Executives at Google may claim that they are not biased against conservatives, but information from engineers who worked for Google tell a different story. One of those engineers is Greg Coppola. He went public last month in an interview with Project Veritas. After that interview, he was put on administrative leave.

He explains that the algorithms used by Google “don’t write themselves.” Software programmers “write them to do what we want them to do.” That makes sense to me. I wrote computer programs years ago and don’t claim to have the expertise of those writing programs at Google. But it seems like even machine language and machine learning can be easily manipulated to give biased results.

Another Google engineer that has come forward is Zachary Vorhies. He also leaked documents from Google to Project Veritas. One of those documents provided evidence of what he called “algorithmic unfairness.”

Once Google figured out he was the person who leaked the documents, they took two actions. First, they demanded the material be returned. Then they send law enforcement officials to his home to perform a “wellness check.” That was a blatant attempt at intimidating him.

The one document he leaked that got my attention was the news blacklist used by Google. Lots of organizations and websites that we use to get information and educate our listeners were on that list. Christian Post, Daily Caller, LifeNews, and American Thinker are just a few of the long list of sites on the Google blacklist.

Another leaked document from Google ranked news sources in the order of their credibility. ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC were all ranked higher than Fox News.

The investigative report by Project Veritas and the publication of these Google documents from insiders illustrate that there is indeed a bias in the way this company aggregates and displays data.

Most of us are aware that various LGBTQ organizations are working to change culture, but the influence may be even more profound that you might think. Dennis Prager provides five examples of what these organizations are doing to society.

First, these organizations are dismantling women’s sports. He begins by talking about the Pacific Games where a man who identifies as a woman took two gold medals and a silver medal in three weightlifting categories. Then he mentions the two boys who compete as girls in Connecticut who came in first and second place in the 100- and 200-meter dashes.

Second, these organizations are also dismantling male and female, even at birth. In a number of states, parents can choose gender X for their newborns. That way, the child does not have to relate to the gender that was “assigned to them at birth.”

Third, the LBGTQ organizations are dismantling children’s innocence and parental authority. States like California have been overhauling their sex education curricula so that teachers can talk with them about gender identity even in kindergarten.

Fourth, these organizations are also dismantling educational norms. He points to Illinois where the governor signed a bill that promotes the contributions of LGBTQ people in the public schools. Teaching history is no longer about explaining what happened in the past, but will focus on having a “positive effect on students’ self image.”

Fifth, they are also dismantling reality. He quotes sports editors, feminists, and even a member of Congress who deny that boys who identify as trans women have any competitive advantage in sports.

These are just a few ways in which the LGBTQ organizations are dismantling society and social norms.

Next week Congress will reconvene and feel the pressure to “do something” about guns and gun violence. Some Democratic presidential candidates have proposed a number of federal gun policies. They range from implementing a mandatory government buy-back program to requiring every American to obtain a federal license to purchase a firearm. Some call for banning “assault weapons” and most call for universal background checks.

The members of Congress promoting these various federal gun policies cite a number of polls that document public frustration with shootings and congressional inaction. But they might also want to look deeper in these polls to understand what American voters really would feel are appropriate policies.

Sometimes Americans tell pollsters they want congressional action, but aren’t really ready to pay for it. You might remember my commentary last month on climate change. Americans said they wanted Congress to address this environmental issue, but a majority said they were only willing to spend a dollar a month on the issue.

A Pew Research Center study on the demographics of gun ownership found that nearly a majority (42%) of American adults live in a household with a firearm. That percentage (58%) is even higher for rural Americans. Many of them live in the swing states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Nearly three-quarters of Americans who own guns said they “can’t see themselves not owning one.”

Most proponents of universal background checks argue that this would require a national gun registry. That would be the only way the government could determine if a transaction was made in compliance. How many of those Americans I just mentioned who live in a household with a firearm would feel comfortable having their firearms registered with the federal government?

Americans may be calling for congressional action, but I suspect some members of Congress and various candidates have misread what voters would find acceptable.

If you ever wonder about the impact a Supreme Court decision on religious liberty can have, you need look no further than Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The county seal has a number of symbols surrounding the county courthouse. There is a heart, a cow, a grain silo, a factory, and a cross. Well, the Freedom from Religious Foundation had a problem with the cross on the seal and took them to court.

A federal district court judge ruled that the county seal was an unconstitutional establishment of religion based on what is called “the Lemon test.” Back in 1971, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, the justices established a three-prong test. There needed to be secular purpose, the act should neither advance nor inhibit religion, and there should be no excessive government entanglement. The judge therefore ruled that the county seal failed to pass “the Lemon test.”

There is where the latest Supreme Court case comes into play. The justices ruled that the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland was constitutional and did not have to be torn down. Moreover, five of the Supreme Court justices agreed that “the Lemon test” no longer applied to “monuments, symbols, mottos, displays and ceremonies.”

Well, it didn’t take long for this precedent to be applied. The decision concerning the Lehigh County seal was on hold at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Thomas Hardiman cited the Supreme Court decision and ruled that the seal of Lehigh County is constitutional and can remain.

It is worth mentioning that Thomas Hardiman has been on President Trump’s short list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Two judges that were on that list (Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) now sit on the Supreme Court. We may hear more from Judge Hardiman in the future.

Here’s a question for you. If one government program creates a major problem so that you need a government bailout to fix that problem, wouldn’t it make more sense not to implement the government program in the first place? That is the question some are asking about the current proposal known as Medicare for All.

Recently Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a $20 billion federal bailout for struggling hospitals. He announced this plan in Philadelphia because one of the hospitals in currently in bankruptcy proceedings.

The editors at the Wall Street Journal observed that usually politicians “pass a bailout to clean up a mess they created in the past.” In this case, they suggest the senator “wants taxpayers to save hospitals after he bankrupts them.” Let me explain why they say that.

The hospital in Philadelphia currently has nearly two-thirds of their patients on government insurance (either Medicare or Medicaid). Those programs are notorious for paying hospitals less that what is costs to provide services. Some estimate that they pay 90 percent or even less than the actual cost of care. So how do hospitals traditionally cover their costs? They shift costs onto private insurers, which tend to pay more than 140 percent of costs (according the American Hospital Association).

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report that “more than two-thirds of hospitals are losing money on Medicare inpatient services.” If Medicare for All was implemented, hospitals would go broke. That is what former member of Congress John Delaney said in the June Democratic presidential debate. He said if you go to hospitals as ask them what would happen if they were paid at the Medicare rate, “every single hospital administrator said they would close.”

Perhaps you can now see why the editors at the Wall Street Journal pointed to this hospital bailout as a preview of what would happen with Medicare for All.

In previous commentaries, I have explained why we need better election security. But that doesn’t mean Congress should pass just any bill that is supposed to increase election security. The US Senate will consider the Safe Act that was passed by the House. The word “safe” stand for “Securing Americans Federal Elections Act.”

While the legislation has some positive measures, it also contains many provisions that need to be changed. When the bill was considered in Congress, the Republicans offered numerous amendments that were all rejected. So the bill passed with only one Republican supporting it.

For example, the bill requires that all paper ballots “shall be printed in the United States on recycled paper manufactured in the United States.” The problem with that is the some election officials testified that the sensitivity of ballot scanners would give false readings. The attempt to delete this provision was voted down in the House. Having a paper record is a good idea, but that can also be provided by electronic voting machines.

The bill allocates $600 million in the first year to help states upgrade their voting systems. Some members of Congress feared states would see this as free money and wait to upgrade their voting systems. One amendment would have required “a 25% funding march” from states. That was also voted down in the House.

Another amendment was to ban “ballot harvesting,” which is when a third party canvasser goes around collecting absentee ballots. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, this procedure has already been misused. North Carolina threw out one House election because the procedure was abused.

America needs to do more to make our elections secure. But passing the Safe Act without some common sense amendments is not the way to do so.

Earlier this month, conservative activist Scott Presler sent out a call to action asking people to join him in cleaning up trash in Baltimore. More than 170 volunteers worked from 8 am to 8 pm picking up over 12 tons of trash.

You would think that picking up trash would not lead to the local paper trashing their efforts. You would be wrong. The editorial board of the Baltimore Sun ran an op-ed that trashed Presler and his group. First, they made this snarky comment. “We assume it was pure motives that led a Trump supporter to lead a clean up in Cummings’ district, right?” Scott Presler even said that this wasn’t a political action. He and others saw a need and decided to do something about it.

Let’s be honest. There were probably some mixed motives. But if your only motive was to embarrass a member of Congress, you could do that by calling the media together and pick up some trash on one street and then go home. More than a hundred people worked twelve hours picking up 12 tons of trash. These volunteers were motivated. But they probably won’t be motivated to do something like this next time.

Back when I was the president of our high school service organization, we spent a day picking up trash and cleaning up a town. The local paper ran a small story about it. If the writer criticized us like the Baltimore Sun, I doubt I would have been able to get anyone to volunteer for the next service project.

Oh, and the editors weren’t finished. They also complained that this clean up “reinforces the tired image of our failing urban cores. That poor people in this dilapidated city can’t take care of their own neighborhoods.” What a contrast to a few of the posted videos that showed people in this neighborhood who were appreciative of what was done.

Sadly, in this politicized society, no good work goes unpunished.

In the midst of all the criticism of this country and its citizens, I try to provide some positive material. In that vein, I posted an article co-authored by Tucker Carlson that had the hopeful title: “Take a Breath, America is Still a Decent Country Filled with Decent People.”

But when it came time to discuss the article, my roundtable guests focused on the stories the two authors gave of what could be called “crazy commentary.” If you want an example of how some in the media have become “unhinged,” pay attention. One of the guests on MSNBC accused President Trump of giving subliminal orders to disenfranchised white people. The president may have a number of faults, but being subliminal isn’t one of them. “If he’s thinking it, he says it.”

Another guest made a big deal about the fact that flags would fly half-mast until August 8. He pointed out that is 8/8. So what? He reminds us that the number is significant in the neo-Nazi and white supremacy movement because the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. So apparently 8/8 is H/H that stands for “Heil Hitler.” Does that mean we can no longer use the number 8 since that is a racist number?

Another guest tried to argue that the president of the United States has been “talking about exterminating Latinos.” Donald Trump received a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. But don’t let that get in the way of the over-the-top rhetoric being spoken by commentators who obviously hate the president.

Mind you, these are just a few of the examples that appear in this article. You can find many more. And it is a long way to the November 2020 elections. Most of us are already worn out by such crazy commentary, and we still have fifteen months left to go. I don’t blame you for wanting to turn off your television and canceling your newspaper subscription.