Is an executive order still binding on the American people if it violates the Constitution?
That may be one thing that many people wonder about…

Are we now living in a land where there is no longer a congress?

Do we have a dictator and chief in office?

When will congress act to secure the future of the United States?

In many ways we have some very troubling things happening all around us the stock market is very volatile.

Millions of Americans are out of work and yet we continue down the prickly pathway that has put us in danger of default.

Well this is an interesting thing here and it is one that the media has not covered, (nothing unusual about that) however it is interesting to look at why they say that they dropped the charges, they allegedly said, (we do not believe the story of the accuser) so how can we expect a jury to believe her story, so are we expected to now believe that if the DA believes that someone is guilty regardless of any evidence or lack thereof, that they will continue to pursue a conviction?

Think about that for a moment.

Since when did the US justice system become a matter of beliefs regardless of evidence?

That really makes you think about the problems faced by the US system of justice it is really broken so badly that we have a district attorney that now has an opinion about beliefs?

Obviously something happened, and while it is within the discretion of the district attorney to proceed or not to proceed, how often do they proceed, when they believe that someone is guilty when they are actually innocent.

That is something that is a serious problem.

So is it fair?

Can there be a fair trial when you see websites like this one that are so convinced of what they “think” is the truth, the truth may be very different, the truth may not be known by even fox news, as good as they “think” that they are, they may be wrong, in fact the US justice system has been wrong in the past.

Can this girl get a fair trial at all?

When you have the media convinced of her guilt, most all of the bobble heads at fox news, and likely other news companies also, have said time and time again by action and by inference, that there are some issues that have not been addressed, do we not have a real working system of justice here?

Earlier we were witness, to a fox news commentator, that made a statement, about how they felt that the defense was trying to show a likely result.

There was no real fair and balanced view presented.

In fact there was only one view presented, that was the “we think that she is guilty view point”

When you look at the thought process, involved here you have to think about one thing and one thing alone, is this fair and is this balanced.

When you hear someone make a statement on national TV about how they think that the defense is trying to show reasonable doubt, and that there is no real reasonable doubt, (allegedly) they fail to make that correct impression, by only presented one point of view, it is not a fair thing to do, what if they are wrong, will they come out and apologize that they made allegedly stupid statements?

For example Phil Keating, talks about about what they “think” the defense is trying to do but he only makes one statement, that statement, is filled with invective, that calls for the conclusion of an alleged, verdict of guilty.

Just now on live TV, the bobble head, made the statement, of what the defense “hopes” to prove, this could be made differently you could say the defense may be trying to show that the use of a particular method of disposing of the body of a pet, might be something to consider in this case.

But they did not say that, they seem to be stuck using words that presume the idea of guilt.

You can use words to influence the thinking of anyone, for example while writing this article, I could use many different points or words to make a point, however, I choose to try to show a counter point, that is not happening on Fox news, the (Fair and balanced news company)

Is this fair and balanced coverage or is it just one sided?

PLR content may become more valuable over time, in fact with the S978 so called youtube streaming video bill, (AKA) the ten strikes bill, would make it a felony to view upload and or other wise consume content that someone (anyone really) claims is their copyrighted content.

Which means, that the common practice of taking photos, online, using music in videos, using photos in videos, using video clips, that are online on youtube.com in mass quantity.

Literally over night about half or better of the millions of videos on youtube would have to be taken down and removed.

While they may loose this battle, (at least I hope they do) they will eventually pass a bill that criminalizes youtube videos. That means that you will need to have royalty free content, in your possession and you will need to have proof that the content is royalty free.

There are thousands and thousands of PLR photos out there, millions of music clips, being sold and some of those sellers are not even the owners of the music clips.

Words like

• youtube penalty
• youtube court
• youtube felony conviction

Could become the new way to land your self in prison, with estimates of current laws, and new laws, being produced by congress with their collective heads up their back ends, you have to wonder what they are thinking.

Millions of photos, in millions of templates, that are being sold as PLR where the actual authors of the art work were never compensated and never agreed to sell their work in the first place.

What if your buying products that are not being legally sold?

That could be a real problem, something to really seriously consider.

Learn more about legal issues that could soon be effecting you if your marketing online.

What is a copyright if it is not really a copyright at all?

Copyright is a legal fiction designed to protect the works of artists, inventors and innovators.

It is a legal bar, allowing exclusivity for those who create works in the form of an intangible asset which can be sold or relinquished, and which expires upon a certain period of time. With the growth of the internet, and the creation of more and more content, the question of copyright is becoming increasingly more relevant, and one which more and more webmasters are considering to protect their own interests. Additionally, with the rise of the freelancer market, the issue of copyright is becoming a heated topic of debate for both buyers and sellers at every stage in the production chain, and the effects of not having the relevant rights could be potentially catastrophic. In this article, we’ll look at what exactly copyright is, and how it relates to the internet in content creation.

Copyright is an artificial concept that gives the creator of a work, or the person he sells the right to, the legal right to use or modify in whole or in part, and to call their own. It has a different meaning in most jurisdictions, however the basic principle is the same: the creator owns the original copyright to the work in question, and has the freedom to pass this on at will, usually in consideration for money. Where a creator is working on commission, copyright is designed to act as a lien in his favour, meaning that if he creates and passes on but does not receive payment, he can withhold copyright and sue for breach where applicable. Of course, he would also have remedies under the ordinary law of contract, but the grasp of copyright is a very powerful tool, which can even be used against the third party buyer from the original commissioner.

Copyright is designed as a tool to cover what is known as intellectual property. Committing intellectual thoughts and ideas to paper, or making them tangible is usually sufficient to give rise to the copyright protection, which usually lasts for a number of decades in preventing others from steeling ideas. This is primarily designed to encourage forward thinking and art, and can be a vital tool in protecting the financial interests of those responsible for some of the world’s most vital progressions. Consider the inventors of the seatbelt, Volvo. Volvo could have used their copyright to prevent other manufacturers from installing seat belts, and this would have been sufficient to protect any other manufacturer from doing so. Of course they waived their rights for the safety of the general public, which is also a possible consideration for the creator of something new and innovative.

Copyright is an exhaustible right, and it usually expires on a given date, after which all works enter the public domain. This means that those who create new products have sufficient time to capitalise on their idea before the world at large can join in. Unfortunately for many musicians, this means their artistic works can no longer make them money specifically, and can be used royalty free; a fact that has caused much uproar and unrest in recent years.

Copyright is a dynamic area of the law, and is particularly relevant to the internet. As more and more content of more and more varieties is created online, there comes a need to find protection in copyright law to prevent unscrupulous parties from using content without authorization. In combating this, a number of international legal organisations have been established with a view to tackling copyright violation, and helping those without legal support to fight cases for the protection of their work. It is undoubtedly an area of law that is on the ascendancy, as lawyers worldwide strive to find a cohesive structure to online intellectual property law, and the protections online authors should be afforded for creating their works. At least within national boundaries, it is highly possible to rely on copyright laws to protect and govern material.

It has long been a controversial punishment and in the past it has been used on those that were actually innocent of the crime they were accused of doing. The problem with the death penalty is that unless there is eye witness or evidence beyond a doubt, (which has been said before) this level of punishment when the accused may be innocent of the charges is really extreme.

Where does it stop, this mob mentality that the media has for blood and gore.

I would ask about the sanity of these people that we trust for our news, but that might be asking too much even bill orielly comes across as a little twisted sometimes.

This fascination with death and the very likely accidental death of a child is a horrible thing beyond belief.

There is no evidence that the death of Caylee Anthony was anything but an accident.

Was the mother ignorant and stupid, yes, certainly but a planned murder, no that is just not possible in this case.

Even if it were possible, in this country you must have evidence to prove your allegations, otherwise your just using the power of the state to push an emotional agenda, What kind of mentality does it take to be able to push this type of life or death issue to the supreme court when there is no evidence that this child was murdered, in fact they have no evidence that suggests the child was murdered at all.

Everything about their case is circumstantial, from friends and ex boy friends coming in and testifying about partying and such that is not evidence that is hear say, but apparently if your living in Florida that is good enough.

I know one state I will not be retiring to and that is Florida, when the state cannot bring proper charges to support the evidence of a case then this is a real problem, for example here are some of the charges levied against this defendant.

capital murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and misleading law enforcement in the case of the death of her daughter, Caylee.

The prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

The have no proof, they have no evidence, they have nothing that suggests anything other than accidental death, and misleading law enforcement, but when someone is trying to kill you what would anyone do, this is why it is so important for the State to file charges only for what they can prove not what they can allege, by hearsay.

Again travel in Florida at your own risk you might end up J walking and being charged with murder.

Deception, is a big problem in Advertising these days and more so among Eating establishments and their commercials, you see pictures of Huge three foot Pizzas, 14 inch hamburgers, yet when you get to the restaurant you find that what you get is not the same thing as what you are shown.

Is this not Deception?

We see the keyword used all the time when the FTC goes after someone they think is being deceptive, totally subjective process for the most part, or is it?  With regard to fake merchandise certainly it is easy to see that yes they are being deceptive however one has to wonder, about this entire subject, are restaurants being deceptive in showing the consumer a ten foot high product but when you go to buy that product, you find it is about four inches in diameter, not three feet in diameter, which bring up the question, does the consumer know that they are not going to get what is being show to them?  Logically yes, they know they are not going to get a 12 inch hamburger…

However here is the real question, does the subconscious human mind know this?

Is it possible that some commercials are deceptive by the psychological nature of what they show to consumers.

More importantly should the FTC step in to regulate this aspect of what is most certainly deceptive advertising practices?

Did Taco Bell change its ways, or was the story really ever true?

Well one thing for sure is this, Taco bell had little choice but to either change its practice of calling non beef (beef) or start calling it taco filling.

Not a likely outcome…

Remember the Wendy’s commercials all those year ago, Where’s the Beef, well apparently and allegedly you could say that again…

Well folks you might have to wonder if there is any connection between the new FTC guides and Taco bell, but one thing is clear,

A law firm in Alabama, (of all places) is allegedly happily filing a lawsuit,

allegedly, this is the alleged, ingredients, source, Gizmodo

Water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate.

Now, as the story goes, (allegedly) at Gizmodo, Taco bell cannot legally call its beef product, beef, yet, apparently they have been allegedly doing so in some commercials, or something like that, which should come as no surprise considering the results of eating at taco bell more than once per month, (allegedly)

All kidding aside, how are the new FTC guides effecting commercial advertising?

Why is it important?

How do you feel about it?

Is it about time that some action is taken with all of the commercials on TV, there is bound to be a healthy amount of skepticism, I know I sure think that, every day, when I see, a buy one suit at full price get 10 suits FREE, yet, we all know that your paying for those suits, or do we?

Perhaps, some do not, and that may be where this protection is needed, I know for sure that I am sick of seeing a three foot in diameter, pizza, on TV, and then when I go to pick up the pizza it turns out to be barely 14 inches, just for the math to work out right, lets add that up, 3 feet, that would be 36 inches.

Huge, pizza, right, well that my friends is not being honest, in fact the materials that these pizzas are allegedly made from is not food at all but silicone.

So, a disclaimer is in order, something like you of course know that this is not actually pizza at all but a silicone based over sized advertising tool to make you want to buy a pizza, what you may get may not actually even remotely resemble a pizza like the one your being shown.

But wait, would that not be bait and switch?

Perhaps and yes, Bingo, Yahtzee, you win the big prize.

You know it appears that advertising in our culture has long had a very shady element since the times of the carnival, barker who would yell and cajole, laugh and entertain you out of the few dollars and cents you might have in your pocket, advertising false or otherwise has been such a great part of the American culture, that separating it from our TV might be difficult, would it not be a novel idea to produce advertising that is actually accurate?

Only time will tell, it it might not be all that far off before your faced with a hamburger that actually resembles, what you would get if you went down and bought one, a pizza might soon start to look like you might get if you went down and purchased one.

Because to do otherwise, well folks that is just deceptive advertising and it is about time that some law firms start pulling the carpet out from under those jerky advertisers, right? Well, perhaps, I guess it depends on a lot of different things, you would think that in 50 years, that advertisers would have tired of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, but allegedly they have not and so the fight may be just warming up…

How can we expect others to follow our example when we have so much corruption in our own voting system?

In a time where there are people who are living under bridges because they cannot find a job or they are homeless because they have lost everything, we have this kind of thing going on.

Why is this happening and is this the hope and change that you voted for?

What do you think will happen when people start to get hungry?