I get the feeling that WorldNetDaily doesn’t like Google very much:

A conservative political action committee has charged Google with bias, saying the popular search engine rejected the PAC’s request to run an anti-Nancy Pelosi ad that had nearly identical wording to one that slammed Rep. Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader.

Right, and because Google rejected an ad filled with bogus charges against Nancy Pelosi and accepted an ad filled with charges that got Tom DeLay reprimanded by the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee, it’s an obvious left-wing plot.

But this isn’t the first time WND has gone after Google. Check out this gem from last August:

Though Google, the popular Internet search site, claims to uphold its corporate motto, “Don’t be evil,” it allows advertising for what many would consider blatant evil: Homosexual videos featuring anal sex.

It’s always about the anal sex, isn’t it? I wonder why they never mention lesbian sex. Is there some verse in the Bible that says, “No woman shall lie with another woman, lest a man be present to watcheth and/or videotapeth it?”

Gee, I wonder why Google would consider Stand to Reason a “hateful” site? Oh yeah, it was probably because of articles like this:

When do we give honor to people simply because of the disease that killed them, especially when, with regards to AIDS, in most cases they are diseased due to freely chosen conduct? At this point I need to say, as a disclaimer, that it is inconsequential for my analysis whether you think the conduct moral or immoral. The key here is that it was their choice. Their freely chosen conduct actually led to the disease. They were willing accomplices in the process. Do we honor people like that? Do we take a moment and recall them because their choice led to their untimely death?

Interestingly, the article doesn’t feel the same way about soldiers, who are all volunteers and whose job description includes breaking the Sixth Commandment when the country’s at war (note: I mean no disrespect to people in the military. I’m just saying that if we “shouldn’t honor people who break God’s laws and/or engage in risky behavior,” why stop at sodomy?):

What kind of people do we honor when they die? Well, we honor people at their death for the manner of life that they lived in our midst. An honorable life, for example. That’s why we honor them in death. Like when we eulogize a great person. We also honor people for what they were doing when they died. The noble activity that brought about their death. Those who die in war, for example.

So this is why the “Christian” Right seems to like war so much- you’re far less likely to fornicate when you’re getting shot at. OK, back to WorldNetDaily:

After reading the WND story about Google’s policy regarding the Christian site, a reader forwarded the newssite a letter he wrote to the search-engine firm:

“You will not allow ads that lead to websites advocating against homosexuality, but typing ‘a– f—ing sex’ in Google leads to sidebar ads for ‘awesome anal videos,’ et al. The incredible double standard displayed by you and the left in general is at the root of the rot in this country. Of course, the right to free speech protects [anal sex], but not the belief that homosexuality is a sin. That is truly amazing, don’t you agree?”

In other words it’s OK to hate, but just don’t have anal sex.

Indeed, ads that pop up using the readers’ criteria yield several ads for videos and pornographic websites. When the word “gay” is added, the theme of the ads switches to homosexual porn.

Wow, typing “gay ass fucking sex” into a search engine will produce ads for gay porn. Whoda thunk it? You gotta give WorldNetDaily credit for getting all the hard-hitting scoops that the mainstream media are too afraid to touch.

Images offered by Google are no less obscene, another reader claimed: “I often go to Google images, looking for pictures to use. Almost without fail you will find porn mixed in with innocent requests. Using the word ‘Clinton,’ by page 2 I had a nude woman. … Google is not a safe search engine for children to use.”

Here’s Page 2 of a Google search for images of “Clinton.” Does it have any photos of nude women? Sadly, No! It’s amazing how even the simplest fact-checks are beyond WorldNetDaily’s grasp.

Yet another reader noted when one enters “WMD” in the search engine, the first result is a page ridiculing President Bush about the lack of weapons the U.S. has found in Iraq. The page is disguised as a “Page Cannot be Displayed” error message but instead is titled “These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed.”

The WMD joke is not the first time a perceived anti-Bush bias has been discovered on Google. As WorldNetDaily reported, the first entry to come up when the words “miserable failure” is put into Google is the White House biography of the president.

I give up. This is too stupid to ridicule. In fact, it’s so stupid that they even debunk their own article at the end:

Computer users utilize a technique called “Google bombing” to rig results by posting the phrase “miserable failure” on webpages and linking it to the Bush biography.

The same technique has wedded the term “waffles” with John Kerry. When “waffles” is put into Google, the first result to pop up is Kerry’s campaign site.

Just for the helluva it, I Googled “WorldNetDaily.” Here are the top four results:

1.) WorldNetDaily
2.) Media Matters’ WorldNetDaily Archive
3.) “My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual,” by Randall Terry
4.) “Shame on WorldNetDaily.”

Now, there two conclusions we can draw from this:

1.) Google is so gay-obsessed that they made an article about homosexuality the #3 hit for “WorldNetDaily.”
2.) A lot of people think WorldNetDaily are a bunch of no-talent ass-clowns.

Incidentally, I’m proud to report that Googling “Sadly, No!” produces no hits for gay sex on the first page (which, I’ll be the first to admit, is pretty damn surprising).