WorldNetDaily: Selflessly Fighting the God-Hating Sodomites at Google So the Rest of Us Can Have a Good Laugh

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?”

As WorldNetDaily reported, Google recently banned an advertisement from a Christian organization, Stand to Reason, because the group’s website contains articles opposing homosexuality that were determined by Google to be “hate speech.”

Said an e-mail addressed to Stand to Reason: “Google AdWords policy never permits ads or keywords promoting hate, violence, or crimes toward any organization, person or group protected by law,” including those distinguished by their “sexual orientation/gender identity.”

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).


Comments: 17


FYI, when you do an image search on Sadly, No! you do get one image of a naked butt (female). Shouldn’ta done it at work. My bad. Some of the other pictures are clean, but rather horrifying.


Of course they are full of crap, but if you turn off all the image filtering on google images and search for Clinton you do get a nude image (of Bill with a fake naked Monica Lewinsky).

If that’s the one they’re referring to, you do wonder why they’ve turned the filtering off..


Of course they are full of crap, but if you turn off all the image filtering on google images and search for Clinton you do get a nude image (of Bill with a fake naked Monica Lewinsky).

If that’s the one they’re referring to, you do wonder why they’ve turned the filtering off..

Ironically, most of those lewd “Clinton” images were probably posted by bored Freepers.


What about the heterosexual videos featuring #nal sex?


Obviously the folks at WND are dimwits and mouth-breathers, but in fairness they’re objecting in this specific comment to placed ads for gay porn not search results (though i’m sure they object to that also). Obviously, until Google replaces the federal government the free speech argument is silly (one assumes that WND carries gay porn ads out of respect for the 1st amendment). It’s not until the bit about the Clinton search that they blame Google for the content of the entire Internet.


Points taken. I’ve fixed some of it. I’ve got finals coming up soon and am extremely lazy.


if we “shouldn’t honor people who break God’s laws and/or engage in risky behavior,” why stop at sodomy?)

And what about those bastards who eat shellfish, which Leviticus (yup, the same Book with the anti-gay quote so beloved by the wingnuts) proscribes? Remember, God hates shrimp.


No link associating Sadly, No! with American as apple pie gay ass sex. You could loose some street cred for that, bub.

Try to take it easy on the right wingers and their obsession with gay ass sex. It is just something that they do. Especially when they are drinking, with the boys, and get so drunk that they can’t even remember what happened that night.


Possibly we should round these people up and teach ’em to use a search engine. Has it occurred to them that typing in vulgarities is more likely to lead to an assumption by ad-selecting software that they are interested in, uh, vulgarities? Wouldn’t a non-degenerate (someone who isn’t me, for example) have been searching on “sodomy”? Your sponsored link there is a Bible course explaining why it’s evil.
No porn. And that’s with *all* filtering turned off. Which is not the default setting, for pity’s sake.
“not a safe search engine for children”. Fantastic. So watch your kids and don’t let them turn the filter off. Better yet, don’t turn it off yourself. When you have a kid, you buy the outlet plugs to childproof your home. You don’t lobby the government to remove outlets from all homes so your kid doesn’t stick a fork in one.
Your Vigilance Fatigue doesn’t get to bring the culture to a grinding halt.


I did a Google Image Search of “Sadly No” and I found this picture of Brad (before his operation):

I think the current meme of conservatives is: “One time, I saw a liberal somewhere…. whaaaa whaaaa!” Now that they own all three branches of government and the country is still the same and there’s no mass revival of the 1950s they have to turn to blaming google, a bride with cold feet, and middle school administrators for the downfall of our society.


There’s nothing in the bible saying thou shalt not lay down with woman as with man. And, seeing as how it tells you what you should do if your woman does your GOAT, I think it’s clear that god loves lesbians.


I did a Google Image Search of “Sadly No” and I found this picture of Brad (before his operation)

GAAAAAAH!!! My horrible past dragged out into the light!!!!

I think it’s clear that god loves lesbians.

Cool… does that mean, like, I get to watch?

Hysterical Woman

Here’s Page 2 of a Google search for images of “Clinton.” Does it have any photos of nude women?
I didn’t see the woman, but I did see a Bush. BAH-dum-chink! Thank you, please tip your server!


congrats mate! Fine job and fine site!


(comments are closed)