U.S. Debt Clock
This is what out of control looks like
Wednesday, September 21
You Can Be Free. Don't VOTE DEMOCRAT
You can be free!
This is not the land of Garrentee, but the land of opoutrnity.
American Perspctive
Sunday, June 19
Monday, July 12
OMG! - He will win again - Fraud is winning
I am so angry that we have so many dishonest people living here in the United States. Can somebody say Union workers?
Will your vote even matter next time? NO.
Will your vote even matter next time? NO.
Tuesday, March 9
Love Obama Now? - Read This.
Hey all you Obama Lovers...read this and weep!!!
Mortimer Zuckerman on President Obama A most interesting editorial, not from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but from Mortimer Zuckerman of U. S. News.
The tide is turning. THE LIBERAL WRITTEN MEDIA IS BEGINNING TO FLIP ON OBAMA.
Mortimer Zuckerman is the Editor in Chief of the U S News and World Report and was a supporter of Barack Obama during his run for the Presidency. This is a staggering appraisal of the President's first year in office - coming from someone who supported President Obama.
In a January 20, 2010 editorial, the Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, had this to say:
Obama's ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he's been in office.
He's had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him.he's lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other public figure since we've been using polls. He's done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.I don't consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster." And that's what his friends are saying about him.
As the boy president occupied the White House on January 20, 2009 it was predictable that his presidency would last a year, at most, because the things he promised and the things he stood for were so uniquely unAmerican. Looking back over his year in office, any reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in opposition to nearly everything he's done. In fact, his policies have been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House.afraid to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans.
Seeing his most ambitious initiative, health care reform, die in the flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned "sortie" to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama.full of left wing hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the hand-picked audience.but there were just two things wrong with it: 1) Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2) He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really wanted to see him.
Obama Kool-Ade drinkers in the media, and elsewhere, like to describe Obama as a "very bright man, a true intellectual (compared to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, of course)." If that is the case, why has he demonstrated such a great inability to learn from his failures? The strident words and the in-your-face attitude of his Ohio speech were proof that he has totally misread the meaning of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts.
Whatever hopes and dreams he had for his time in the White House, whatever grandiose plans he had for transforming the United States from a constitutional republic with a free market economy into a socialist dictatorship with a centrally planned economy, were all lost on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.one day short of a full year in office. Yet, he appears to have learned nothing from the experience.
Comedian George Gobel once asked, rhetorically, "Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?" In the context of 21st century American politics, and assuming that he has any capacity at all for honest self-examination, Obama must be feeling today very much like a pair of brown shoes at a black tie soiree.
When a politically nave and totally inexperienced young black man, with a glib tongue and an exceptional ability to read words convincingly from a teleprompter, announced that he was ready to serve as President of the United States, liberals and Democrats saw it as a perfect opportunity to expiate whatever white guilt they may have felt.which was apparently considerable among those on the political left. It didn't seem to bother them that, as one pundit has remarked, "every time he walks into a room he is the least experienced and the least qualified man in the room." Nevertheless, his friends in the worldwide socialist movement and the international banking community figured out how to smuggle hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds into the country, the black community rallied to his banner, and American liberals and the mainstream media jumped on board the bandwagon. Together, they made it happen for him. But now, just one year later, Obama appears destined to become the unhappiest man in American politics. unhappier than even former Senator John Edwards, who runs a close second, and former president Bill Clinton.
Clinton will be the third unhappiest man because, after capturing the big prize, he frittered away whatever chance he had of ever being compared favorably with Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of the 20th century's greatest Democratic presidents. Not only was he a politician of unusual skill and insight, he was widely known as a policy "wonk" among policy wonks and he had the drive and the personal charm to be loved and respected around the world. Unfortunately, he was never able to put the public trust at the top of his priority list. Instead, he surrounded himself with a large cadre of trusted enablers who allowed him to conduct himself as if he were, not the President of the United States , but the class stud on an extended spring break in Acapulco .
Now that he's been out of office for nearly a decade and he's married to the current Secretary of State, he spends his days trying to find something useful to do without calling an undue amount of attention to himself. Having lied so shamelessly to the American people, having perjured himself in a court of law, having turned the Oval Office into a sexual playpen, and having suffered the humiliation of impeachment, he's smart enough to know that he has little reputation left to protect. So in order to protect whatever legacy remains, he walks a tightrope every day. and he has many more years to walk it without falling off.
Former Senator John Edwards is destined to be the second unhappiest man in American politics because he will be known forever as the most thoroughly despised scumbag in the political arena. A trial lawyer, Edwards amassed a $60 million fortune by winning large jury awards against doctors, hospitals, and corporations. His specialty was cases in which children were born with cerebral palsy, which he blamed on doctors who had waited too long to perform C-sections, a claim that doctors and medical researchers have described as "junk science." Then, like Obama, he decided that his experience in the courtroom, his glib tongue, and his one term in the U.S. Senate qualified him to be President of the United States . He entered the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, raising an incredible amount of money for a newcomer to elective office. most of it raised illegally by "bundlers" in plaintiffs' law firms across the country. He was unsuccessful in his quest for the Democratic nomination but was selected by his Senate colleague, John Kerry, as his running mate.
Two years later, in 2006, Edwards met a young blonde film producer, Rielle Hunter, and embarked on a love affair with her. On February 27, 2008, Hunter gave birth to a daughter, for whom Edwards has consistently denied paternity, until now.
Taking into account that all of this was happening while his wife was waging a long battle with breast cancer, Edwards now has the well-deserved reputation of being the sleaziest of the sleazy. He is so universally despised that, if he is on the lookout for a friend, he might as well resign himself to getting a dog. or moving in with O.J. Simpson. Terry Moran, host of ABC's This Week, put it all in perspective. He said, "What's interesting to note is that Edwards' latest admission (that he is the father of Hunter's child) came while he was in Haiti . As if the people of that sad place didn't have enough problems." Clearly, the one thing Clinton and Edwards share that places them near the top of our list is their sexual peccadilloes, a shortcoming that Obama does not appear to share with them.at least from what we know so far.
What we do know about Obama is that, since his teen years, he has been mentored by, gravitated toward, and surrounded by the most dangerous sort of America-hating socialists, communists, and Marxists.from Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and countless radical left college professors.
What destines Obama for the top spot on the list of unhappiest American politicians, aside from the failure of his economic recovery program, the failure of his radical cap-and-trade proposal, his failed attempt to give labor bosses unprecedented power to intimidate blue collar workers, and his ill-fated attempt at health care reform.is the fact that he carries on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of every black child in America. It is unfortunate that, because he is so far outside the American mainstream, and because he carries so much hatred in his heart for the country he seeks to lead, his failures will be viewed by generations of black children, not as the failure of a black socialist attempting to bring down a constitutional republic, but simply as the failure of a black man.
A man can fail in the eyes of his countrymen and still be dearly loved by those closest to him. But in Obama's case, his wife and his two daughters will be there to suffer every agonizing step of his fall along with him. And for the rest of his life, each time he looks into their eyes, and into the eyes of black people everywhere, he will see the crushing disappointment that his ill-fated attempt at national transformation has caused them.
He will be the country's unhappiest man, living the rest of his life knowing that his daughters know that the whole world sees him as a failure. He is simply the wrong man, in the wrong job, in the wrong country, at the wrong time in history.
Wake Up and smell the Coffee.
Mortimer Zuckerman on President Obama A most interesting editorial, not from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but from Mortimer Zuckerman of U. S. News.
The tide is turning. THE LIBERAL WRITTEN MEDIA IS BEGINNING TO FLIP ON OBAMA.
Mortimer Zuckerman is the Editor in Chief of the U S News and World Report and was a supporter of Barack Obama during his run for the Presidency. This is a staggering appraisal of the President's first year in office - coming from someone who supported President Obama.
In a January 20, 2010 editorial, the Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, had this to say:
Obama's ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he's been in office.
He's had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him.he's lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other public figure since we've been using polls. He's done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.I don't consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster." And that's what his friends are saying about him.
As the boy president occupied the White House on January 20, 2009 it was predictable that his presidency would last a year, at most, because the things he promised and the things he stood for were so uniquely unAmerican. Looking back over his year in office, any reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in opposition to nearly everything he's done. In fact, his policies have been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House.afraid to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans.
Seeing his most ambitious initiative, health care reform, die in the flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned "sortie" to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama.full of left wing hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the hand-picked audience.but there were just two things wrong with it: 1) Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2) He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really wanted to see him.
Obama Kool-Ade drinkers in the media, and elsewhere, like to describe Obama as a "very bright man, a true intellectual (compared to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, of course)." If that is the case, why has he demonstrated such a great inability to learn from his failures? The strident words and the in-your-face attitude of his Ohio speech were proof that he has totally misread the meaning of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts.
Whatever hopes and dreams he had for his time in the White House, whatever grandiose plans he had for transforming the United States from a constitutional republic with a free market economy into a socialist dictatorship with a centrally planned economy, were all lost on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.one day short of a full year in office. Yet, he appears to have learned nothing from the experience.
Comedian George Gobel once asked, rhetorically, "Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?" In the context of 21st century American politics, and assuming that he has any capacity at all for honest self-examination, Obama must be feeling today very much like a pair of brown shoes at a black tie soiree.
When a politically nave and totally inexperienced young black man, with a glib tongue and an exceptional ability to read words convincingly from a teleprompter, announced that he was ready to serve as President of the United States, liberals and Democrats saw it as a perfect opportunity to expiate whatever white guilt they may have felt.which was apparently considerable among those on the political left. It didn't seem to bother them that, as one pundit has remarked, "every time he walks into a room he is the least experienced and the least qualified man in the room." Nevertheless, his friends in the worldwide socialist movement and the international banking community figured out how to smuggle hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds into the country, the black community rallied to his banner, and American liberals and the mainstream media jumped on board the bandwagon. Together, they made it happen for him. But now, just one year later, Obama appears destined to become the unhappiest man in American politics. unhappier than even former Senator John Edwards, who runs a close second, and former president Bill Clinton.
Clinton will be the third unhappiest man because, after capturing the big prize, he frittered away whatever chance he had of ever being compared favorably with Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of the 20th century's greatest Democratic presidents. Not only was he a politician of unusual skill and insight, he was widely known as a policy "wonk" among policy wonks and he had the drive and the personal charm to be loved and respected around the world. Unfortunately, he was never able to put the public trust at the top of his priority list. Instead, he surrounded himself with a large cadre of trusted enablers who allowed him to conduct himself as if he were, not the President of the United States , but the class stud on an extended spring break in Acapulco .
Now that he's been out of office for nearly a decade and he's married to the current Secretary of State, he spends his days trying to find something useful to do without calling an undue amount of attention to himself. Having lied so shamelessly to the American people, having perjured himself in a court of law, having turned the Oval Office into a sexual playpen, and having suffered the humiliation of impeachment, he's smart enough to know that he has little reputation left to protect. So in order to protect whatever legacy remains, he walks a tightrope every day. and he has many more years to walk it without falling off.
Former Senator John Edwards is destined to be the second unhappiest man in American politics because he will be known forever as the most thoroughly despised scumbag in the political arena. A trial lawyer, Edwards amassed a $60 million fortune by winning large jury awards against doctors, hospitals, and corporations. His specialty was cases in which children were born with cerebral palsy, which he blamed on doctors who had waited too long to perform C-sections, a claim that doctors and medical researchers have described as "junk science." Then, like Obama, he decided that his experience in the courtroom, his glib tongue, and his one term in the U.S. Senate qualified him to be President of the United States . He entered the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, raising an incredible amount of money for a newcomer to elective office. most of it raised illegally by "bundlers" in plaintiffs' law firms across the country. He was unsuccessful in his quest for the Democratic nomination but was selected by his Senate colleague, John Kerry, as his running mate.
Two years later, in 2006, Edwards met a young blonde film producer, Rielle Hunter, and embarked on a love affair with her. On February 27, 2008, Hunter gave birth to a daughter, for whom Edwards has consistently denied paternity, until now.
Taking into account that all of this was happening while his wife was waging a long battle with breast cancer, Edwards now has the well-deserved reputation of being the sleaziest of the sleazy. He is so universally despised that, if he is on the lookout for a friend, he might as well resign himself to getting a dog. or moving in with O.J. Simpson. Terry Moran, host of ABC's This Week, put it all in perspective. He said, "What's interesting to note is that Edwards' latest admission (that he is the father of Hunter's child) came while he was in Haiti . As if the people of that sad place didn't have enough problems." Clearly, the one thing Clinton and Edwards share that places them near the top of our list is their sexual peccadilloes, a shortcoming that Obama does not appear to share with them.at least from what we know so far.
What we do know about Obama is that, since his teen years, he has been mentored by, gravitated toward, and surrounded by the most dangerous sort of America-hating socialists, communists, and Marxists.from Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and countless radical left college professors.
What destines Obama for the top spot on the list of unhappiest American politicians, aside from the failure of his economic recovery program, the failure of his radical cap-and-trade proposal, his failed attempt to give labor bosses unprecedented power to intimidate blue collar workers, and his ill-fated attempt at health care reform.is the fact that he carries on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of every black child in America. It is unfortunate that, because he is so far outside the American mainstream, and because he carries so much hatred in his heart for the country he seeks to lead, his failures will be viewed by generations of black children, not as the failure of a black socialist attempting to bring down a constitutional republic, but simply as the failure of a black man.
A man can fail in the eyes of his countrymen and still be dearly loved by those closest to him. But in Obama's case, his wife and his two daughters will be there to suffer every agonizing step of his fall along with him. And for the rest of his life, each time he looks into their eyes, and into the eyes of black people everywhere, he will see the crushing disappointment that his ill-fated attempt at national transformation has caused them.
He will be the country's unhappiest man, living the rest of his life knowing that his daughters know that the whole world sees him as a failure. He is simply the wrong man, in the wrong job, in the wrong country, at the wrong time in history.
Wake Up and smell the Coffee.
Sunday, February 21
Monday, February 1
Mind your business
http://menaregrass.blogspot.com/
Folks, this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA
********* Get Ready *********
We can't give up on this issue.
Andy Rooney and Prayer
Andy Rooney says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts.
They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1...
So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome
..... But what about the atheists? Is another argument.
What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom... Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!" God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America, despite all her faults She is still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
Let's make 2010 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars. Keep looking up.
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
Folks, this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA
********* Get Ready *********
We can't give up on this issue.
Andy Rooney and Prayer
Andy Rooney says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts.
They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1...
So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome
..... But what about the atheists? Is another argument.
What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom... Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!" God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America, despite all her faults She is still the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
Let's make 2010 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars. Keep looking up.
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
Sunday, December 6
Talking About The Weather - website
This is not a permitted re-post of the article GOOGLEGATE?
from the website "Talking About The Weather" http://talkingabouttheweather.com/
--- If this re-post is in violation of something, somehow and you do not want it to be re-posted on this website, please contact me @ Jenningsroofs@gmail.com and I will gladly take it down immediately. Other than that, please enjoy, and pass on a link to everyone you know.
Everyone should be typing into the search box “climategate” or "c l i m a t e g a t e" many times a day, just to flood their algorithms at google.com
This is a sad occurrence, if a search engine company Like www.google.com is guilty of trying to do exactly the same type of shenanigans that the so called scientists were doing when they were caught hiding the truth.
- "Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing" Dr. Phil -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Talking About The Weather
Googlegate? December 2nd 2009
Posted in Climate change, global warming by Harold Ambler on December 2, 2009
Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California. According to an anonymous search-engine industry professional, questions regarding Google's Suggest function are an everyday occurrence, fruit of what he described as "endless conspiracy theories." Google Earth image by Martin Stehr.
__________________________________________________________
Among the points of interest in the unfolding climate scandal is the fact that the term “climategate” rapidly eclipsed global warming in the number of links produced by a simple Google search.
As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list.
Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange.
Intrigued, I sent a few questions to Google’s Global Communications Department and a polite gentleman by the name of Jake Hubert responded right away.
This is what he wrote back in an e-mail:
Hi Harold,
I can verify that Google has not ever removed the query [climategate] or variations of the query from Google Suggest. It was never a “decision” as you suggest in your question, but instead it may have disappeared from the Suggest feature because of a normal update of the Suggest feature. The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.
Google Suggest uses a variety of algorithms in order to come up with relevant suggestions while the user is typing. We do remove certain clearly pornographic or hateful or malicious slur terms from Suggest, but we have not removed anything in this case.
Hope this helps,
Jake
In my response, I pointed out that the number of links produced by a “climategate” query was growing by leaps and bounds, drawing attention to the fact that “climategate” had eclipsed global warming (by that point) by more than half. (The doubling would be completed in the next 24 hours.)
Could he double-check with his product team?
His response was not surprising:
Hi Harold,
I hear what you’re saying, and I have already verified my prior statement with our product team.
Thanks,
Jake
At this point, although I suspected I was getting the run-around, I thought I’d give Jake once last shot at solving this problem:
Hi Jake,
I’m not questioning whether your product team confirmed your statement. Thank you again for that. I wonder, though, whether they have the complete story.
For instance, I wonder whether you and they have run some experiments just to see how odd this is? In your first response, you wrote, “The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the relevance algorithms work according to numbers of searches and links. Google Suggest fills in, for instance, both your name (although your name search produces only 680,000 links) and my name (which produces only 1,690,000 links). Climategate, on the other hand, yields 16 million links (growing by the hour), but Google Suggest doesn’t provide suggestions. So, the math doesn’t appear to add up.
Would it be possible to give me an example of another word or phrase that is yielding more and more hits (has more than 15 million already) but that Google Suggest does not in-fill (or stops during the word or phrase’s ascendancy)?
Barring such examples, this has the appearance of a political decision from high up the chain of command.
Would it be possible to provide me with contact information for a press officer at Google at the executive level?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Harold
Unlike the previous efforts at communication, this one was met with silence. At that point, I thought it might save time to work my way up the chain of command. I e-mailed a letter to Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, to whom I forwarded my correspondence with Jake. Toward the end of my letter I wrote the following:
Unfortunately, what this situation appears like is one in which someone with an interest in suppressing Climategate prevailed upon someone within the Google structure to remove Climategate from the list of auto-suggests. (Other phrases starting with climate are still Google-suggested even though they have many fewer links than Climategate.)
I asked him if it would it be possible to have someone from his staff look into this. I also asked if it would be possible to interview him by phone. Failing that, I said, perhaps I could send him a list of questions?
After sending the message, I went out to pick up my daughter from nursery school. When I returned, there was a message from Jake on my answering machine. Without boring readers with the entirety of the message, the takeaway was the statement “No need to contact the CEO.”
I returned Jake’s call and we spent a pleasant ten minutes on the phone, during which he explained that there was “no conspiracy,” that the algorithm governing Google Suggest simply had its own idiosyncracies, things of that nature. Nothing remotely credible, I am afraid, although I have no doubt that Jake was sincere.
I decided then to try another e-mail to Eric Schmidt (Sorry about that, Jake!). In the meantime, I’d seen that Google searching “climategate” (if one was willing to type in the whole phrase) now produced 22 million links.
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
Thank you for following up with Jake Hubert, who has reached out to me by telephone.
Unfortunately, the explanation makes no more sense by phone than it did by e-mail.
Climategate generates 22 million links on the main Google search engine. Global warming, by comparison, generates fewer than 11 million.
The idea that a numbers-driven algorithm stopped Google Suggest from filling in Climategate is absurd on its face. (Google Suggest, as it should, continues to in-fill global warming when a user begins typing it.)
These are my questions for you and your staff:
1. Was Google contacted by Al Gore or any one of his business associates regarding climategate searches on Google? If so, when did the approach take place?
2. What was the process that led to the decision to remove Climategate from the Google Suggest function?
3. Will Climategate be added to the list of Google Suggest items again?
4. Does Google feel that it acted according to its own highest ethical principles in this matter?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Ambler
I pushed send, got my daughter into her gymnastics gear, and rushed out the door. When I returned a little less than two hours later, I put my sleeping daughter on the couch and rushed upstairs to check my e-mail. Nada. Then I did a Google search, typing c-l-i-m … and there it was – offered by the gloriously user-friendly Google Suggest function – “climategate.”
Coincidence?
You never know.
Was Google briefly complicit in the largest scientific scandal in at least a generation, attempting to minimize it behind the scenes? Like I said, you never, ever, ever, ever know. Ever.
P.S. Four hours after the function returned, Google Suggest on “climategate” was altered again. Instead of the single word “climategate,” which yields 27 million links per search, Google now offers “climate gate scandal,” which yields 6 million. Only by hand-typing the complete word “climategate,” to the last letter, can users view an additional 21 million links. The evident message from on high? “Tamp it down.” The apparent success of the strategy: close to non-existent.
P.P.S. As of three days after this post (on Saturday December 5, that is), Google Suggest no longer offers any choices for C-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t-e, no matter how many letters one types. The total number of links appears to be stable around 30 million. The first reader who finds any Google search with 30 million or more links that Google Suggest doesn’t assist with wins the prize.
Tagged with: Al Gore, climategate, Eric Schmidt, global warming, Google
- - - - - -WOW!
...And it goes on
from the website "Talking About The Weather" http://talkingabouttheweather.com/
--- If this re-post is in violation of something, somehow and you do not want it to be re-posted on this website, please contact me @ Jenningsroofs@gmail.com and I will gladly take it down immediately. Other than that, please enjoy, and pass on a link to everyone you know.
Everyone should be typing into the search box “climategate” or "c l i m a t e g a t e" many times a day, just to flood their algorithms at google.com
This is a sad occurrence, if a search engine company Like www.google.com is guilty of trying to do exactly the same type of shenanigans that the so called scientists were doing when they were caught hiding the truth.
- "Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing" Dr. Phil -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Talking About The Weather
Googlegate? December 2nd 2009
Posted in Climate change, global warming by Harold Ambler on December 2, 2009
Googlegate?
Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California. According to an anonymous search-engine industry professional, questions regarding Google's Suggest function are an everyday occurrence, fruit of what he described as "endless conspiracy theories." Google Earth image by Martin Stehr.__________________________________________________________
Among the points of interest in the unfolding climate scandal is the fact that the term “climategate” rapidly eclipsed global warming in the number of links produced by a simple Google search.
As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list.
Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange.
Intrigued, I sent a few questions to Google’s Global Communications Department and a polite gentleman by the name of Jake Hubert responded right away.
This is what he wrote back in an e-mail:
Hi Harold,
I can verify that Google has not ever removed the query [climategate] or variations of the query from Google Suggest. It was never a “decision” as you suggest in your question, but instead it may have disappeared from the Suggest feature because of a normal update of the Suggest feature. The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.
Google Suggest uses a variety of algorithms in order to come up with relevant suggestions while the user is typing. We do remove certain clearly pornographic or hateful or malicious slur terms from Suggest, but we have not removed anything in this case.
Hope this helps,
Jake
In my response, I pointed out that the number of links produced by a “climategate” query was growing by leaps and bounds, drawing attention to the fact that “climategate” had eclipsed global warming (by that point) by more than half. (The doubling would be completed in the next 24 hours.)
Could he double-check with his product team?
His response was not surprising:
Hi Harold,
I hear what you’re saying, and I have already verified my prior statement with our product team.
Thanks,
Jake
At this point, although I suspected I was getting the run-around, I thought I’d give Jake once last shot at solving this problem:
Hi Jake,
I’m not questioning whether your product team confirmed your statement. Thank you again for that. I wonder, though, whether they have the complete story.
For instance, I wonder whether you and they have run some experiments just to see how odd this is? In your first response, you wrote, “The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the relevance algorithms work according to numbers of searches and links. Google Suggest fills in, for instance, both your name (although your name search produces only 680,000 links) and my name (which produces only 1,690,000 links). Climategate, on the other hand, yields 16 million links (growing by the hour), but Google Suggest doesn’t provide suggestions. So, the math doesn’t appear to add up.
Would it be possible to give me an example of another word or phrase that is yielding more and more hits (has more than 15 million already) but that Google Suggest does not in-fill (or stops during the word or phrase’s ascendancy)?
Barring such examples, this has the appearance of a political decision from high up the chain of command.
Would it be possible to provide me with contact information for a press officer at Google at the executive level?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Harold
Unlike the previous efforts at communication, this one was met with silence. At that point, I thought it might save time to work my way up the chain of command. I e-mailed a letter to Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, to whom I forwarded my correspondence with Jake. Toward the end of my letter I wrote the following:
Unfortunately, what this situation appears like is one in which someone with an interest in suppressing Climategate prevailed upon someone within the Google structure to remove Climategate from the list of auto-suggests. (Other phrases starting with climate are still Google-suggested even though they have many fewer links than Climategate.)
I asked him if it would it be possible to have someone from his staff look into this. I also asked if it would be possible to interview him by phone. Failing that, I said, perhaps I could send him a list of questions?
After sending the message, I went out to pick up my daughter from nursery school. When I returned, there was a message from Jake on my answering machine. Without boring readers with the entirety of the message, the takeaway was the statement “No need to contact the CEO.”
I returned Jake’s call and we spent a pleasant ten minutes on the phone, during which he explained that there was “no conspiracy,” that the algorithm governing Google Suggest simply had its own idiosyncracies, things of that nature. Nothing remotely credible, I am afraid, although I have no doubt that Jake was sincere.
I decided then to try another e-mail to Eric Schmidt (Sorry about that, Jake!). In the meantime, I’d seen that Google searching “climategate” (if one was willing to type in the whole phrase) now produced 22 million links.
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
Thank you for following up with Jake Hubert, who has reached out to me by telephone.
Unfortunately, the explanation makes no more sense by phone than it did by e-mail.
Climategate generates 22 million links on the main Google search engine. Global warming, by comparison, generates fewer than 11 million.
The idea that a numbers-driven algorithm stopped Google Suggest from filling in Climategate is absurd on its face. (Google Suggest, as it should, continues to in-fill global warming when a user begins typing it.)
These are my questions for you and your staff:
1. Was Google contacted by Al Gore or any one of his business associates regarding climategate searches on Google? If so, when did the approach take place?
2. What was the process that led to the decision to remove Climategate from the Google Suggest function?
3. Will Climategate be added to the list of Google Suggest items again?
4. Does Google feel that it acted according to its own highest ethical principles in this matter?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Ambler
I pushed send, got my daughter into her gymnastics gear, and rushed out the door. When I returned a little less than two hours later, I put my sleeping daughter on the couch and rushed upstairs to check my e-mail. Nada. Then I did a Google search, typing c-l-i-m … and there it was – offered by the gloriously user-friendly Google Suggest function – “climategate.”
Coincidence?
You never know.
Was Google briefly complicit in the largest scientific scandal in at least a generation, attempting to minimize it behind the scenes? Like I said, you never, ever, ever, ever know. Ever.
P.S. Four hours after the function returned, Google Suggest on “climategate” was altered again. Instead of the single word “climategate,” which yields 27 million links per search, Google now offers “climate gate scandal,” which yields 6 million. Only by hand-typing the complete word “climategate,” to the last letter, can users view an additional 21 million links. The evident message from on high? “Tamp it down.” The apparent success of the strategy: close to non-existent.
P.P.S. As of three days after this post (on Saturday December 5, that is), Google Suggest no longer offers any choices for C-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t-e, no matter how many letters one types. The total number of links appears to be stable around 30 million. The first reader who finds any Google search with 30 million or more links that Google Suggest doesn’t assist with wins the prize.
Tagged with: Al Gore, climategate, Eric Schmidt, global warming, Google
- - - - - -WOW!
...And it goes on
Today, Google’s handy helper seems to have had a change of heart.
Search Engines Censoring ClimateGate?
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 30, 2009
A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.
“What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal,” writes James Delingpole.
“It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me.”
Another blogger noted how other versions of the article appeared, but the original had been “disappeared,” despite the fact that other London Telegraph articles showed up as the top ranked result when entering their headline.
“That is using the search string: “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation” – which is the full headline of the piece. It shows up where it has been quoted in full by other sites, but of the Booker column there is no sign,” writes Richard North.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Why does your Government keep getting it wrong?
Don't Tax Me BRO!
The silent majority
Climategate - To be Gored...
Israeli scientist denies global warming
Written by Robyn Rosen, Jewish Chronicle
Thursday, December 03 2009 13:12
Professor Giora Shaviv
A leading Israeli scientist has renounced the concept of man-made global warming at a lecture given to the British Technion Society, just days before world leaders meet to discuss ways to halt it.
Professor Giora Shaviv, professor of physics at the Technion, claimed that the accepted level of carbon dioxide in the air is wildly exaggerated.
Prof Shaviv said that though for years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has claimed that an increase in carbon dioxide has led to an increase in temperature, in fact, the reverse is correct.
He argued that the movement of the sun affects temperature, which influences the levels of carbon dioxide, and that these levels have risen and fallen for centuries, even before mankind.
He said: “CO2 is not responsible for heating the earth, the cause is the activity of the sun which we cannot control.
“However we are responsible for our environment on earth, for the future of our grandchildren, and therefore, we should all still act responsibly.”
The lecture was attended by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson to analyse global warming policies and its economic implications.
Dr Peiser, who was born in Haifa, said that too much money was being ploughed into climate change research and that politicians were stifling contentious research that opposed the commonly accepted views.
He said: “People talk about saving the world but no one crunches the figures. It has become an obsession and economic burden for many countries.
“There is a hysteria and exaggeration of the issue with people worrying that the end is nigh. People need to calm down. The reality is we haven’t got a clear idea what the climate is doing.
“Part of our agenda is that scientists like Professor Shaviv have to be allowed to research freely and without political pressure.”
Source
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/24568/israeli-scientist-denies-global-warming
I bet he will not eat them - green eggs and ham.
You know the President is telling a lie when he says something like this.
"I hope we can build on the progress we made at last year's G20 summits by coordinating our global financial reform efforts to make sure a crisis like the one
from which we are still recovering never happens again," he said on June 25th 2010.
