GOOGLE SILENCES DISSENT

[1John2_26]

Should Google silence freedom of speech when it is critical of a religion or people?

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Google dumps news sites
that criticize radical Islam
Search giant axes another news page,
calls terrorism discussion 'hate content'

Posted: May 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered.

Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company's help desk Friday indicating there had been complaints of "hate speech" on his site, as first reported by media watchdog Newsbusters.org.


The e-mail, which cited three articles that dealt with radical Islam and its relationship to terrorism, read:


Hi Frank,
Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).

For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/peck/05102006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/05082006.htm
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/imani/04222006.htm

We hope this helps you understand our position.

Regards,
The Google Team

Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism.

Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."

Two weeks later, Jim Sesi's MichNews.com was cut off, with Google providing three examples of "hate speech" by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Newsbusters commented: "At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess."

The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint.

When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide.

According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google.

Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias.

Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes.

Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without further explanation, due to "unacceptable content."

As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.

CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.

Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.

In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."

In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by "quality," giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent.

[Shamgar]

Is there freedom of the press or freedom of religion in Islamic countries? Saudi Arabia would do nicely as the case studdy since the Qur'an is published there AND the Kaabah is in that country.

Do the poster children for "tolerance" "equal rights" and "civil rights" the zionist jews practice "tolerance" "equal rights" and "civil rights"to the arabs? No! Must be why the arabs are so upset. . . . .

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p05s01-wome.html
February 06, 2002 edition

Israeli expulsion idea gains steam
The Moledet party's media blitz for the mass expulsion of Palestinians is gaining momentum.
By Ben Lynfield | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
JERUSALEM - Spurred on by public despair, Israeli advocates of a mass expulsion of Palestinians are gaining strength and legitimacy as the toll of Palestinian attacks inside Israel continues to rise.

Tourism Minister Benny Elon of the far-right Moledet party this week launched a campaign advocating "transfer," a euphemism for expulsion, which he says can also connote an agreed relocation of Palestinians.
[snip]

The Invisible Nation
http://www.bouthainashaaban.com/ENG.%20 ... 06/be8.htm
By: Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban
24 Mar. 2006

Where was the “international community” when the Israeli troops stormed the Jericho prison? The American and British monitors, for one, had left by then, making way for the Israeli aggression. Another episode in the systematic belligerence and humiliation inflicted on Palestinians. And another “international” empty call for both parties to practice “self restraint.” The Palestinians should have made heed and shut off their cries and complaints against that flagrant international crime.

The international media coverage was rather illuminating. There was plenty of information about the history of the prison, its successive wardens, the prospective Hamas loose control over the inmates, the security of the American and British monitors, and so on and so forth. There was also, of course, the usual xenophobic alarm of potential angry Palestinian reactions against foreigners in Palestinian lands. Few spared a line to ponder where the Israeli raid scored on the scale of international criminal acts. The measurements did not apply to crimes against Arabs and Muslims.

The raid on Jericho prison is not an isolated incident in the history of Israeli occupation. Every passing day, Israeli forces murder Palestinian civilians, rape Palestinian women at checkpoints and strip Palestinians naked to humiliate them in front of their relatives. A daily fact of life confirmed by Checkpoints Watch, an Israeli organization founded by 400 Jewish women to observe Israeli soldiers’ behavior at checkpoints. Adi Dagan, the organization’s spokeswoman said that “approximately two million Palestinians are subjected to very ugly suffering, and the Israeli public doesn’t know about it.” Obviously, neither does the “international community.”
[snip]

Thu., June 01, 2006 Sivan 5, 5766
Last update - 15:14 01/06/2006
Between immigrants and natives
By Meron Benvenisti

It's been less than two weeks since the High Court of Justice issued its ruling maintaining the deprivation of the rights of Palestinians to reunify their families, and we already have the decision that Palestinian MPs from Hamas, living in Jerusalem, will be expelled if they don't resign within 30 days.

The suspicious will find a connection between the two decisions and wonder if the government is deliberately attempting to try the public and legal system's patience for evil acts bordering on racism, as preparation for even more brutal steps. According to the reactions so far, there have been no firm demands for an end to this cruelty and the government can continue on its merry way; the security excuse serves as an effective fig leaf from any domestic criticism and foreign criticism can always be rejected as forms of anti-Semitism.

Seemingly, there is no connection between the prevention of family unification and the threat of expulsion; but the two matters touch on basic perception of the status of Palestinians in their homeland: It's no accident that both issues fall within the realm of "entry to Israel," whether preventing it or stripping it.

The Israelis, children of immigrants, who in the best case are only separated by a generation from the status of refugees - uprooted and expelled - impose on native Palestinians the status of foreigners, of living in a country to which they do not belong, forcing them to fight for the right to live in their home, and exposing them to an expulsion decree or banning their "entrance" on the grounds that they "do not belong."

Not many years have lapsed since the Jewish yishuv fought for its legitimacy and was forced to defend itself from the argument that it was a collection of immigrants taking over a country they did not own, until the situation was reversed; now it is the Palestinian nation that has to fight for the collective legitimacy that this is their homeland and that they are not some collection of foreigners breaking into a country that is not theirs, and nothing but a gang of terrorists.

The Palestinians seeking family reunification and the right to live in Israel are rejected because they are aliens and their presence here "could change the face of Israeli society." The Jerusalemite MPs, like all the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, never asked for their status as permanent residents; it was imposed on them.

In 1967, Israel conquered East Jerusalem and sought to annex the territory without annexing the inhabitants. The legal trick invented for the purpose imposed on the 70,000 Arabs of East Jerusalem the status of "permanent resident" as if they were new immigrants who had not yet been naturalized as citizens. But in this case, it wasn't the Arabs who emigrated to Israel, but Israel that emigrated to them. Under the conditions that prevailed at the time, it was a liberal approach, even if it was a contravention of international law, since on the one hand, their status as Jordanian citizens was not stripped from them - and it was important to them since the Jordanian kingdom was their economic, administrative, family and educational centers - and on the other hand, the "permanent residency" gave them the right to enjoy the benefits of Israel's welfare system, freedom of movement and relatively broader freedom of speech than existed in the occupied territories.

It wasn't a favor being done by the Israeli occupiers, because the alternative - granting them Israeli citizenship as happened to the Arabs of the Triangle annexed in 1949 - was worse; and leaving them without any status in Israel would contradict the pretensions of "unifying the city" and would have perpetuated the occupation in it.

Therefore, the interior minister's bragging that he is doing a favor by paying them National Insurance Institute payments, child allotments and health insurance, is hollow and patronizing. This arrangement, after all, is 40-years-old, and enabled people like Ehud Olmert and Ronni Bar-On to take pride in the "unification of Jerusalem" and to condemn "the leftists who neglected East Jerusalem because they wanted to divide the city."

The suspicion sneaks in that the emphasis on denying permanent residency (and the denial of the package of rights that accompany that residency) is preparing the groundwork for similar steps toward thousands among the 230,000 Palestinian residents of the city who were imprisoned on the western side of the separation wall. If the election of a person in democratic elections and according to a published platform can be an excuse to strip them of a "permanent status," meaning expulsion from their home, and if the definition of every Palestinian is as an "alien" and an "enemy subject" strips them of their right to "permanent residency" - what does that mean for all the inhabitants of East Jerusalem?
[snip]

As we have already said, they cannot endure to hear or to see that we accursed Goyim should glory in the Messiah as our chemdath, and that we are as good as they are or as they think they are. Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew.

I haven't seen a Jew behead a Christian ever.

Hahahhahahaaaa non sequitur. . . . .ever seen a jew embrace the New Testament? (Aside from the cult of "jews for Jesus" and the "messianic jews" who happen to belong to the allies of the "Christian" Zionists?) How about blow one up? Like the jew terrorist attack on the King David hotel? Or the jew massacre on the USS Liberty?

While Jews for Jesus insists that it does not endorse the activities of any particular Jewish groups committed to rebuilding the Jewish temple, it nevertheless provides information on, and direct Internet links to, eight Jewish organizations, some of which have been implicated in attempts to seize the Temple Mount, destroy the Al Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock, rebuild the Jewish temple and re-institute temple worship, priesthood and sacrifices. these include the Temple Institute and Temple Mount Faithful. (94)

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 234.

Jews for Jesus, founded in 1973, is the most overtly evangelistic expression of this form of Messianic dispensationalism.

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armegeddon? (Leicester: 2004) page 97.

Another major dispensationalist figure who promoted the Protocols [Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion] in the 30s was William Bell Riley, the Baptist leader from Minnesota. He first came across the Protocols in the 1920s and rejected it as fanciful and far-fetched. But a few years later he read it again and was struck by how accurately it explained what was happening all over the world.(24) In 1934 Riley [William Bell Riley] published The Protocols and Communism, in which he argued that the same plot that had turned Russia communist was now at work in FDR's New Deal. “Today in our land many of the biggest trusts, banks, and manufacturing interests are controlled by Jews . . . Most of our department stores they own. . . The motion pictures, the most vicious of all immoral, educational and communistic influences, is their creation.”(25) Visitors to Riley's First Baptist Church in Minneapolis got a steady dose of similar sentiments from the pulpit, so much that Jewish leaders identified the church as one of the most important sources of anti-Semitism in the Twin Cities.(26)

Timothy P. Weber, “On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend” (Grand Rapids: 2004) Page 136.

Last time I was in one, anyone could work in a store owned by "a Jew." AND, they could shop their too. AND the women didn't have to be covered from head to toe.

Hey islamaphobe picked a new antichrist now that Saddam has fallen from power? hahahahahaa what a racist!!!!!! Try not being such a hypocrite. . . .

Destructive Consequences of Christian Zionism, Figure #10: 3. “Encouragement of religious intolerance and Islamaphobia.”

Stephen Sizer, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?” (Leicester: 2004), Page 258.

With the rise of Arab nationalism and especially Palestinian aspirations towards self-determination, the polemics against Arabs has grown. Comparisons between Hitler and Arabs are now frequent in the writings of contemporary Christian Zionists. (129) Van der Hoeven of the ICEJ is typical: 'Just as there was a definite ideology behind hatred and atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis, there is one behind the hatred and wars by the Arabs against the Jews and people of Israel.'(130)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 242.

Antipathy for Arabs generally has led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the demonization of Islam, while Arab leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are cast for the role of Antichrist. (118) In such a dualistic and polarized world, Christian Zionists are best skeptical and at worst hostile towards the Middle East peace process.

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 240.


Wed., March 22, 2006 Adar 22, 5766
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/697458.html
Last update - 18:54 22/03/2006
Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab
By Eli Ashkenazi and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents

Sixty-eight percent of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in the same apartment building as an Israeli Arab, according to the results of an annual poll released Wednesday by the Center for the Struggle Against Racism.

The "Index of Racism Towards Arab Palestinian Citizens of the State of Israel," conducted by Geocartographia, revealed on 26 percent of Jews in Israel would agree to live with Arab neighbors in the same building.

Forty-six percent of Jews would refuse to allow an Arab to visit their home while 50 percent would welcome an Arab visitor. Forty-one percent of Jewish support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in places of recreation and 52 percent of such Jews would oppose such a move.

The inclination toward segregation rises as the income level of the poll respondent drops and also as the level of religious observance rises. Support for segregation between Jews and Arabs is also higher among Jews of Middle Eastern origin as opposed to those of European origin.

"Racism is becoming mainstream. When people talk about transfer or about Arabs as a demographic time-bomb, no one raises their voice against such statements. This is a worrisome phenomenon," Bachar Ouda, director of the Center for the Struggle Against Racism, said on Tuesday. The report covered the year 2005 and the center will, in the future, present monthly and bi-annual polls.

The index, edited by Ouda and attorney Ala Khaider, surveys racially-motivated incidents that took place during 2005 and examines the attitudes of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs.

During the course of 2005, 225 racially-motivated incidents directed at Arab citizens were reported to the center or in the media. The center believes that less than 20 percent of attacks or other incidents are ever reported.

Seventy-fire percent of the reports on racist incidents came from institutional sources such as government ministries, government companies or publicly-elected officials.

The poll further revealed that 63 percent of Jewish Israelis agree with the statement, "Arabs are a security and demographic threat to the state." Thirty-one percent of Jews did not agree. Agreement with the statement was strongest among Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews and low-income earners.

Forty percent of Jews believe "the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens" and just 52 percent don't agree with the statement.

Thirty-four percent also agreed with the statement that "Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture." Fifty-seven percent did not agree with the statement.

Half of Israeli Jews express fear or discomfort when hearing people speaking Arabic. Eighteen percent of Jews said they feel hate when hearing Arabic speakers.

Responding to the report, Hadash Chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh said racism against Israeli Arabs "is a direct result of official racist and discriminatory policies" dictated by the government.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/704726.html
Tue., April 11, 2006 Nisan 13, 5766
Incoming Hadash lawmaker: Planning policy is anti-Arab
By Yoav Stern

MK-designate Dr. Hanna Swaid (Hadash) leveled sharp criticism at state policy yesterday at a conference on national planning. Swaid told Haaretz that Israel wants its Arab citizens to emigrate, saying no other conclusion is possible from examining policy.

"The demographic question is at the heart of all planning in Israel. Funding is allocated only to Jewish communities, while Arab communities don't get anything. In mixed cities, the homes of Arabs are demolished to preserve the 20 percent proportion of population. What is the conclusion?" Swaid asked. "Only one. The establishment is trying to convince Arabs they have no place here."

The sixth annual conference on land and housing was held yesterday by the Arab Center for Alternative Planning, which Sweid heads, and the national committee of Arab mayors.

Participants tied planning policy to the hostile political climate and criticized Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's declarations.

"Olmert saying only Zionist parties will be part of the coalition, delegitimizes the Arab population. Government is a symbol of sovereignty, and if it is only for Jews, then that raises thoughts on whether there is desire to have Arabs in this country," Swaid stated.

The Arab population sees efforts to develop the Negev and Galilee regions as motivated by demographics. According to the charge, budgets are only invested in Jewish communities in those areas. "The needs of the Arab population are barely addressed. The wrapping is development and the content is Judaization," Swaid charges.

Swaid also noted the call among Israelis to set borders with the Palestinian Authority so that Arab towns in the Triangle are under PA control.

And, the Christians didn't detonate suicide bombs in anyone of them either.

jews do. . . .they denoted the bomb in the King David hotel killing civilans. . .blew up soldiers. . . . .and in fact the irgun (jews) blew up arabs by setting dynamite in wagons in the open air markets. . . . .must be where the arabs learned those tricks. . . .

In order to kill the greatest number of soldiers, without taking risks oneself, nothing could equal electric mines. Made to look like milestones, they contained fifteen kilogrammes of explosives, which we made ourselves from common chemical manure (ammonium nitrate). To this we added five to eight kilogrammes of bolts as shrapnel. A curfew having been established on all roads from nine o'clock on, we left every evening in groups of three to place our mines at the edge of some orange-grove. A wire, fifty yards long, connected the false milestone to a little detonator. A push on the button was enough to blow up a truck. Leaving aside the fact that they face, and that they had the unpleasant experience of seeing their transport interfered with, the English lost tens of dead, and suffered innumerable wounds, without ever succeeding in capturing one of the girls or boys responsible. Records were set up for losses inflicted with a single mine; I believe it was held by Lea, the wife of Dov, with thirteen killed.
Avner. “Memoirs of an Assassin: Confessions of a Stern Gang Killer” (New York: 1959)
Page 87.