Imagine a day when the sun and sky will be obliterated by drones, chugging overhead (at 400 feet) clutching packages from Amazon to waiting customers! A trial is underway in Britain ... you can see the pleasure of this portly man as he collects his box from his back yard where the drone has obligingly dropped it:
Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in California, where he teaches and publishes in the areas of Internet law, intellectual property, and advertising and marketing law. Goldman was queried by American Free Press about the recent removal of certain kinds of content by Internet giants YouTube and Amazon. According to Goldman, the answer is in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which in turn amended the Communications Act of 1934.
AFP writes: "[The Telecommunications Act] was the first major overhaul of U.S. telecommunications policy in nearly 62 years. It allows Internet service providers (ISPs) and other service providers to restrict customers’ actions without worrying about being found legally liable. Specifically, the act states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Section 230 had its beginnings in protecting children, and was passed in part in reaction to 1995’s Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., “which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers.” Section 230 was passed to allow service providers to delete and monitor content without becoming publishers.
Goldman: "If the distributor (e.g., YouTube) has the contractual and legal right to pull the rug out from under the content producer at any time, then the content producer either needs to accept that contingency or bargain for a better deal." Problem: there aren't a lot of better deals, and, as Goldman points out: “Retailers are not required to put any particular item on their shelves.” The Biggies are effectively considered retailers and purveyors, yet not publishers.
If you want to dive deep into what viruses aren't, read the book AIDS, Opium, Diamonds & Empire by Nancy Turner Banks, MD. Her second book, The Slow Death of the AIDS/Cancer Paradigm and the Apocrypha of the Eukaryotic Cell (2016) is written for serious health professionals, but a determined lay reader could get through it, with enough rests. For all those virus hunters (viruses have never been properly identified under a microscope), this paragraph, taken from page 8, puts things in perspective (with certain punctuation emphases added):
In classical genetic theory, DNA is the center of the cellular universe and controls all heritable expressions of phenotypic change. It was posited under this theory that information transfer at the cellular level was unidirectional. That is, that DNA transcribed into messenger RNA, which then follows with what is defined as translation -- the ribosomal assembly of amino acids into proteins. In 1970, an enzyme was discovered that contradicted the basic tenets of the unidirectional principle of the theory of information flow from DNA to RNA to protein. The enzyme was reverse transcriptase. It was ascertained that this enzyme was able to transfer information in the other direction by catalyzing RNA into DNA. Given that in molecular biology circles, DNA was seen as the immutable driver of cell function, this was a startling and surprising discovery because it challeneged the prevailing idea of the cellular hierarchical relationships. However, rather than reconfigure the theory, it was erroneously posited by some researchers that this enzyme could be used as an indirect marker for an oncovirus because the cells in which it was found were being used to study cancer. Therefore, the conjecture was made that cells became cancerous by being infected by a virus. So instead of revisiting a dogma about the stability and central role of DNA in the cell and the unidirectional flow of information, the ad hoc idea of a cancer-causing virus was used to explain this new discovery; and oncoviruses became retroviruses, thereby creating more confusion about the genomic response to stress. The explanation given was that the viral RNA would be converted into DNA by the RT enzyme, and the proviral DNA could then be inserted into the genome, thus initiating cancerous transformation. After the discovery of reverse transcriptase, virologists again -- by consensus -- mistakenly began to use and to convince themselves that finding reverse transcriptase in cell culture was the definitive indication of the presence of a retrovirus. However, this time, the same entity no longer caused cell immortalily, but caused cell death. This highly speculative assumption without scientific proof has become virology dogma.
This video explains the conventional theory behind eclipses and then illustrates how eclipses work on the Flat Earth. You can decide which is more plausible. For NASA's map of the path of the total solar eclipse of August 21, 2017(visible, at least in some part, to all in North America), click here.
Explained below by Dr. Zachary Bush, the product Restore(a lignite extract that brings crucial carbon metabolites to your gut) hydrates your cells and tissues so they carry electrical charge more efficiently and can detox properly. Buy Restore at AvatarProducts.com and get free samples of other products with each order!
Los Angeles, California apparently has more registered voters than residents of voting age. From Judicial Watch: "Los Angeles County officials informed us that the total number of registered voters [in the county] now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age."
Reporter Jon Rappoport adds:"That's fraud. Now add this to the mix. Over a million illegal immigrants (some say far more) have received driver's licenses in California.All of them (unless they specifically opt out) are automatically registered to voteby the Department of Motor Vehicles. Put all this insanity together, and what do you get? A gigantic number of people who can illegally cast votes. Because, in California, it's legal to be illegal." He goes on to suggest that electronic voting, which allows easy tampering and hacking, might be manipulated to show votes that would then be attributed to the illegal immigrant voting population ...