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.

Is fox news being fair and balanced, in its coverage of the Casey Anthony trial?

Can anyone get a fair trial at all when the news media is only allegedly covering one side of the news story?

Is it possible that we may no longer need the justice system, since it appears that allegedly when in the state of Florida if the state does not have enough evidence to convict someone they allegedly leak details of the case to the media, they allegedly allow TV cameras in a death case, they allegedly allow all kinds of evidence in trials when it has not been done in cases like this in the past, did the state of Florida step over a line?

is this man really telling the truth or is he an alleged liar?

Why did this guy attempt suicide,

Indeed there are many states that are now charging tax for online purchases.

This is very disturbing and if steps are not taken to stop this behavior the internet as we know it today
will cease to exist, the internet is still in its infancy and will continue to be in a state of growth as long
as the government stays out of its development.

The moment that we allow the government to begin to stifle growth online by trying to censor and
regulate all the content online, we will have a problem that will deepen the already weakened economy.

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.

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.

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.

If you have been a victim of police corruption, find an attorney and sue the city.

Police violence.

Police problems.

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

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.