Google Hides “Clinton Body Count” Search Suggestions

Google Hides "Clinton Body Count" Search Suggestions

Web giant caught censoring negative information about Hillary yet again!

August 22, 2016

Google has altered its search algorithm to prevent searches for “Clinton body count” from auto-completing, despite the term auto-completing when typed in on virtually any other search engine.

The ‘Clinton body count’ is an infamous list of alleged murders connected to the Clintons.

When a web user searches for “clinton body” on Bing or Yahoo Search, the suggested results all relate to the Clinton body count controversy.

However, search for the same term on Google and “clinton body” only returns suggestions related to auto-repair shops, and nothing to do with the Clinton body count.

Go ahead, try it for yourself.

While Google may not be outright censoring the information (people can still search for “clinton body count”), the fact that the term does not auto-complete clearly suggests that the company has altered its algorithm to clean up “conspiracy theories” about Hillary.

That’s interesting given New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo’s demand that Google “fix” its search results by censoring information about Hillary’s ill health so as not to “give quarter to conspiracy theorists”.

Back in June it was revealed by SourceFed that Google was indeed manipulating its search results to bury unflattering stories about Hillary.

“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,” reported the Washington Times.

In August last year, Politico reported on how “Google could rig the 2016 election” by altering its search algorithms.

“Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated,” wrote Robert Epstein, who conducted experiments to prove it.

Epstein warned that Google can manipulate how people are thinking and influence their voting preference by utilizing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), which would include burying negative search terms that relate to Hillary Clinton.

Google adjusts its search engine algorithm 600 times a year, but the process is a closely kept secret. They rely on it being almost impossible to prove favoritism in search results, but it appears in this case the company has been caught red-handed.

New York Times Tech Columnist Calls on Google to Hide Hillary Health Info


New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo is calling on Google to “fix” its search engine results to hide evidence of Hillary Clinton’s failing health.

“Go online and put down, ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ and take a look at the videos yourself,” Rudy Giuliani recently said on Fox News, during an argument about how sick Clinton really is.

Manjoo of the Times called for Google to “fix” the problem of search results possibly hurting the Democratic nominee.


A Google search for “Hillary Clinton illness,” following Giuliani’s comments and Manjoo’s call for action, turns up some independent journalistic articles from Breitbart, Infowars, and others, alongside articles trying to debunk the story, like the Vox piece: “The bonkers conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton’s health.”

In reality, Clinton’s health is becoming a major issue in the campaign.

Photographs of Hillary Clinton being helped up a flight of stairs in South Carolina recently set the Internet on fire. Though Clinton’s doctor Lisa Bardack released a perfunctory letter in 2015 describing Clinton as healthy, most voters want her to make a full disclosure of her health records. Multiple Twitter hashtags — #HillarysHealth, #HillarysStools, for example — became dominant trends on the social network.

Clinton is still taking strong medications, such as the blood thinner Coumadin after she suffered a blood clot and concussion. Dr. Drew Pinsky described her drug regimen as “1950s-level care” on his radio show this week. Clinton frequently leans against stools on stage at her campaign speeches, and she admitted that she was exhausted by the end of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia — even though, as far as this reporter could tell, she was just sitting in her hotel the entire time until she gave her acceptance speech to scattered boos.

Google Manipulation For Hillary Gets Even Crazier

Published on Aug 16, 2016

Just how objective are internet search engines? Is it possible that Google, a large corporation with very clear partisan support for Hillary Clinton, would manipulate search results to be in the Democratic party presidential nominee’s favor? Watch what happens when Lee Camp types “Hillary Clinton” into different search engines. It’s SHOCKING how much of an apologist Google is for her!!! This and more on Redacted Tonight.


There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign



My dad always told me that conservative candidates have to work twice as hard as their liberal opponents to win elections because they’re fighting two opponents: the Democratic Party and the media.

The usual suspects from left-leaning major media outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and even entertainment networks are doing everything in their power to ensure a Clinton victory. Look no further than to Wolf Blitzer mincing around and drinking wine at the Democratic convention, celebrating Hillary’s nomination. But the propaganda skewing this election runs much deeper than just the media: our iPhones, iPads, social media networks, Google and even video games are all in the tank for Hillary Clinton—and it’s chilling.

I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGAPod. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.

On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature—because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.

iTunes has dozens of podcasts discussing Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler—none of which is marked explicit. I encouraged Hammond to contact Apple again, via email to their podcast support team. Within 48 hours he received a response from “Tim,” who informed Hammond that his podcast would be updated to “clean” within 24 hours.

Further digging on Apple revealed more evidence that the computer giant is feeding users pro-Hillary and anti-Trump propaganda.

Over the past year, Apple twice refused to publish a satirical Clinton Emailgate game, “Capitol HillAwry,” claiming it was “offensive” and “mean spirited” even though the game’s developer, John Matze, cited in communications with Apple that the game fits the standards of Apple’s own satire policy. Apple has, however, approved dozens of games poking fun at Donald Trump—including a game called “Dump Trump,” which depicts the GOP nominee as a giant turd.

On July 25, Breitbart exposed this blatant double standard and favoritism toward Clinton. A few days after the article was released, Apple caved and published Capitol HillAwry, 15 months after Matze’s first attempt to go live.

While it’s commendable that Apple resolved both situations, Trump supporters and conservative users should never have faced such biased treatment in the first place.

Around the same time I was a guest on MAGAPod, a friend complained to me about how biased his Apple News feed is against Trump. I set up an Apple News account on my iPhone.

First step: select an outlet. Fox News. Conservative. But my news feed? Liberal.

And if there are articles above the fold from more right-leaning sites? They paint Trump in a negative light and Hillary in a positive light. Of all the channels listed in the Apple News politics section, only two of the 16 arguably lean right—the rest are reliably left-wing.

This has, of course, been pointed out before, and anyone with an iPhone or iPad can go to Apple News to determine on his or her own if Apple is pushing leftist propaganda. Apple claims not to endorse candidates, but their actions suggest otherwise, and some of their executives—including CEO Tim Cook—actively support Clinton’s campaign. Buzzfeed recently obtained an invitation to a private $50,000-per-plate fundraiser Cook is hosting for Clinton with his Apple colleague, Lisa Jackson, at the end of this month.

Apple isn’t the only corporation doing Clinton’s bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is “directly engaged” in her campaign. It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.

So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton.SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.

For example, when you type “Hillary Clinton cri” into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” but in Google it’s “Hillary Clinton crime reform.” Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don’t show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.

But Google has gotten into hot water on multiple occasions for connecting Trump to Adolf Hitler. In June, when users searched “when Hitler was born” it generated the expected information on Hitler but also an image of Trump. In July, searches for Trump’s book, Crippled America, returned images of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kempf. Google has since fixed both—but again, why do these issues always conveniently disparage Trump and help Clinton?

Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of slack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they’ve allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.

Just yesterday, Buzzfeed revealed that the social media giant’s top executive personally protected the President from seeing critical messages last year. “In 2015, then-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo secretly ordered employees to filter out abusive and hateful replies to President Barack Obama.”

This year, Twitter isn’t just banning conservatives—the platform also changed its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.

The founders of some of the most popular pro-Trump Twitter handles—including @USAforTrump2016 and @WeNeedTrump—insist Twitter is censoring their content. They’ve pointed out that Twitter changes trending hashtags associated with negative tweets about Clinton (which has been reported before). On August 4, shortly after the hashtag “HillaryAccomplishment” began trending, it was taken over by anti-Clinton users, who used it to mention Benghazi or Emailgate. Eric Spracklen, @USAforTrump2016 founder, noticed the hashtag was quickly changed—pluralized to #HillarysAccomplishments.

“They take away the hashtag that has negative tweets for Clinton and replace it with something that doesn’t so the average person doesn’t see what was really trending,” Spracklen said. “This happens every day.”

Jack Murphy, founder of @WeNeedTrump, says followers complain they often aren’t able to retweet his pro-Trump tweets.

Instagram has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light. In June, a conservative comedy group called Toughen Up America was banned with no warning or explanation. Last week, the popular Australian-based graffiti artist, Lushsux, was banned from Instagram after he posted photos of a bikini-clad Clinton mural he painted.

“I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist with a tin foil hat, but the timing of the Hillary Clinton mural posting and the deletion that ensued can’t just be a coincidence,” he told the Daily Mail Australia. Lushsux has posted photos of way more graphic murals, including a topless Melania Trump and a naked Donald with his package in full sight. These images did not trigger any censorship from Instagram.

Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.

Facebook denies it discriminates against “any sources of ideological origin” and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.

Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname “Clinton News Network.” For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn’t think much of the Wall Street Journal‘s revelationthat the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”

Another favored CNN trick is to present a “balanced” panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one “Never Trump” Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter—often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord—in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.

Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.

No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she’d be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN’s website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for “splitting with her party.”

So that’s the traditional media. But this new strand, where one cannot even search for alternative viewpoints amid technology companies who stand to benefit from the free-trade policies and eased immigration regulations of a Clinton presidence, represents a dangerous sea change. There’s absolutely no question the digital forums we use every day are censoring conservatives and favoring Clinton. You can’t simply scroll through photos on Instagram, look for a video game in the App Store or do a quick Google search without being fed anti-Trump and pro-Clinton propaganda.

These companies are engaging in activity that can quickly lead down a very dangerous slippery slope and this should concern all freedom-loving Americans—not just conservatives. If you don’t know when the election is, no problem! Just Google it and see for yourself what comes up…



Social media giant shadow bans presidential candidate’s tweet

JULY 29, 2016

Twitter is provably censoring Donald Trump in order to prevent him raising money for his presidential campaign.

A tweet sent out by Trump yesterday to promote his #MillionDollarMatch donation drive does not appear on Trump’s profile page nor did it appear on the feed of anyone following him.

You can check for yourself. Here is the tweet sent out by Trump yesterday and here is his main profile page – which doesn’t show the tweet. The tweet has been buried as if it never existed.

This is yet another example of Twitter shadow banning – where people on a designated ‘blacklist’ have their tweets relegated on search results and hidden from users’ timelines, while leftist politicians and commentators on a ‘whitelist’ have their tweets promoted.

A Twitter insider admitted to Breitbart back in February that Twitter had indeed begun shadow banning politically incorrect users, a claim verified by a senior editor at a major digital publisher.

Screen Shot 2016-07-29 at 7.18.11 PM

A Trump tweet in which he declared that “the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country” was also shadow banned by Twitter back in April.

While Twitter is censoring Trump, it has repeatedly been accused of gaming its algorithms in support of Hillary. Back in February, users were irate after the social media giant appeared to censor the anti-Hillary hashtag #WhichHillary after it started trending.

The revelation that Twitter is shadow banning Trump comes on the heels of Google claiming that a ‘technical bug’ was to blame for Donald Trump not appearing when users searched for “presidential candidates”.

Twitter’s shadow banning of Trump also follows its controversial decision to slap conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos with a lifetime ban.

GOOGLE claims ‘technical bug’ omitted Trump from search…

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 3.21.55 PM

COLUMBUS (WCMH) – Googling the presidential candidates Wednesday morning didn’t produce the exact results some people would expect.

Searching for the term ‘presidential candidates’ brought up a handy guide above all of the other search results with pictures of candidates with active campaigns. Clicking on a picture brought up searches for the candidates.

The only problem is that Republican candidate Donald Trump wasn’t included. Neither was Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

Google search result for "Presidential Candidates" shortly after noon Wednesday.
Google search result for “Presidential Candidates” shortly after noon Wednesday.

Results were shown for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

NBC4 reached out to Google to ask about the issue. Around noon Wednesday, Trump and Johnson were both added back to the Google search results.

Google then sent the following statement to NBC4 in regards to what caused some candidates to disappear from its search results:

We found a technical bug in Search where only the presidential candidates participating in an active primary election were appearing in a Knowledge Graph result. Because the Republican and Libertarian primaries have ended, those candidates did not appear. This bug was resolved early this morning.” — Google Spokesperson

Three Major Media Companies EXPOSED For Their Liberal Bias


By S.P. Palermo

Control the media and you control the narrative.

For years, liberals held sway over news the American people received, until FOX and conservative talk radio invaded their power base and busted their monopoly. Unable to vanquish their opposition and regain their totalitarianism, the mainstream media have let slowly slip the mask of impartiality.

At times they outright admit their bias (“You’re Goddamned right I ordered the Code Red!”), but for the most part they choose to ignore it, parading under a pretense of impartiality, like the Emperor and his new clothes. On any given night you can turn to CNN and see a panel of six guests comprised of two far left progressives, two garden variety liberals, one Stealth Democrat posing as a RINO and a lone conservative (for a network that claims to be against bullying they seem to have no problem with a five-against-one format.) And the lone conservative is often a woman (which party has a war on women?) Because a five-to-one advantage isn’t enough, the six guests are presided over by one of the ringmasters from CNN’s stable of liberal hosts (or does anyone believe that Cooper, Cuomo, Costello, Wolf or Lemon have ever voted for a single candidate with an R next to their name in their entire lives?)

But now, CNN and the rest of their ilk have a new ally in their struggle to manage the meme: Social Media, or to be more accurate as we’ve recently learned, Socialist Media.

In a not-so-stunning, and certainly not unsuspected turn of events, Facebook, Google and Twitter have all been outed as progressive proselytizers, part of the Global Gang (or is it Goebbels’ Gang?).

In the past two weeks alone we’ve seen:

FACEBOOK outed for suspending a “Transgenders for Trump” page (hyperlink #1, below)

GOOGLE caught manipulating search results to bury negative stories about Hillary Clinton (link #2)

TWITTER levying multiple suspensions on gay, conservative firebrand columnist Milo (link #3)

What prompted this open bias against Milo and Transgenders by Twitter and Facebook?

What was their sin – hate speech? Death threats?


Socialist Media is trying to silence them because they present a case for a Republican candidate in a world where the  has been indoctrinated to vote for Democrats.

In short, they were suspended for encouraging independent thought, which is anathema to the political party dependent on Group Think.

Naturally, all three, Google, Facebook and Twitter have denied any bias.

Just like the networks used to.

Lest anyone think it’s a two-way street, where progressives face the same kind of filtering of free speech, consider this – if you’d like, you can go to Facebook’s “Donald Trump Sucks” page” where you can engage in insightful political discourse with your typical, anti-hate speech, safe-space-demanding leftist as they gather around (be warned the image is NSFW) pictures like this.

Or, if you prefer variety in your barbarism, you can go to Twitter and share your thoughts with followers of the religion of peace as they broadcast their desires to bomb, decapitate and sodomize Milo (Probably in reverse order of that. I think.)

As for Google, I can share a personal experience. Fed up with the hypocrisy of the left’s attacks on Trump for banning the Washington Post, I decided to present a counterpoint utilizing the three media outlets Obama banned towards the end of his initial campaign to fundamentally change the America his wife was so proud (not) of. I couldn’t recall who they were (it was the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Examiner and the NY Post) so I went to google and entered “media outlets banned by Obama.”

What did I get?

If you guessed page after page of articles attacking Trump for banning the Washington Post you are correct!

Serves me right for turning to Socialist Media when I needed facts.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3