dollar internet service providers, hosting companies, software manufacturers, Pay Pal, Google and advertisers, contacting said companies demanding they damage the financial interests/income and free speech/free press rights of conservatives.
Deranged requests from the aforementioned liberals include demanding the companies in question unconstitutionally cancel the internet hosting accounts (Google), paid advertising (Google), financial sales handled through Paypal, public donations processed by PayPal, of conservative websites in order to unlawfully remove them from the internet and destroy their ability to make money to support themselves.
High profile liberals have also been sending deranged requests to Google to manipulate their system, resulting in the company putting out deceptive search results that grossly defame others and their family members, while redirecting and suppressing traffic from conservative websites.
All in insane efforts to censor, silence and punish conservatives. Not to mention, Google is currently embroiled in a scandal regarding changing search results in favor of Hillary Clinton, hiding negative articles that expose criminal conduct she is under formal investigation for at the FBI. Google has also been weeding out all articles critical of Hillary Clinton, as one of her top donors is the CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt. He has compromised Google and brought very unflattering mainstream publicity on the company, in conduct sure to upset shareholders.
Google and Facebook have also been suppressing conservative news and opinion pieces from search results on Google.com and Facebook.com. The predictive text Google uses on its site has been programmed with parameters to never help search users finish the website address or names of thousands of known conservative sites, politicians, authors, speakers, activities, entertainers, athletes and celebrities. You could type "Hi" and not finish the word "Hillary" and it will immediately suggest and give you the link for Hillary Clinton's website.
How does Google know I'm not trying to look up the word "hick" or "high" or "hierarchy"
Under the influence of the Obama Administration, Google's search results have become biased and censored, representing poor journalism standards (it didn't use to be like that). Now Google is actively removing critical items in favor of glowing pieces on people like Clinton, among others. When Hillary has her office contact Google to complain that she wants an unflattering exposé article removed from Google's search results on Google.com and Google News, it is gone within minutes.
Journalists have seen it happen. However, let a mother contact Google complaining there is illegal child porn of her victimized child in Google Images or Google.com and they will leave that garbage up there for weeks, sometimes months. There are court cases where Google has left child porn online for unreasonably long periods of time, after formal requests were made to remove the illegal items.
The Washington Times reported:
"For example, when typing 'Hillary Clinton cri,' Google’s auto-complete function brings up as its top choice 'Hillary Clinton crime reform,' even though competing search engines Bing and Yahoo show the most popular search topics are 'Hillary Clinton criminal charges' and 'Hillary Clinton crime.' While that could reflect legitimate differences in the engines’ algorithms, Mr. Lieberman said that a search of 'Hillary Clinton crime reform' on Google trends showed that 'there weren’t even enough searches of term to build a graph on the site.'
'Which begs the question, why on Earth is it the first potential result?' he said, adding, 'Apparently far more people are searching for ‘Hillary Clinton crimes’ than ‘Hillary Clinton crime reform.’ Google just doesn’t want you to know or ask.' SourceFed found a similar result when typing in, 'Hillary Clinton ind,' which yielded 'Hillary Clinton Indiana' and 'Hillary Clinton India' on Google, but 'Hillary Clinton indictment' on the other search engines.
'The intention is clear. Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site,' Mr. Lieberman said. There was no difference between Google and other search engines when SourceFed searched for unflattering terms associated with Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump...'
The unhinged liberal censorship drive by select people in the U.S. government and Hollywood, has damaged the name and finances of American corporations like Google and Paypal, among others, who are financially worth more than the lawbreaking liberals in government and Hollywood combined, imperiled jobs and taxable revenue, under public backlash. However, as long as they can illegally and insanely censor and shut people up, that's all that matters, America's financial interests be damned (sarcasm). I find it distasteful and disgusting. It's very ugly and unbecoming.
Lawbreaking liberals in the U.S. government and Hollywood need to stop trying to shut people up who disagree with them. It looks certifiably insane. It looks like you have screws loose. It is uncivil and uncouth to think you have a right to tell others they can't express themselves, because it doesn't agree with your point of view and agenda. They are behaving like bratty children with no understanding of the law or people's right to have an opinion. Grow up already.
There are people's opinions I do not agree with. However, I don't act like a blazing lunatic trying to sabotage their income, terrorize their families, friends and supporters, criminally spy on them in insidious ways and or use the law in illegal bids at trying to silence them in violation of the Constitution and United Nation's laws on freedom of expression, as some in government and Hollywood have done to conservatives in America.
I simply listen to, watch and read the things I have an interest in and let other people I disagree with be. It's called being an adult in realizing not everyone will have the same opinion and that is called democracy. Lawbreaking liberals in government and those in Hollywood attacking conservatives in criminal ways should try it sometime. YES, DEMOCRACY.
Considering their ages, most of them are in their 50s-70s, it's a childhood lesson regarding getting along with others that they should have already learned from their parents in their formative years. It is not a good look to be in your 50-70s and acting like spoiled, ill-manner children, who want their own way all the time or they'll throw their toys out of the pram. When you're five you can get away with throwing a temper tantrum.
When you're in your 50s-70s throwing temper tantrums, spying on people, terrorizing them and their families, emailing and calling all over the place trying to silence and punish others for expressing a lawful opinion, you look like maniacs...not people who should be in positions of power. It denotes mental illness to go that far trying to destroy others over their lawful opinions.
You need to look in the mirror, because this is what you have come to in the public eye. This is why so many Americans voice the view on social networking, in many website feedback sections and message boards/forums that the American media is owned and being controlled by a handful of people. You call people with said view conspiracy theorists, but when you do the basic research you realize only a handful of people own the media and entertainment companies in America. And God help you if you decide to start a media outlet or entertainment company in America, as the small handful of people who do own most of the networks and newspapers will literally try to have you killed for it. So much for a free and open market and fair trade, huh.
America is roughly half democrat and half republican. Elections usually fall along those lines with a small percent of votes swinging the direction in either direction. It's usually a democrat for one or two terms, then a republican for one or two terms. Considering America is roughly half conservative, in essence, lawbreaking liberals in the U.S. government and Hollywood have been attacking and savaging the views and rights of half the country, which is a vile thing to do. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to be heard. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and values
.
Donald Trump
Due to Obama's Nixonian obsession with the press, this harmful madness has been transpiring against innocent people (Richard Nixon, is a former president who famously tried to poison a law-abiding, outspoken journalist via a failed plot to spray poison on the writer's steering wheel, took his press clippings far to seriously as well).
The Judiciary Report has repeatedly warned that the Obama Administration, on the president's orders, has been abusing journalists in America, having the FBI and CIA spy on, threaten, harass, bully and financially damage journalists and bloggers (and their family members). Obama's unconscionable behavior in this regard, has criminally extended into Britain, as he has been illegally sending the FBI and CIA to target journalists at the Guardian newspaper, in a nation he has absolutely no legal mandate to operate in. His behavior is arrogant, mean-spirited, shameful and ugly.
Obama's bumptiousness and imperialism was revealed again recently, as he went into Britain threatening the British people to vote to remain in the European Union or he would financially abuse the United Kingdom. That was a gross and disgusting abuse of authority by Obama, regarding a nation that has put billions of dollars in Americans pockets via tourism and trade (and vice versa).
Political leaders in Britain and the EU are incensed with Obama over Brexit, as polls showed his visit to London in April, where with his nose in the air and head flung back like a diva, issued threats against the British people (clearly believing his own hype) which immediately resulted in a big bounce for the "leave the European Union" campaign. There are politicians in Britain and the European Union who want Obama's head on a platter over it.
Ironically, Obama's suppression of conservatives in America, gave rise to Donald Trump. The Obama administration went so far to the political left, getting very abusive with the conservative segment of the American population, that the pendulum has swung all the way to the political right with such viscosity, it caught the whole world's attention = Donald Trump.
STORY SOURCE
Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship
6/29/16 2:52 PM - Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News' sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage. It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet's debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.
The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action. A Republican FEC commissioner leading that fight, Lee E. Goodman, revealed the vote to Secrets Wednesday and said the official report of the May 26 executive vote will be released Thursday. Goodman has led the fight against several other efforts to censor conservative media by Democrats on the FEC.
"The government should not punish any newsroom's editorial decision on how best to provide the public information about candidates for office," he said. "All press organizations should be concerned when the government asserts regulatory authority to punish and censor news coverage." At issue was the Aug. 6, 2015 Fox presidential debate. Initially, the network planned to host one debate featuring 10 candidates. But as the date got close and the nearly two dozen GOP presidential candidates were close in the polls, Fox added a second debate that included seven other candidates...
AUG 19, 2015 2:44pm ET - Harper Reed and Dylan Richard first burst onto Chicago's tech scene as part of Barack Obama's 2012 reelection team, and their social media wizardry is often credited for keeping the president in the White House...
The Washington Times - Thursday, June 9, 2016 - An explosive report released Thursday suggests that Google manipulated its search engine to boost Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton by burying unflattering stories about her. A video posted by SourceFed, a news and pop-culture website, accused Google of attempting to boost secretly Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.
“Thanks to the help of our editor Spencer Reed, SourceFed has discovered that Google has been actively altering search recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign so quietly that we were unable to see it for what it was until today,” said SourceFed’s Matt Lieberman in the video.
For example, when typing “Hillary Clinton cri,” Google’s auto-complete function brings up as its top choice “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” even though competing search engines Bing and Yahoo show the most popular search topics are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” and “Hillary Clinton crime.” While that could reflect legitimate differences in the engines’ algorithms, Mr. Lieberman said that a search of “Hillary Clinton crime reform” on Google trends showed that “there weren’t even enough searches of term to build a graph on the site.”
“Which begs the question, why on Earth is it the first potential result?” he said, adding, “Apparently far more people are searching for ‘Hillary Clinton crimes’ than ‘Hillary Clinton crime reform.’ Google just doesn’t want you to know or ask.” SourceFed found a similar result when typing in, “Hillary Clinton ind,” which yielded “Hillary Clinton Indiana” and “Hillary Clinton India” on Google, but “Hillary Clinton indictment” on the other search engines.
“The intention is clear. Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site,” Mr. Lieberman said. There was no difference between Google and other search engines when SourceFed searched for unflattering terms associated with Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump...
October 09, 2015 - An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics. The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.
But campaigns—lacking stock options and long-term job security—find it hard to attract the elite engineering talent that Facebook, Google, and countless startups rely on. That’s also part of the problem that Schmidt and the Groundwork are helping Clinton’s team to solve. The Groundwork is one of the Clinton campaign’s biggest vendors, billing it for more than $177,000 in the second quarter of 2015, according to federal filings. Yet many political operatives know little about it. Its website consists entirely of a grey-on-black triangle logo that suggests “the digital roots of change” while also looking vaguely like the Illuminati symbol:
“We’re not trying to obfuscate anything, we’re just trying to keep our heads down and do stuff,” says Michael Slaby, who runs the Groundwork. He was the chief technology officer for president Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, a top digital executive for Obama 2012, and the former chief technology strategist for TomorrowVentures, Schmidt’s angel investment fund.
Brexit Leader Calls Obama’s Brexit Involvement ‘Disgraceful’
"How dare the American president..."
June 28, 2016 at 8:57am - A leader of the effort to pull Britain out of the European Union continued his attack on President Barack Obama Monday, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin behaved in a more “statesmanlike” manner than America’s president during the Brexit vote. Nigel Farage, leader of the Independent Party, last week said that Obama’s chiding in April of Britons to remain in the EU was one factor that influenced their vote to leave.
Obama’s anti-Brexit remarks “backfired,” Farage said last week. “We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote. A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?'”
“Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain, and I think, behaved disgracefully, telling us we’d be at the back of the queue … treating us, America’s strongest, oldest ally, in this most extraordinary way,” he said. He noted later that he is “not a fan” of Putin. However, he also said it took two to make tensions flare over the Ukraine, and the EU did more than its share.
In contrast do doom-and-gloomers, Farage said Brexit offers new possibilities. “We are leaving a failed political union and we are joining a bigger, better, modern 21st century world,” he said. Farage further noted that Americans trying to analyze Brexit do not fully comprehend the circumstances that led Britons to approve it.
“We finished up, until last Thursday, with 70 percent of our laws being made by foreign institutions, with our own supreme court being overruled in Luxembourg, and with an open border 500 million people. Whatever problems you’ve got in the USA, they are as nothing to what we’ve had as part of this Europe,” he said.
