Search engine researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has been continuing his investigation into the nefarious ways [...]]]> For two years, Democrats have claimed that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to somehow win the presidency unfairly. Yet the Democrat Party has powerful players of the left-leaning social media acting in secret to influence citizens to vote liberal.

Search engine researcher Dr. Robert Epstein has been continuing his investigation into the nefarious ways that Google manipulates search results to affect opinion and therefore votes in favor of the Democrats. What he has found is a skewing to show conservative candidates and ideas more negatively, with liberals getting positive search results. The degree of effect on voting is genuinely shocking because it changes election results.

There are several earlier posts on this blog about Dr. Epstein’s investigation of tech censorship, including interviews with Tucker Carlson (shown below).

Breitbart news provided an update to the ongoing investigation on Friday:

Research: Google Search Bias Flipped Seats for Democrats in Midterms, By Allum Bokhari, March 22, 2019

New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.

The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.

The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings. . .

The flipping of conservative Orange County to be completely Democrat in the 2016 Congress was quite suspicious, even given the demographic change from immigration. There is also the issue of so-called “ballot harvesting” — legal only in California — where third parties, such as Democrat operatives, can deliver votes from homes to the registrar. What a convenient way to disappear Republican votes — very clever, Sacramento!

Below is a 36-minute interview with Dr. Epstein from a few days ago. In it, you will learn that Google brand home thermostats include microphones which allow the company to eavesdrop (!), and that the search expert uses StartPage for his own browsing.

Here’s a shorter interview, 17 minutes in length, with Glenn Beck from March 22 that explains basic issues, beginning with what Epstein does:

ROBERT EPSTEIN: (starting 2:45) There’s two different things I do, and unfortunately the LA Times just totally got this wrong. One is for more than six years I’ve been doing randomized controlled scientific studies showing the new power that companies like Google and Facebook have to shift opinions and votes without people knowing. And that’s very very rigorous research published in top scientific journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

LA Times — did they even mention that? No.

And could anyone possibly find fault with that work? No, you can’t publish in those journals if your work is faulty.

Now the second thing that I’ve been doing, trying more quietly, is trying to learn how to build monitoring systems. These companies surveil us 24 hours a day. I’m the only person so far in the world who’s developed two monitoring systems for surveilling them. In other words, for figuring out what they’re showing people especially in the days leading up to elections and I did it in 2016. That got reported by the Washington Post, and I’ve done it again.

I did it again in 2018. That story just broke this morning and I am making progress in learning how to do this kind of monitoring and learning how to detect bias in the content that these companies are showing people. And once again, I caught Google not being readö (?), but I caught Google with their digital pants down and you know, what’s there they should be embarrassed about because I found very clear and strong liberal bias in content that they were showing people in the days leading up to the election. And that was enough if they were doing that nationwide, which I didn’t monitor the whole country, but if they had been doing what I found nationwide, that would have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to Democrats in across multiple races with no one having the slightest idea that they have been influenced in this way.

That’s why this is a very very dangerous kind of influence, that’s why we also need monitoring systems to be running on a large scale, and those are the two things I do — the scientific stuff and then developing monitoring systems.

The rest is worth a listen also, with its discussion of the great power of secret persuasion to worm its way into our beliefs and freedoms.

Spare audio:

In fact, the complete wipe-out of Republican Congressional members in Orange County 2018 apparently resulted from a sketchy practice called “ballot harvesting” which is only legal [...]]]> It’s good that people are paying attention to voter ID, since it’s likely that fake voters will be out in force for the 2020 election to defeat President Trump.

In fact, the complete wipe-out of Republican Congressional members in Orange County 2018 apparently resulted from a sketchy practice called “ballot harvesting” which is only legal in California. Because of a new state law, any person, including Democrat operatives, can go to a voter’s house and offer to submit mail-in votes to the polls — what could possibly go wrong?

California really is becoming the Third World, where election integrity is a joke.

Requiring identification to vote is a popular measure among the public, as shown by polling:

If that polling is not convincing, a recent study has reinforced the idea that voters are not as skittish as Democrats claim. Tucker Carlson explored the issue on Wednesday with immigrant attorney Harmeet Dhillon.

Spare Audio:

TUCKER CARLSON: Just about every modern country requires a photo ID to vote, but when American states start to implement the same laws, they are of course described as racist bigots, engaged in voter suppression. That’s fake, of course. It’s all a diversion. It’s a lie, and you should ignore it. But now, a new study shows just how fake it is.

Two university professors took a look at voting patterns in 10 different states and they found that voter ID laws had no effect at all on how much each group was able to vote.

It turns out that legal voters are perfectly able to get photo identification, something you knew already, and that these laws are only a problem if you want to vote illegally, but helping people to vote illegally is, of course, the entire point of preventing voter ID laws, as we knew.

Harmeet Dhillon is an attorney who covers this kind of thing and she joins us tonight. Harmeet, so it seems like the evidence is pretty clear on this from this study.

HARMEET DHILLON: Yes, actually, Tucker, these two economics professors — one at Harvard Business School and the other in the University of Bologna — used data from a liberal progressive database called Catalyst, which work with progressive groups on these issues and they examined 1.3 billion different data points and they had data on gender, race, sex, gender and political affiliation and they were able to compare the states that had the strong voter ID laws, the 10 of them against the ones that don’t, and there was statistically no difference whatsoever.

And so that really rebuts the left’s mythology that voter ID laws are directed at suppressing particularly the minority vote, et cetera, on the theory that elderly or minority or poor people are unable to get ID. I mean, you and I know that you can’t operate in society today without ID, and we need it for so many reasons, so I think this is really encouraging data.

CARLSON: Yes, you can’t have a job, you can’t fly on an airplane. You can’t cash a check. You can’t get government benefits. You can’t do anything. So it was prima facie absurd but they still wax self-righteous about it and any attempt to prevent voter fraud is suppression and you’re Bull Connor.

I wonder if the right, if Republicans will begin to do something they almost do with any topic which is push back with facts against this demagoguery.

DHILLON: Well, you know, you raise a good point, Tucker. We, as Republicans tend to become very intimidated when everybody — when anybody says the “R” word. “Oh, you are racist. You are racist.” And we really buy into that demagoguery and back down.

And I hope to see more Republicans step forward and say, “We are not racist. We are trying to protect the integrity of every single vote.” I’m an immigrant to this country and the right to vote is very precious and something that people don’t have around the world. So the way we casually water it down in this country by allowing people to vote who are not entitled to vote, we have three million illegal aliens plus in California, for example, is really shocking and it’s time for it to stop.

So I am glad to see this data not from a conservative source, but from objective professors, economists and I hope that we will begin to start pushing back on this false narrative by the left.

CARLSON: Well, yes, because the only reason they keep using it is because it works, and Republicans run and hide every single time. I mean, is there any other reason to oppose voter ID laws except to abet voter fraud?

DHILLON: I can’t think of any, and on the flip side, and as these two professors point out in their study, the effect of voter ID laws does increase confidence among the voting population in the outcomes of these elections and we certainly need more of that as well.

CARLSON: Yes, that is such a smart point. I’m losing confidence. I have always had confidence in our system and not any more. Harmeet, thank you very much.

Orange County used to be a Republican stronghold, even [...]]]> Monday’s New York Times has a front-page story that illustrates a basic political principle and how it manifests on the local level: big diverse immigration creates more Democrat voters even in formerly conservative bastions, which is why the party supports open borders above all other values.

Orange County used to be a Republican stronghold, even as the state racked up the largest percentage of foreign born in America (27 percent). But the recent election showed that no region is safe from the Democrat diversity onslaught, fueled by excessive immigration.

As noted by Pew pollsters, hispanic foreigners tend to prefer big government and therefore vote Democrat: they come for America’s economic opportunity provided by free markets but vote to recreate the crapistans they came from. Go figure.

If Republicans in Congress had a brain, they would have voted to reduce legal immigration (in the bill offered by Senators Cotton and Perdue) and worked for restrictionist legislation like E-verify. Instead, Republican leadership pursued their own elite agenda of tax reform and such, about which regular voters have little interest. So many GOP representatives were shown the door in November, particularly in areas which immigration has transformed.

The Times story was reprinted in newsstandhub.com, linked below:

In Orange County, a Republican Fortress Turns Democratic, New York Times, December 31, 2018

WESTMINSTER, Calif. — To appreciate the vast cultural and political upheaval across Orange County over the last 40 years, look no further than Bolsa Avenue. The auto body shop, the tax preparer, a church, a food market, countless restaurants — all are marked by signs written in Vietnamese.

Or head seven miles west to Santa Ana, where Vietnamese makes way for Spanish along Calle Cuatro, a bustling enclave of stores and sidewalk stands serving an overwhelming Latino clientele.

The Democratic capture of four Republican-held congressional seats in Orange County in November — more than half the seven congressional seats Democrats won from Republicans in California — toppled what had long been a fortress of conservative Republicanism. The sweep stunned party leaders, among them Paul D. Ryan, the outgoing House speaker. Even Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor-elect of California, won the county where Richard M. Nixon was born.

But the results reflected what has been a nearly 40-year rise in the number of immigrants, nonwhite residents and college graduates that has transformed this iconic American suburb into a Democratic outpost, highlighted in a Times analysis of demographic data going back to 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected president.

The ideological shift signaled by the most recent election results, on the heels of Hillary Clinton beating Donald J. Trump here in 2016, is viewed by leaders in both parties as a warning sign for national Republicans, as suburban communities like this one loom as central battle grounds in the 2020 elections and beyond.

Those new swing suburban counties were one of the central factors behind the 40-seat Democratic gain in the House in November. Many of them have been changed by an increase in educated and affluent voters who have been pushed toward the Democratic column by some of Mr. Trump’s policies. That partly accounts for what is happening here in Orange County, but the political shifts can also be explained by the rapidly changing cultural, political and economic face of the region and are on display in places like Bolsa Avenue, which is known as Little Saigon.

“There are so many of us here and that is what is contributing to these changes,” said Tracy La, 23, who is Vietnamese. Ms. La helped organize a rally in Westminster in mid-December to protest an attempt by the Trump administration to deport thousands of Vietnam War refugees. It drew hundreds of people to the Asian Garden Mall, one of the largest and oldest Vietnamese-operated malls in the nation.

“This is where the future is heading,” said Mark Baldassare, the president of the Public Policy Institute of California. “I don’t see anything that took place in these elections or the demographic trends that are ongoing, to make me think this is a one-time incident.” (Continues)