Google, Rape Videos, And Morality In America

Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft’s Bing are the three most influential and powerful search engines in the world. Each month, billions of people use these sites to conduct research, read the news, and to look up that perfect Thanksgiving recipe. The Internet is the greatest invention in human history; and without search engines, it would be virtually impossible to find new and important information. Although many people use these websites with the best of intentions, countless individuals also use search engines to promote horrific content much of the world never had access to in the past.

Perhaps the absolute worst material widely available today are videos of women being raped that appear across the Internet, including through the most powerful search engines. Hundreds of videos—possibly even thousands—showing women being raped, sometimes violently or in public places, are easy to find on websites such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Many of the women in the videos are young, and almost all are incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.

This isn’t a small problem. In just one hour of cataloguing, I was able to identify more than 40 unique and disturbing videos of women being sexually abused using the search terms “passed out girl abused” in Google’s “Videos” section. Those videos, which make up only a small fraction of the total number of rape videos available on Google, have been viewed a combined total of 21 million times. While I saw many videos in the search results that appeared to be staged using actors, the 40 I catalogued all claim to be real rape videos in their written descriptions; and there was no evidence in the videos themselves a reasonable person could use to support the claim that actors were used.

Videos such as these are often posted anonymously or using online aliases by criminals to user-populated pornography websites. The pornography websites ensure all of their material gets indexed by popular search engines; and within just a few short hours, rape videos are made accessible to millions of people around the world.

Not only is the decision to display these videos morally repugnant, it may be in violation of federal law. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ),Federal law prohibits the possession with intent to sell or distribute obscenity, to send, ship, or receive obscenity, to import obscenity, and to transport obscenity across state boarders for purposes of distribution.”

According to DOJ, “obscene” material has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark cases, such as Miller v. California (1973). DOJ says on its website that obscene material is, in part, “sexual conduct [presented] in a patently offensive [way]” according to “contemporary adult community standards.” There’s no denying showing videos of women being raped is “patently offensive” according to all modern societal standards, and it’s hard to understand how displaying images and videos on one’s website does not constitute “distribution.”

Regardless of whether or not search engines are breaking the law by providing millions of people with access to these horrific videos, there is no denying the severe lack of decency and poor judgment on the part of the search engines.

Since July, I’ve contacted Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft about this problem on more than one occasion; but I still have not received an official response from any of their representatives. Further, all of the videos I discovered four months ago still appear in all three sites’ search results.

If these powerful search engines do not self-regulate and act responsibly, it’s only a matter of time before federal authorities, using this and other egregious behavior as an excuse, step in and increase the government’s regulatory authority of the Internet—a notion neither I nor the search engines want.

People and businesses should generally be free to operate without stringent government controls, but no one has the right to harm others; and that’s exactly what happens when videos of women being raped are displayed online millions upon millions of times. Pornography sites, their users, and the criminals involved in the creation of these videos are ultimately the parties that deserve the most blame; but because most of the users who upload videos do so anonymously, and because many porn sites operate using servers overseas, search engines are the only ones that can offer a solution to this problem.

The American people have traditionally stood up for those people in society who are victimized; but if we continue to turn our backs on suffering women, we are all partly to blame for this tragedy. It’s time we as a nation demand Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft change their policies and act with compassion. If they don’t change, we ought to find search engines that will stand up for the rights of women everywhere.


Justin Haskins ( is editor of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank headquartered in Arlington Heights, Ill. You can follow him @TheNewRevere.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Things Are Getting Scary: Global Police, Precrime And The War On Domestic ‘Extremists’

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.

As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.

Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?

The government is going to war.


Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”

After decades spent waging costly, deadly and ineffective military campaigns overseas in pursuit of elusive ISIS and al Qaeda operatives and terror cells (including the recent “accidental” bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan that left 22 patients and medical staff dead), the Obama administration has announced a campaign to focus its terror-fighting forces inwards.

Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:

As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S., new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)

The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combating terrorists who seek to destroy America.

For instance, making the case for the government’s war on domestic extremism, the Obama administration has suggested that it may require greater legal powers to combat violent attacks by lone wolves (such as “people motivated by racial and religious hatred and anti-government views” who “communicate their hatred over the Internet and through social media”).

Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.

However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.

Similarly, the concern with the government’s anti-extremism program is that it will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers, and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale, and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘extremist’ interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home and lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, and facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremists.”

We’re living in a scary world.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the landscape has already shifted dramatically from what it was like 10 or 20 years ago. It’s taken less than a generation for our freedoms to be eroded and the police state structure to be erected, expanded and entrenched.

Rest assured that the government will not save us from the chains of the police state. The UN’s Strong Cities Network program will not save us. The next occupant of the White House will not save us. For that matter, anarchy and violent revolution will not save us.

If there is to be any hope of freeing ourselves, it rests—as it always has—at the local level, with you and your fellow citizens taking part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level.

Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, and employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

And then, while you’re at it, urge your local governments to nullify everything the federal government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

If this sounds anti-government or extremist, perhaps it is, in much the same way that King himself was considered anti-government and extremist. Recognizing that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King’s tactics—while nonviolent—were extreme by the standards of his day.

As King noted in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:

[A]s I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love—“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.” Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist—“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?

So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty, but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

Take a cue from King.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

WATCH: Startling Footage Of 16-Week-Old Unborn Baby Catches Doctors Completely Off Guard

Unborn babies can began learning much earlier than doctors originally estimated, according to the results of a Spanish study. The study concluded that babies can hear at 16 weeks gestation, rather than the typically scientifically accepted 26 weeks.

The study, led by Dr. Marisa Lopez-Teijon of the Institut Marques in Barcelona, involved 100 pregnant women between the 14th and 39th week of pregnancy. Researchers used a device called a Babypod, which was inserted into the vagina, to play Partita in A Minor by Johann Sebastian Bach.

The babies responded to the music, indicating they could hear. Doctors said almost half moved during the music, making head and limb movements as if they were dancing. Another 30 percent began moving their tongues or mouths. Ten percent stuck their tongues out, doctors said. Researchers said they know the music caused the babies to move because most stopped their movements when the music ended.

Not only did the babies move – doctors said they sang. Video shows the child moving its mouth and tongue, and it looks like singing.

Doctors said it isn’t uncommon for babies to respond to sounds with movements that look like they are trying to speak or communicate. However, researchers never anticipated these movements to happen so early in the pregnancy. Researchers wrote on the Institut Marques website that this proves children can learn before they are born.

That will be a major advantage to new parents and doctors, researchers said.

“We are aware of and recognize the importance of talking to babies from the moment they are born to promote neurological stimulation. Now we have the amazing opportunity to do this much sooner, which is a huge advance,” researchers wrote.

Experiments with headphones on the mother’s stomach did not result in the babies making similar movements. Researchers said babies could hear their mother’s voice, her heartbeat and the sound of her heels on the floor, but only faintly due to the barrier of the stomach wall.

Researchers said the study’s results would help doctors who want to rule out fetal deafness. The findings could also help improve ultrasound scans with doctors using music to see how the baby moves, researchers said.

Revealed: The US Military Has A New Technology Straight Out Of A Superhero Movie

Will the U.S. military soon employ Iron Man-like technology on some of its front line units?

General Joe Votel, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, stated in a CNN interview that such armor is getting closer to becoming a reality for American soldiers.

The Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit, or TALOS, will feature liquid armor that can solidify upon command. It would be a battery-powered exoskeleton, capable of giving soldiers the protection they need on the battlefield. It would also reduce strain on the body and provide in-helmet technologies to improve communications and visibility.

Referring to front-line operators, General Joe Votel said that the objective would be, “To give that operator the advantage when he is most vulnerable.”

Votel also said: “This is a program that we started after we lost an operator on a mission. The first guy coming into a particular building was engaged and unfortunately was mortally wounded. And in the wake of that, we asked ourselves, ‘Couldn’t we do better in terms of protecting him, of giving him a better advantage when he’s at the most vulnerable point that we put our operators?’”

Navy Cmdr. Anthony Baker, the head of JATF- TALOS, speaking to reporters at the 2015 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference, said: “We have powered exoskeletons on contract being developed; the foundation is the exoskeleton. All I can say is ‘we are shooting for the vision,’ which calls for ‘increased armor protection, increased situational awareness, increased lethality, increased human performance.’”

He added: “It’s a very ambitious vision. There are a number of theories we are working on that are making significant progress.”

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Matt Allen said the Defense Department does “not know how much TALOS will cost,” but a report cited by former Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn in his 2014 Wastebook put the price at $80 million.

This is less expensive than other similar military programs, many of which have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

What do you think of the U.S. military’s planned Iron Man-style suit? Share and comment below.

The Director Of ‘Steve Jobs’ Just Issued A ‘Terrifying’ Warning About Steve Jobs And People Like Him

With the debut of a new movie hitting theaters on the life of tech genius and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, the director of the film is raising eyebrows with what he thinks about people such as Jobs and others like Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg.

Director Danny Boyle (pictured above) said that he took on the Jobs biopic after reading The Circle, a book by Dave Eggers that warns of a dystopian future where tech companies essentially rule the world. It was this conspiracy idea that drove Boyle as he crafted the new film Steve Jobs.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Boyle claimed that the increasing power of tech companies has serious “drawbacks” for our society.

“These companies are so powerful now that governments are running scared,” Boyle told the paper. “They have such influence around the world, they’ve replaced petrochemical companies, pharmaceutical companies, they’re bigger than all of them put together and they have tremendous, terrifying power and it’s important that artists and writers are not cowed by them and if that means they’re accused of being opportunistic, then so be it.”

The director went on, saying, “It’s important that we put these people in the spotlight to examine their own business reasons or visionary reasons, and we need to keep an eye on them.”

The new film paints a very unflattering portrait of the now deceased Apple genius, one that the CEO’s widow tried to have quashed.

According to insiders at Sony Pictures, Jobs’ widow, Laurene Jobs, called the studio and even tried to reach out to some of the actors in the film to let them know that she was very displeased with the direction the film was taking.

With a $30 million budget, Steve Jobs, starring Michael Fassbender in the lead and co-starring Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, and Jeff Daniels, will hit theaters on October 9.