Short form answer
My point was that you used the scary term "blocking" when you really only meant "ignoring", and I suspected that you did so intentionally, to gain readership and increase hits on your personal blog. That is, you posted the article in "news", not "blogs", where it belonged, IMO.
Long-form answer
I called you on a point of confusion. You conflated two very different things in your post, I think intentionally.
1. First, per the scary, attention-grabbing headline, "Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic?", I'm sure you're aware that the term "blocking" refers to prohibiting access. Ask 100 websurfers what that means, and 99 will respond (incorrectly, unfortunately) that it means Google is keeping them from accessing FreeRepublic.
A thread to that effect appears every week or so, universally caused by the websurfer having a DNS issue, or their ISP is having trouble peering at the backbone, or some such mundane cause.
That's why I tried to explain that Google cannot block FREEREPUBLIC.COM on the internet, and that symptoms that might suggest to a fearful FR websurfer that one site is blocking another are almost universally caused by something else unrelated to the site accused of "blocking". Most often it's a DNS hiccup somewhere else on the net.
As I'm sure you also know, there are a lot of FReepers who are convinced that Google is the Antichrist or at least one of his minions on earth, that Google is out to destroy FreeRepublic.com, and eagerly snap up any alleged evidence of same. Your headline intentionally fed that fear, which I consider unworthy of a serious post.
What you meant to convey was that "Is Google blocking FreeRepublic from itself?", which is obviously untrue with regard to searches, since searches on Google with "site:freerepublic.com" return a deluge of successful hits.
2. Second, that it appeared that (as you said in the body of the article), "Google is ignoring [FreeRepublic]" in the context of its Analytics surveys.
Maybe it is. I can't say for sure, I'm not privy to that info, and neither are you. You have identified an interesting event. You are suggesting a worrisome cause (intentional bias against conservative websites), which I find unlikely because it's far too easy to see.
> Give me an actual theory which can be put to the test
I'd love to, but these events are in the past. Neither you nor I can possibly recreate the network conditions and related circumstances on the internet (which constantly change and are largely go unrecorded in any form we can find now) that could have caused one site to not see another site for hours or a day or two.
The pertinent datum, which I must have missed in your article, is: Is this ignoring still going on?
If it was a glitch (albeit an annoying one to you), then I maintain that "glitches happen", and sorry this was a troubling one.
But to claim that this is somehow evidence of a large coordinated liberal effort to silence conservative websites makes you sound like Hillary with the VRWC claims.
The simplest explanation for "why this might have occurred" is that Google screwed up. How? Got me, I wasn't there. But remember how for an hour on a recent Saturday morning, Google accidentally labeled every website on the internet as being "unsafe for your computer", including google.com itself? All due to a single character (one! a forward-slash, if you're curious) in a text file, maintained by a human being.
Your point in the article is, "OMG Look what happened on the internet! Come read my blog!!"
My point is simply, "Yep. Stuff happens on the internet. It isn't all news."
That said, if you have evidence of continuing refusal on the part of Google to acknowledge FreeRepublic.com, I suggest that you contact Google immediately and present your evidence. Posting a scary thread on FR doesn't do anything to directly address the problem; it merely stirs up the FR readership. Google employees doubtless include a few FR members, but that's not the direct route to fixing a problem.
Good luck!