Monopolistic Government-Tied Google Tells Website to Delete Article or Lose Ad Revenue


Google shouldn’t be able to do anything they want, though they are a private organization, because they have a monopoly on the search engines and all our computer data. They are also tied to the NSA and that should trouble people.

Currently, they are not only banishing right-leaning websites to the hinterlands of the blogosphere, they are compiling lists of who they will censor, even individuals, not just organizations.

The evil technocracy is taking over and it is soulless. They are putting in code that filters out the right. It’s an Internet brain so to speak.

James Allsup

Liberty Conservative posted an article by James Allsup who was involved in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville. There was nothing offensive in the article but because Allsup wrote it, the website was threatened.

They were told to remove the ‘hateful’ article or lose ad revenue.

As the website said, he is now declared an ‘unperson’ by the corporate elite.

That is not what the First Amendment is about. While the First Amendment doesn’t seem to apply to corporations, the fact that Google is monopolizing so much of the power over the Internet and the fact that they work with the government, it should matter.

The hard left likes to take someone like Allsup who made himself a bit of a pariah and use him to take away our freedoms.

Listen to what this professor says. He is neither right nor left. The reason he was cancelled, and I can say this from my own experience only, is a filter screened him out, but he was able to appeal to humans.


  1. Why am I a hypocrite for analyzing a Constitutional principle. I seriously doubt you understand about that which is holy, who it applies to, and the ‘laws’ governing it.

    Talk about arrogance.

    Also, as I recall your bible says to OBEY those laws and without those laws there would be anarchy. Do you really believe we were put here without any semblance of law and order.

  2. “While the First Amendment doesn’t seem to apply to corporations”

    I understand the vast majority of Conservatives will agree with this and say so in different ways, and for quite some time I’ve pondered this because I do Not implicitly agree with It. I realized there Must be a way to define the issue that answers what I would consider almost a perversion of the essence of Freedom.

    First of all we have to emphatically state that the Constitution is a Government document. It is all about THE Government, its role in the relationship between It and the people. In This context we have the First Amendment begin by stating, “Congress shall make no law…”. THIS is where Conservatives fail in understanding the true concept defined here. The statement is, in essence, saying that Congress cannot infringe on the “inherent right” of a free people. That “inherent right” is the First Amendment applies to everyone and cannot be abridged by Congress, specifically. But an “inherent right” is nonetheless guaranteed by implication.

    Given this document is an “operational” document it has to be worded to reflect that. Congress makes law, therefore Congress can make no law but still, this same Government is burdened with the “protections” of the people, as the “redress of grievances” clause is inserted. The people have an avenue of protection by redress To the Government. Therefore the Government is endowed with “responsibility” to ensure the liberty of a Free people, including the First Amendment, whether it be infringed upon by Government, Corporations, or any other entity.

    Now, there are some who say “It is my right to offend You”. I’ve heard many say this in different ways. So, no, you do not have that “inherent right”. Your right of Free Speech does not supersede another person’s right. In other words, one person’s right of speech cannot have dominance over another, Constitutionally. If you are inadvertently offended that is another matter. In the same manner, your being offended does not supersede the offender’s right of His speech. The only dichotomy is one in which there is a controlling situation. This can be demonstrated by example. If it is in a situation on a college campus and the professor engages in an offensive manner then the contrary has to be allowed also. In these cases there needs to be leaders that can insure civil discourse. If not there are Civil Rights protection mandated by law, which Congress addressed in their duty of protecting the rights of the people. And this comes full circle in addressing First Amendment issues.

    • Just read this this morning as part of my daily Bible study:

      Matthew 7:1-6
      1″Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged. 2For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you. 3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? 4Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

      6″Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

      Matthew 7:12
      “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

      Those who put their faith in mankind and man’s laws (politics) will always be disappointed. Many have the lost the concept of Liberty. Nowadays, they call it freedom or democracy or rights. All our blessings come from God.

Leave a Reply