executive orders, constitutional
Is google about to make a huge mistake?
Over the last few months Google has been quietly and allegedly terminating accounts, suspending ad words accounts, and doing so in a way that might actually be illegal?
Who would do something like that more so if your a company that says do no evil?
One thing may be about to change and it is something that you should be very aware about.
In so many ways, big corporate business is strangling the life out of the internet.
They are forcefully creating a situation where only large companies with more money to spend on advertising can be successful.
This is wrong…
When only large corporations are afforded the ability to advertise and the regular public as well as small business (mom and pop) business are excluded this is wrong.
In so many ways, allegedly google has done more evil than anyone even realizes, (allegedly)
Categories: AARP, ACLU, car accident attornies, car accident lawyers, car wrecks, cigarette smoking, Class Actions, Classic Media, Constitutional Law, corporate, corrupt, corrupt badly trained police, corrupt judge, corrupt police Tags: Congress, Dictator, Executive Orders, Pathway, Stock Market, United States
The Constitution under fire
Is the constitution under fire?
It appears that the one thing preventing the progressive administration from
taking over the constitution is the constitution itself.
Some have said that if our founding fathers had known what is going on in
this country right now, they would stare in disbelief at how ignorant we have
become.
Here is a video that is amazing in its content.
Categories: Constitutional Law Tags: Constitution, Disbelief, Founding Fathers, Progressive
Youtube felony?
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.
Categories: AARP, ACLU, Class Actions, Classic Media, constitution, Constitutional Law, corporate, corrupt, criminal law, youtube felony conviction Tags: Art Work, Collective Heads, Congress, Estimates, Felony Conviction, Marketing, Mass Quantity, Music Clips, New Laws, Possession, Proof, Royalty, Streaming Video, Strikes, Taking Photos, Templates, Upload, Using Music, Video Clips, youtube conviction, youtube royalty free products, Youtube Videos
Student Saves lives
College student shoots home invader, saves 10 lives
Yet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .
gun control debate, well if you were one of those college students that were about to be murdered do you think you might have a different outlook?
In the first days of May, 2009, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed criminals broke into a house party of students.
After confiscating the group’s valuables, the invaders split the men and women up into different rooms.
Witnesses say the perpetrators then counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.
The students believed the gunmen were going to rape and murder the entire group of students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester.
However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from his backpack and fired at the thug who was detaining the men.
(That is: One smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)
The criminal fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned.
The student continued on into the girls’ room, found the other thug, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, preparing to rape his first victim.
The student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled through a window and died in front of his apartment, only one building away.
One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.
So what’s the point?
A student saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of 10 people (including himself) from murder . . . and he did it with a handgun.
This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that criminalize their citizens’ self defense?
Yes, we would be reading an entirely different story — one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words.
Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two sorry excuses for human beings . . . or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.
And that’s exactly how gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns want it.
Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.
Congratulations to the unnamed hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.
In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
Categories: ACLU, constitution, Constitutional Law, corrupt, corrupt badly trained police, corrupt police, criminal law, evil doers, Jail Tags: Ammunition, College Park, Complete Recovery, Dangerous Neighborhood, Different Outlook, Different Story, Female Students, First Victim, Girls Room, Gun Control Debate, Gun Laws, Gunfire, Gunmen, Handgun, House Party, Local Media, Perpetrators, Self Defense, Smart Student, Sorry Excuses, Thug, York Chicago
FTC and internet disclosure
How much is enough and how much is too much…
The FTC would like to impose additional guides for online advertisers, which could lead to an equal protection challenge, is this the real direction that Washington wants to go?
I would hope to see equal protection for all consumers, both online and offline deceptive, advertisements on TV can be seen that promote subliminal methods of advertising, however it appears that enforcement may be an issue if disclosure is not required for all advertisers, not just internet advertisers, clear and conspicuous disclosure must apply to all advertisers, equally, including enforcement of the same standards.
I would hope that before such measures are taken to protect consumers online that there could be some measure of protection afforded the millions and millions of television viewers every day on cable TV, including loud and offensive commercials, that make use of excessive loudness and depict impossibly large food items, graphics and pictures, of pizza that are over 24 inches in diameter, yet, when the consumer goes to purchase the product, the actual product is often less than 12 inches with substantially less product and toppings.
Is this not deceptive advertising?
Another example is the 24 inch hamburger, that is shown in many fast food television commercials. Consumers may understand at some level that they are not going to actually get what they are seeing on that large screen, however, is it not deceptive to show such large depictions of food?
What about the psychological considerations of showing overly large food items on video commercials, in broadcast television?
The human Subconscious, is highly susceptible to conditioning, in video advertising, will the FTC begin to require clear and conspicuous disclosure for all forms of advertising,with such a large percentage of Americans now falling into the obese category, do we not have the duty to protect all consumers from messages that these types of commercials send to the consuming public?
I would like to understand the concern that is being directed at online advertisers and yet have no such precautions for protecting consumers that are exposed to deceptive video advertising, that use highly technical and sophisticated subliminal advertising methods, frame rates in excess of 120 frames per second often with highly suggestive use of graphics in video content, these things should be the concern of a highly motivated organization such as the FTC.
I would be in favor for such additional measures to protect consumers, if all broadcast media were also subject to the same disclosure requirements as what is currently being proposed for online advertising content, does it not make more sense to provide a safe experience for all consumers?
Clear and conspicuous, disclosures for Television Advertising must also apply to broadcast and be enforced not just applied to online advertisers.
It appears that what is proposed for online users is not being proposed for traditional media advertising, this is a real concern and should be examined as to why such provisions are not being equally examined.
These questions should be carefully considered and answered before we even consider the idea of proposing such disclosure and legal requirements for online advertisers.
Should we not apply the same protection for all consumers? Can we apply one set of guides for the internet yet ignore clearly deceptive advertising for broadcast advertisers, the same level of enforcement must be applied to both online
My question and concern, is will such disclosures be required of all commercial producers, Radio, Television, Cable, Internet.
If no such disclosure notices are proposed for broadcast advertisers, then this is something that is a serious issue and concern.
How can we not protect all consumers with the same passion and the same level of protection as the FTC guides propose for online consumers?
Should we not extend equal protection of all consumers? To apply, an unequal burden for online advertisers without providing equal enforcement for all advertisers. This is a question that we must answer before we consider these additional disclosure guides.
Categories: ACLU, bankruptcy, Class Actions, constitution, Constitutional Law, corrupt Tags: Additional Guides, Broadcast Television, Cable Tv, Conspicuous Disclosure, Deceptive Advertisements, Deceptive Advertising, Diameter, Fast Food, Food Items, Ftc, Internet Advertisers, Internet Disclosure, Loudness, Offensive Commercials, Psychological Considerations, Subconscious, Television Commercials, Television Viewers, Tv Commercials, Video Advertising, Video Commercials