Conservatives push to counter liberal professors

Conservatives push to counter liberal professors Mike Cronin
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 12, 2006 12:00 AM

For many students, college is an intellectual rite of passage.

The beliefs that students bring to the classroom often collide with what they learn. Professors push students to think critically.

But some Arizona lawmakers think that push has gone too far. They want to tame what they see as left-leaning professors at state universities who they contend wield an unhealthful influence over Arizona’s younger minds.
Their response is a string of proposals that opponents fear could quash academic freedom. The efforts reflect a nationwide trend being fueled by conservative activists.

In Arizona, the moves include:

• A bill enabling students to refuse assignments they find sexually offensive. It failed in March but compelled Arizona’s Board of Regents to pass a resolution supporting academic freedom and advance notice to students of a course’s content.

• An “Academic Bill of Rights,” which Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, plans to introduce next year. Pearce and other legislators hope to meet with David Horowitz, a national activist who lives in Los Angeles, for help in drawing up the bill, which they say would keep liberal bias out of the classroom.

• A law passed in the spring that requires schools to display the U.S. flag and Constitution in every classroom. It puts patriotic symbols in front of every professor and student.

The proposals reflect a distrust of professors among some ranking legislators on higher-education committees.

“University professors lean liberal and not conservative,” said Sen. Linda Gray, R-Phoenix, chairwoman of the Senate’s Higher Education Committee. “They contribute to society accepting immoral behavior. (The classroom) is where they get to the mind.”

Gray said public universities typically do not provide examples of “what a good, normal family life is.”

Student complaints

Last school year, no student at Arizona’s three major universities filed a complaint saying professors imposed their views and values in class.

Still, allegations have come to light, one of which led to the bill on offensive coursework.

At Chandler-Gilbert Community College, a student was so offended last year by a book in Professor Bill Mullaney’s literature and film class that he asked for an alternative assignment.

The 1994 book, The Ice Storm by Rick Moody, deals with two suburban families in the 1970s that engage in sexual experimentation.

Mullaney refused to offer another assignment, saying he presented the syllabus on the first day of class. He told students some of the material might be offensive and that they could drop the class.

The student filed a grievance with the school. School officials rejected the student’s request, instead offering him another class. The student refused and took the matter to Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert.

Verschoor sponsored a bill that would have allowed university and community college students to refuse any assignment that depicts or describes sexual activity in a “patently offensive way.” The Senate defeated it 17-12. Public debate led the Board of Regents to pass its resolution.

‘Bill of Rights’

The most controversial attempt to influence college classrooms is Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights.

Lawmakers in 18 states have weighed resolutions supporting some form of the document. Georgia was the only state that approved one, although the university systems of Tennessee, Ohio and Colorado adopted policies that espoused its tenets.

Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe, who heads two higher-education committees, said the bill to be proposed here next year will be based on Horowitz’s version.

“I have heard more and more over the years that there is less and less tolerance for conservative opinions,” she said.

Faculty members widely view the bill as an attempt to subvert academic freedom, the opposite of what Horowitz claims.

Wanda Howell, a University of Arizona professor and faculty chair, argues that the bill would put state government and university administration in charge of the classroom. Professors no longer would be in control of what or how they taught, or how they graded.

In the name of “academic diversity,” professors say, professors could be forced to censor certain materials.

Horowitz insists his Academic Bill of Rights is “viewpoint neutral.”

“It is to ensure that professors take a scholarly, academic approach in the classroom, so professors teach students how to think, not what to think,” Horowitz said. “It goes for right-wingers (too). It goes for anyone.”

Surveys support the common belief: Most professors are liberal.

Liberal professors

A 2005 study by American and Canadian professors indicated that 72 percent of those teaching at U.S. colleges and universities identified themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent called themselves conservative.

Several students said professors’ liberal views tend to spill out in classrooms in subtle and overt ways. It can trigger lively debates but also intimidate some students.

Blake Rebling, 19, president of the UA College Republicans, said he typically doesn’t challenge his liberal professors’ opinions because they control his grades.

“I don’t want to risk going to law school over that,” the political science major said.

Several professors said instructors should present issues without personal bias and allow for a variety of viewpoints. Teachers should not impose their personal beliefs, and a grade should never depend on a student’s political opinion.

UA political science Professor John Willerton, who specializes in Russia and the former Soviet Union, sees that as the responsibility of the teacher. He grades students on the coherence of their work.

“I want people to think carefully about stereotypical thinking, conventional wisdom. Is the essay well-reasoned with a good introduction and conclusion, and does it have an argument I can find?”

But when Willerton does take a stance, he loves a good debate.

“I really respect a student who will challenge me,” he said. “I don’t want a toady. I don’t want someone who will mimic me.”

Ruth Jones, vice provost for academic programs and a political science professor at Arizona State University, said some professors may cross the line but she doesn’t think it’s widespread.

She sits on a standards committee that would handle the types of cases that conservatives say are rampant in today’s college classrooms. She has never had one.

“The question is: Are we dealing with reality or perception?” Jones said. “Is there a common denominator among students complaining? Sometimes, students are used (by others) to promote an agenda. We need to look at that.”


Nancy Pelosi’s District Leads Country in Sex Trafficking

Pelosi’s District Leads Country in Sex Trafficking

U.S. among top 3 destinations for sex traffickers in $8B trade

California, N.Y., Texas and Vegas are favored areas By Meridith May SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

“It makes me sick to my stomach. … They are being raped repeatedly.” Gavin Newsom San Francisco mayor

SAN FRANCISCO — Many of San Francisco’s Asian massage parlors — long an established part of the city’s sexually permissive culture — have degenerated into something much more sinister: international sex-slave shops. Once limited to infamous locales such as Bombay and Bangkok, sex trafficking is now an $8 billion international business, with San Francisco among its largest commercial centers. San Francisco’s liberal attitude toward sex, the city’s history of arresting prostitutes instead of pimps, and its large immigrant population have made it one of the top American cities for international sex traffickers to do business undetected, according to Donna Hughes, a national expert on sex trafficking at the University of Rhode Island. “It makes me sick to my stomach,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “Girls are being forced to come to this country, their families back home are threatened, and they are being raped repeatedly, over and over.” Because sex trafficking is so far underground, the number of victims in the United States and worldwide is not known, and the reported statistics vary wildly. Promised model, hostess jobs The most often cited numbers come from the U.S. State Department, which estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked for forced labor and sex worldwide each year — and that 80 percent are women and girls. Most trafficked females, the department says, are exploited in commercial sex outlets. Relying on research from the CIA, the State Department estimates there are 14,500 to 17,500 human-trafficking victims brought into the United States each year — but does not quantify how many of those are sex victims. Some advocacy groups place the number of U.S. victims much higher, while others criticize the government for overstating the problem. “The number will always be an estimate, because trafficking victims don’t stand in line and raise their hands to be counted, but it’s the best estimate we have,” said John Miller, director of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. The CIA won’t divulge its research methods, but based its figures on 1,500 sources, including law-enforcement data, government data, academic research, international reports and newspaper stories. Women trafficked for the sex industry are predominantly from Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union and South America — lured to the United States by promises of lucrative jobs as models or hostesses, only to be sold to brothels, strip clubs and outcall services and extorted into working off thousands of dollars in surprise travel debts to their new “owners.” Federal investigators say that even those who come to the United States with the idea of working as high-society call girls cannot imagine the captivity and the degrading workload they face. “Human trafficking is a multibillion-dollar business. In terms of profits, it’s on a path to overtake drug and arms trafficking,” said Barry Tang, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement attaché with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in South Korea. “There’s a highly organized logistical network between Korea and the United States with recruiters, brokers, intermediaries, taxi drivers and madams.” Female traffickers recruit in bars The United States is among the top three destination countries for sex traffickers, along with Japan and Australia. Once in the United States, traffickers most often set up shop in California, New York, Texas and Las Vegas. It’s an underground world, but in more than 100 interviews with federal agents, experts and sex-trafficking victims in California and South Korea, a picture emerges about how international traffickers buy and sell women between Asia and the West Coast. Overseas, the trafficker is usually a woman. She recruits from clubs, bars, colleges, pool halls and restaurants, said Deputy Special Agent Mark F. Wollman, who oversees San Francisco for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Recruiters fill the want ads in papers and the Internet, targeting vulnerable young women with fake job offers for waitresses, models and hostesses in the U.S. Traffickers fly the women to Canada or Mexico, and walk or drive them into California. In Canada, they slip through Indian reservations off-limits to the U.S. Border Patrol, often at night, and sometimes along snow-packed trails. Every move monitored Sex slaves who work in massage parlors and bars are often locked in their place of business by double security doors, monitored by surveillance cameras and only let outside under the guard of crooked taxi drivers who ferry them to their next sex appointment. Women report being beaten, raped and starved by their keepers. Sex-trafficking rings are often run by criminal organizations that aren’t afraid to use violence to protect the billions they generate.“It makes me sick to my stomach. … They are being raped repeatedly.” Gavin Newsom San Francisco mayor 

Multiculturalism — Recently there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Davis Hanson talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal – was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

By Bonnie Eggle   ·   April 24, 2005 11:52 PM

The following remarks by Richard Lamm are remarkable and hard-hitting. I was one of the many attendees at this conference and was as spellbound as the rest of the crowd. Please read and think of the 8 points….how many are already accomplished? That is a frightening thought.

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant.

Recently there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Davis Hanson talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal – was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

“The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on: “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

“We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'”Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other.”

“A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like’racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America – take note of California and other states – to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Islamist Scandal at NYU

Islamist Scandal at NYU
By David Andreatta
New York Post | October 23, 2006

Two Egyptian-born Islamic leaders, scheduled to speak last week at a New York University Law School forum on the controversial Muslim Brotherhood, were not granted visas, according to the Department of Homeland Security and the panel organizer. Kamal Helbawy, 80, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, was forced to leave an American Airlines jet bound for New York on Wednesday, minutes before it was to depart Heathrow Airport in London.

A DHS spokeswoman said Helbawy was “inadmissible” but would not elaborate.

Helbawy was to replace Abdel Monem Abul ElFotouh, 56, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood who had been announced as a speaker at the NYU conference two weeks ago but never received his visa in Egypt.

The developments stunned executives at the NYU Law School’s Center on Law and Security, sponsor the forum, which included network television terrorism analysts and authors.

Organizers said they learned of the problems Wednesday night.

“Obviously, [the government] thinks it’s not a good idea for these people to come here,” said Karen Greenberg, the center’s executive director. “To our knowledge, they are not dangerous. If the State Department knows something we don’t, then it’s their call.”

Greenberg said she invited Helbawy last Friday, when it became clear ElFotouh was not going to receive his visa in time for the forum. She added that ElFotouh believed he had been approved for a visa.

She said the two were invited because they have insight on the Brotherhood that the other panelists do not.

ElFotouh is believed to have led a radical resurgence of the group in the 1970s, although today he is regarded by many watchdogs as a moderate.

He was also among 62 group leaders sentenced to five years in prison in Egypt in 1995 for their alleged role in a failed coup.

Helbawy, a former European spokesman for the Brotherhood, a worldwide Islamist movement, described himself to Newsweek as a moderate who has denounced terrorism “thousands of times.”

“This is stupidity,” he told the magazine’s Web edition. “They shouldn’t be preventing moderates from talking and discussing.”

Nick Fielding, a British journalist and panelist, decried the absence of Helbawy last night, and called him a “voice for reason.”

But Steven Emerson, a terrorism and national security expert who has studied the Muslim Brotherhood, said of Helbawy, “This guy is anything but a moderate.”

This Explains a Lot of Things — this was a hoax but it’s still funny — Gore was born mar. 1948

This Explains a Lot of Things

Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claim an unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.

This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the US Air Force and the federal government.

However, you may well NOT know that in the month of March 1948, exactly nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.; Hillary Rodham; John F. Kerry; William Jefferson Clinton; Howard Dean; Nancy Pelosi; Dianne Feinstein; Charles E. Schumer; and Barbara Boxer were born.

That piece of information has now cleared up a lot of things.

Pelosi’s Socialist Ties

Pelosi’s Socialist Ties
Newsmax,com ^ | November 13, 2002 | Carl Limbacher?
Posted on 11/13/2002 12:33:46 PM PST by OldCorps
Something the leftist media establishment doesn’t want you to know: San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s ties to socialism.

Writing in the Washington Times, Balint Vazsonyi notes that in a recent New York Times article about the soon-to-be House minority leader, there was not “a single mention of her executive position in the Progressive Caucus, and the latter’s ties to the Socialist International.”

“Question: If an international organization existed to carry the torch for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and if a person running for minority leader had past or present ties to such an organization, what are the chances the New York Times would find it irrelevant to the matter at hand?” asks Vazsonyi.

“None. Zero. Nada.

“Double standards: Do you remember the Austrian nationalist Joerg Haider? He had no such affiliation. Yet the mere possibility that he might harbor sympathies for National Socialist ideas sufficed to make him, and the country in which he holds office, an international pariah.

“The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.

“For our purposes, it suffices also to observe that members of the U.S. Congress are required to furnish an oath whereby they will preserve, protect, and defend said Constitution.

“DSA/USA, the ‘Democratic Socialists of America’ are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. They share the symbol of the fist holding the rose, and they share the tasks to be accomplished — in our case, an altogether different America.

“Some time ago — the date is missing from the descriptions — 58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it the Progressive Caucus. Their statement of purpose, as well as their membership list, formed an integral part of the dsausa Web site ( The membership list appeared on the screen with the continuous background of the fist holding the rose, should anyone have missed the connection with the Socialist International.”

After the Washington Times in November 1998 blew the whistle on the so-called “Progressive” Caucus, “action was taken to hide the true nature of the organization, and its membership list was eventually taken off the dsausa Web site.”

Vazsonyi continues: “Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, and is now, a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus. Her election as minority leader would firmly establish the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International.

“The U.S. Constitution places no restrictions on political creeds. There is no earthly reason why socialists could not be elected to Congress if the people so choose. There is a question of honesty, though. Candidates for office ought to put their cards on the table.”

No wonder some Democrat congressmen are ready to bolt the party.

Dianne Feinstein’s socialist, far-left views are WRONG FOR AMERICA. That’s why I am so dedicated to winning this election.

October 23, 2006

Dick Mountjoy

I’m writing you today to ask for your help in my battle to unseat liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Dianne Feinstein’s socialist, far-left views are WRONG FOR AMERICA. That’s why I am so dedicated to winning this election.

Dianne Feinstein is unapologetic in her opposition to President Bush, our military, and the War on Terror.

But you and I know that Feinstein and her left-wing comrades are dead wrong about what’s best for America:

— Wrong on taxes: Dianne Feinstein voted AGAINST President Bush’s tax cuts, AGAINST permanently repealing the Death Tax, and AGAINST eliminating the marriage penalty.

— Wrong on gun control: Dianne Feinstein opposes your Second Amendment right to bear arms.

— Wrong on English: Dianne Feinstein even opposes designating English as our official language.

— And wrong on the War on Terror: Dianne Feinstein wants to cut-and-run in Iraq — forcing our troops to abandon their mission before the job is done.

Can I count on you to please make a donation right now to my campaign?

With the election only two weeks away I need all of the help I can get to defeat Dianne Feinstein.

She is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. But when it comes to your money, Feinstein is all too eager to raise your taxes to fund her favorite liberal programs.

She also accepts hundreds of thousands in campaign money from some of the most radical organizations in America.

And that’s just the beginning of Feinstein’s betrayal of the American freedoms she promised to protect when she took her oath of office:

** Feinstein is a leader here in California fighting to preserve expensive welfare programs for illegal immigrants.

** She is a leader in the efforts to give amnesty to illegal aliens.

** Feinstein opposes enforcement policies that would target those who employ illegal aliens… even though these enforcement measures are seen as one of the best ways to curb the flow of illegals into the U.S.

** Feinstein has criticized the brave citizen-volunteer group known as the “Minutemen” for their efforts to help secure America’s borders.

And that’s not all…

** Feinstein supports the gruesome practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, even though these innocent babies are just seconds away from birth.

** And Feinstein is the ringleader behind the Democrat’s illegal filibusters.

With your help, I’m running the race of my life to defeat Dianne Feinstein and her out-of-control liberal politics.

Feinstein is a grave threat to all that I fought for as a sailor in the U.S. Navy. That’s why she needs to be stopped this year — before her liberal, weak-on-terror schemes do any more damage to our great country.

So, will you help by making a donation right now to help me defeat Dianne Feinstein?

Our U.S. Senate needs to slash government spending. They must stand up to the anti-God ACLU. And it’s vital for the Senate to fix our illegal immigration crisis.

But none of this will happen as long as Dianne Feinstein is ruling the Senate roost.

As the Senate’s “Queen of Filibusters,” Feinstein destroys every conservative law that comes her way.

I’m counting on your support today.

Your response is needed right away to help my final push to “get-out-the-vote.”

Thank you for helping me in this important election year.

Sincerely yours,

Sen. Dick Mountjoy (Ret.)
Republican for U.S. Senate

P.S. I hope you’ll help me fight to take back this important Senate seat from liberal-voting Dianne Feinstein. Please make your most generous donation today. Thank you for supporting my conservative campaign!

Help Stop Benefits to Illegal Aliens

Have you signed the petition yet to qualify my ballot initiative to stop government benefits to illegal aliens? You can download and print petitions from my website.  Have your friends and neighbors sign as well. We need approximately 600,000 signatures by February to qualify the initiative.

Download Now

The BBC News Website looks at how Iran’s political system works and who wields the power.

this is a good look at the structure of Iran click on each portion of the chart for info on each part of the government

Have more babies – solution to defeating the West

Google Protecting Porn Profits? — Google’s refusal to turn over search records to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) might be more about protecting their own privacy than it is about protecting yours. That’s the view put forth by Forbes.Com writers Chris Kraeuter and Rachel Rosmarin in a short piece titled

Google Protecting Porn Profits? By Jim Hedger | Published  01/25/2006 Google’s refusal to turn over search records to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) might be more about protecting their own privacy than it is about protecting yours. That’s the view put forth by Forbes.Com writers Chris Kraeuter and Rachel Rosmarin in a short piece titled, ” Why Google Won’t Give In “.According to Nielsen NetRatings statistics cited in the Forbes article, about 25% of all web-surfers (38-million unique viewers) accessed pornographic content in December 2005. Google, which makes the vast majority of its revenues from the paid-ad click-throughs, stands to lose the most of all search engines if the Bush administration succeeds in restricting adult content and advertising.In a worst-case scenario, Google’s defiance of the DOJ subpoena becomes a political issue. The conservative media, known more for promoting political values than providing educational value, could tear Google several new ones, zeroing in on it as payback for defiance. Although Google provides all users a ” SafeSearch “option to filter adult related content from search results, the massive size and population of the online red-light district threatens a virtual feeding frenzy in certain congressional circles.Google has a lot to lose. Being spun into protectors of pornography by the under-achieving media and political elites does nothing good for Google’s “Don’t be Evil” image. Google could have a reputation management issue to handle. More importantly, a restriction on adult advertising presents a threat to Google’s bottom line.Earlier this week, I wrote that the short decline in Google’s share values last week was not connected to the dispute with the DOJ. I might have been mistaken. If there is a connection between this case and Google share values, (I wrote there was none yesterday), this is it.It should be noted, statistically speaking of course… Google almost certainly retains information that could show how many porn related requests came from virtually anywhere, including the computers of some (if not all) state and federal legislators. Protecting general information also protects that information. Don’t be Evil indeed.