62 votes

TERMINATED: MoxNews' Main Account suspended, Again!

To confirm, just click on Mike's (aka Moxy) YouTube pageS:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M
http://www.youtube.com/user/MoxNewsDotCom

Change your bookbmarks, here's his newest, most current one:

http://www.youtube.com/user/wwwMOXNEWScom

The main statist douchebag responsible for the honesty 'purge,' an apparatchik at KIRO 'news': Jake Milstein

Watch Mox speaking on it:

MOX News Account Suspended

Published on Aug 8, 2012 by wwwMOXNEWScom

NEW MOX NEWS PAGE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/user/wwwMOXNEWScom

Jake Milstein twitter account
http://twitter.com/jakemilstein

Jake Milstein FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/jake.milstein

Jake Milstein Email
jmilsteinkiro@gmail.com

Jake Milstein google-plus
https://plus.google.com/112053522287453181633/posts

KIRO 7 News FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/KIRO7Seattle

KIRO & News Contact Page
http://www.kirotv.com/contact-kiro7/

August 08, 2012 MOX News
http://MOXNews.com

********************************************************

And please, if you can, send him some love, and some Fed. Notes at: http://MOXNews.com

********************************************************

UPDATE: I'd like to address some of the comments below regarding Mox's practice of putting his logo over the content originators', what constitutes 'proper' "Fair Use," and the issue of legislating and enforcing IP, in general.

In regards to 'qualifying' for Fair Usage, Mox does "give credit to the originator," in the description box, of almost every single video that he posts.

The "label" over the broadcaster's logo is 'NOT' stealing.

Factually in practice, and legally speaking, that issue is somewhat convoluted: if you actually directly use their logo without changing it, as is, then 'broadcast it' on your YT page, that equally can be 'legally' interpreted as using others' stuff as your own, by the simple nature of using their stuff, on 'your' channel.

Think of it this way. If you own a bespoke/custom-autoshop, and your project is a Cadillac Escalade, but you remove the brand's logo, and put on your own custom shop's logo or one requested by your client instead, does it stop being a Cadillac?

No.

But, I mean factually, there's no doubt that you just resold it, however re-designed, AS YOUR OWN, and not under Govt Motor's original Caddy logo.

So, did you just violate copyright or trademark?

Answer?

No, again.

Well... actually it's more like "No," to no-ish. lol.

As for Mox and others' practice of 'logo over content originator's logo'-bit? The reason why you're still able to do it, is because ALL MSM shows and logos are considered 'known entities,' even IF not everyone may be aware of who Piers Morgan is, or who Sean Insanity maybe.

In copyrighting/patenting/trademarking, it all depends on how already 'public' your 'new' idea is, or may be.

Why is that important, you may inquire?

Because in IP, it's all about what is or is not already 'public' as to be considered 'unique enough,' however ridiculous that arbitrary-whim 'public policy' is, to be determined by some govt commissar.

More specific of the above car customizer example, no matter how much you 'customize' it, people still know that it's a Cadillac, unless you completely redesign the front or rear fascia to look completely different.

And, even then, just as how you can easily recognize your own loved ones from their silhouettes, whether it be by stance, or body language, designs have their own 'stances' and/or proportions that are easily and instantly recognizable to those in-the-know.

So, if someone asked you to codify into formula just how exactly, mathematically, geometrically, line by line, you recognized your own loved ones, simply by their silhouettes? Can you truly universally recognizably formulate, a repeatable method in which you did just that, and codify it into a legislative form, that will be 100% fool-proof? And furthermore, legislatively codify by what variance of 'design-lines,' angles, or colors you can legitimately penalize the 'offending' party?

Because essentially, that's what IP 'laws' seek to use to justify their existence: the codification of the subjective human perception.

Worse, the codification of such into legislative form already presumes that it CAN be done, and IS being done.

That goes the same for all other creative business: painters have signature brushstrokes, writers have signature cadence and speech patterns and distinct phrases (I doubt anyone here won't recognize mine, if not by the usually long-winded nature of sheer length of verbosity alone! LOL!), designers have known color palette and set of graphic sensibility no matter how much they may deviate/improve/evolve/shift throughout their careers, computer coders have particular set of sequence that are easily recognizable among coders and hackers alike, body lines of a Giorgetto Giugiaro are instantly distinguishable from Marcello Gandini's even though they both worked at Bertone around the time that Gruppo Bertone carrozzeria designed the Countach; no matter how many times the fans of Giorgetto claim that he designed the Countach, it's absolutely undeniable that those are Gandini's lines, however subtly different they may seem to non-designers' eyes.

Why? Because all byproducts of creative ventures are results of what and how one particular person, or group of persons with similar intellectual wavelengths think, or perceive the world.

Actually, all that would apply the same for those who want to 'categorize' what kind of 'traits' a typical R3VOL holds dear. Sure, can be done. But under legislative penalty, can you truly write recognizing such traits into a 'law?'

So if I KNOW and can verbally describe how distinct all these markers of creativities are, as I just did, why am I against IP 'laws,' now?

Because, no matter how distinctly recognizable someone's creative work, or efforts, or traits may be, to those within the field, and to some without, the very act of recognizing manifestations of creativity, itself, at the end of the day, is a subjective one: no matter how many times humans try, you CANNOT legislate, regulate, or enforce subjective human behaviors, or perceptions.

Just like the ridiculous excuses given over the years, seeking to ban 'porn,' or any other arbitrarily-deemed "lewd behavior/conduct," "you'll know one, when you see one," is NOT a proper basis for legislation or penalizing! Nor should it EVER be!

Nor, is leaving it all to be determined via "community standards," which for any lovers of freedom who detest collectivist statist BS, such arbitrary, malleable basis for legislation should be an anathema to ALL elevation of human freedoms.

So in the elemental aggregate, "perceptions" are essentially what IP 'laws' seek to regulate.

Then again, recognizing insanity has never been the State's strong suit; they only love thriving in it: like ANY psychotic, they simply do not see themselves as one. LOL, go figure.

All of which simply illustrate just how insane it is that anyone would seek to legislate creativity, like all other facets of human condition that govt seek to butt its nose into things that it has absolutely zero understanding of.

This is why, it's a commonly accepted practice. And, like any specialized industries, these are just things that general public has hard time grasping, unless you've been involved in creating, inventing, engineering, reverse-engineering, or commercially manufacturing things for a living.

Please check out PBS's "Triumph of the Nerds," especially the following segment on how TX Instrument/Compaq specifically set out to 'commit a crime,' with the full intent of getting away with it, and dan dan dan: profit off of copying someone else's designs, as their own! Oh my!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbRmaIzGTOM&feature=player_de...

If you 'get' that, you can clearly see WHY in the software world, lawsuits and counter lawsuits over IP has become so asinine: EVERYONE COPIED EACH OTHER, from the beginning.

Just look at the current one between Apple and Samsung.

Also the 'challengers' know how precarious their positions are, because they attained it, essentially on the backs of others' previous efforts, as well. They know it, and others know that they know it, too. And, vice versa, and inverse, and converse, to the Nth degree.

So if they can do it, they know that next garage/basement operation can easily become the next Microsoft billionaire, in the software world.

That, is why Bill Gates has been such a dick about suing everyone and kept a tight leash on 'his' app's licensing structure, because in reality, nothing MS has done, did, or is doing, is original work, PERIOD.

Take it from a guy who worked in the design industry: I used to be all for copyright/patents/IP, as I, too, know all too well the costs involved in creating and manifesting a new idea into a manufacturable reality.

But clearly, IP 'laws' are complete bunk, just like all other govt scams. In the end, it only produces govt approved corporatist monopolies of their choice.

That, was my last vestige of statism, and took the longest to wean off of.

Though realizing it 'hurt,' but not as much as what it truly means in the long run: the pace of human evolution suffers.

But, I still believe no one has the right to produce an exact copy of your brand and simply copy the label, and sell a direct knock-off as their own. Then again, even the most perfectly manufactured 'copy' is not truly a copy, as anything someone else makes resembling another design, by definition is NOT a 'copy.' At worst it's a likely facsimile, but never a "duplicate."

As far as the enforcement of these 'laws,' as seen with Righthaven lawsuits, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and TPP, the monopolists will never stop.

But to me personally, and realistically speaking, it's kinda like the almost 100yr old NYC law that still states that you cannot eat icecream while crossing street, because the good ol' govt loves you, wants to protect you, because you're too stupid to discern whether an oncoming traffic may ignore you and simply run you over... while you're munching on your icecream...and walking at the same time.

But, rarely is that 'law' enforced, so the people ignore it, and cops, too, ignore it, even under the current policestate.

Though tell that to the Oregon man just arrested, prosecuted and jailed under the 1920's 'law' forbidding the use of collected rain water.

Guess the only chance we have is to achieve a critical mass of wider understanding among the citizenry, of just how absolutely baseless and ridiculous these IP 'laws' are, along with everything else the statists do.

So for those harping about logo, branding, fair use, etc. please familiarize yourselves before truly "knee-jerk" defending statist thugs, as if they give out medals to you, for being so 'principled'... about all the WRONG things.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Never fear

Youtube took down Mike's rebuttal.

LOL!

that, qualified as a violation under YT guidelines against "to harass, to bully, or threaten" ??

can't believe those tech monkeys took down Mikey's rebuttal! dang it!

unbelievable! er...wait, it's very much believable: "Don't be evil!"

lol. yeah, okay NSA-google. talk about "she doth protests too much!"

as if that wasn't obvious that it was meant to be a nerdy snarkedy snark snark nerd-sarcasm.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Lol moxy

Moxy has always been my favorite hippy. Poor guy is constantly getting shut down. I hope he keeps fighting.

One world, under government, with power and money for the elite

MOX . COM.

If it aint here MOXy got it.

BAZZA MAC

I unsubscribed from mox a year or 2 ago.

I unsubscribed from mox a year or 2 ago. Mainly cause the people posting on the comments on his vids were all anti-ron paul. I'll check him out agian. Thx for the update.

They shut down Gerald Celente too !

http://www.youtube.com/user/geraldcelente?feature=watch

It says "This account has been suspended due to a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to impersonate another person or user. "

I dont know what could be the cause but its been down for a few days.

Tin Pan

guess they're going after all real Freedom acivists

for now, his official YT page seems to be still functional:

http://www.youtube.com/user/trendsjournal

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

MoxNews is shut down because he...

imposes his own brand "MoxNews" over someone else's vd that he re-posted. The materials are not of his creation nor production, had he just re-post without branding it with MoxNews, they would not have bothered him. But he keeps branding and they will continue to shut him down--they want their brand credited for their vd. Superimposing of his brand/tag/label "MoxNews" on someone else's product is inappropriate at the basic level of conduct--and he keeps doing it--he's been shut down several times for branding. He put in a lot of work finding those vds; I like the materials he spent a lot of time gathering, but finding them does not give him name-credit rights. The other vds people re-post here and there do not carry the "finder's" brand over the original source.

I hope he continues to post without branding.

I say: if you can't make it better, don't make it worst!

please refer to the following

comment: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2660782

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Always thought the same thing

.

Thank you.

The post is a rare rational independent thinking among us collective who mostly parrot, complain and rant with knee-jerk reaction.

Anxiety is high. I understand that many of us are unemployed and locked all their cash in silver, but still, that is not an excuse to abandon one's own brain.

We're living under an almost

We're living under an almost totaliratian state.

Move to a

country with Sharia Law. Report back.

Subliminal messages in this vid

http://www.dailypaul.com/246571#comment-2642694

Fair use. If they aren't making money and it is for educational purposes it is allowed. move to I2P/Torrents

a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat

So Mox News steals videos,

So Mox News steals videos, gets shut down, and you cry about it?

Why don't they try producing something of their own instead of stealing content?

wtf

are you talking about?? steals videos?? mox is great for getting info out and spreading the truth...the anti ron paul/kurt bills video here was stolen as well...same as the ben swann reality checks and so on...your logic is moronic...mox is getting shut down cause he is exposing these crooks and is good at it.

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!

MoxNews got in trouble because he...

imposes his own brand "MoxNews" over someone else's vd that he re-posted. The materials are not of his creation nor production, had he just re-post without branding it with MoxNews, they would not have bothered him. But he keeps branding and they will continue to shut him down--they want their brand credited for their vd. Superimposing of his brand/tag/label "MoxNews" on someone else's product is inappropriate at the basic level of conduct--and he keeps doing it--he's been shut down several times for branding. He put in a lot of work finding those vds; I like the materials he spent a lot of time gathering, but finding them does not give him name-credit rights. The other vds people re-post here and there do not carry the "finder's" brand.

I hope he continues to post without branding.

I say: if you can't make it better, don't make it worst!

please refer to the following

comment: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2660782

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

are you familiar with the currently operative 'legal' doctrine

of "Fair Use"... at all?

You new? Grab a chair. You can search the printed US codes yourself at Cornell.edu law school's site.

By your non-'logic,' most contents referring to news clips/media/commentary posted on DailyPaul, too 'should' be shut down; oh wait someone tried to... then FAILED: http://www.dailypaul.com/forums/current-events/lvrj-righthav...

Get with the program.

Hm. funny, I don't hear much crying.

But, my eyes do seem to be flooded with verbal non-verbals of something very odd: illogical non-sequiturs... at DailyPaul, of all places.

Want to be "principled" about it?

Go return all the copies of your own VHS tapes/DVD's/CD's that you own, that you resold on eBay, or pawnshops, or allowed your own friends to copy. Then, promptly report your self and your friends to the FBI.

No, better yet, since the FBI never does anything useful, go help them fulfill their daily govt-terrorism quota by turning yourself in, to be arrested, on behalf of their RIAA/MPAA corporatist masters, seeing as how according to the FBI if you view illegal material like childporn, it's treated as if you created it yourself.

So, seeing as how you MUST first view 'restricted' material, like the daily broadcast 'news,' to first determine that you have or have not watched it via 'authorized' means, or not, by the time you tell them that you watched 'unauthorized news,' you just admitted that you broke the 'law.' Think that's crazy? Well, "crazy" as cops charging you with "assault," for putting your elbows up to protect your skull from their blows, worse, them getting away with it, and moron sheeple in the jury actually convicting the citizenry of it.

So, Mr. Newly-minted-unauthorized-news-viewing-criminal, if you want to be truly "principled" about it, you're basically asking you to be treated by the FBI, as they'd prosecute childporn viewers. Then again, by that logic, FBI too would be pedophiles! LOL. Well, actually, that DOES make them pedophiles, as they're committing crimes themselves to catch 'criminals.' But govt statist/corporatist cultists' hypocrisy is like breathing; it's just what they do for living. So no surprise there.

lol. really? is this like 'Pre-2007 Day' at the DailyPaul, today?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I've got a copy of

"Cowboys and Aliens" that I bought. So is it now ok for me to copy that and place "Jimwill Studios" on all over the covers and the videos? Then to sell those at a profit? I think not! And I wouldn't do it anyway. It's dishonest and would be stealing their property.
If Moxnews wants to put his logo up "before" and "after" the video then I don't think there would be a problem. Something like "Brought to you by Moxnews". Then allow the station/studio logos to be shown on the video.

As for "Fair Use" - correct me if I'm wrong - but don't you have to still give credit to the originator?

Huh? Mox sells these videos as his? LOL. really?

"Cowboys and Aliens" eh? Okay, we're not Siskel(RIP) and Ebert here, so, to each his own, but you SHOULD pawn off that 'movie'!!!

There are certainly a few things I could've done with $163million FRN's, but I didn't have the benefit of two Iron Man global multi-billion dollars-earning blockbusters to convince studios that it'd be okay to do another SciFi, but this time without the benefit of any real storyline or functioning dialog. lol.

As for your:

As for "Fair Use" - correct me if I'm wrong - but don't you have to still give credit to the originator?

Yes you do. And, Yes, he does "give credit to the originator", in the description box, of almost every single video that he posts.

The "label" over the broadcaster's logo is 'NOT' stealing.

Factually in practice, and legally speaking, that issue is somewhat convoluted: if you actually directly use their logo without changing it, as is, then 'broadcast it' on your YT page, that equally can be 'legally' interpreted as using others' stuff as your own, by the simple nature of using their stuff, on 'your' channel.

Think of it this way. If you own a bespoke/custom-autoshop, and your project is a Cadillac Escalade, but you remove the brand's logo, and put on your own custom shop's logo or one requested by your client instead, does it stop being a Cadillac?

No.

But, I mean factually, there's no doubt that you just resold it, however re-designed, AS YOUR OWN, and not under Govt Motor's original Caddy logo.

So, did you just violate copyright or trademark?

Answer?

No, again.

Well... actually it's more like "No," to no-ish. lol.

For the one poster who keeps harping about the 'logo over logo'-bit? The reason why you're still able to do it, is because ALL MSM shows and logos are considered 'known entities,' even IF not everyone may be aware of who Piers Morgan is, or who Sean Insanity maybe.

In copyrighting/patenting/trademarking, it all depends on how already 'public' your 'new' idea is, or may be.

Why is that important, you may inquire?

Because in IP, it's all about what is or is not already 'public' as to be considered 'unique enough,' however ridiculous that arbitrary-whim 'public policy' is, to be determined by some govt commissar.

More specifically of the car customizers, no matter how much you 'customize' it, people still know that it's a Cadillac, unless you completely redesign the front or rear fascia to look completely different.

And, even then, just as how you can easily recognize your own loved ones from their silhouettes, whether it be by stance, or body language, designs have their own 'stances' and/or proportions that are easily recognizable to those in-the-know.

So, if someone asked you to codify into formula just how exactly, mathematically, geometrically, line by line, you recognized your own loved ones, simply by their silhouettes? Can you truly universally recognizably formulate, a repeatable method in which you did just that, and codify it into a legislative form, that will be 100% fool-proof?

Because essentially, that's what IP 'laws' seek to use to justify their existence: the codification of the subjective human perception.

Worse, the codification of such into legislative form already presumes that it CAN be done, and IS being done.

That goes the same for all other creative business: painters have signature strokes, writers have signature cadence and speech patterns, designers have known color palette no matter how much they may deviate, computer coders have particular set of sequence that are easily recognizable among coders and hackers alike, body lines of a Giorgetto Giugiaro are instantly distinguishable from Marcello Gandini's even though they both worked at Bertone around the time that Gruppo Bertone carrozzeria designed the Countach; no matter how many times the fans of Giorgetto claim that he designed the Countach, it's absolutely undeniable that those are Gandini's lines, however subtly different they may seem to non-designers' eyes.

Why? Because all byproducts of creative ventures are results of what and how one particular person, or group of persons with similar intellectual wavelengths think, or perceive the world.

Actually, all that would apply the same for those who want to 'categorize' what kind of 'traits' a typical R3VOL holds dear. Sure, can be done. But under legislative penalty, can you truly write recognizing such traits into a 'law?'

Just like the ridiculous excuses given over the years, seeking to ban 'porn,' or any other arbitrary "lewd behavior/conduct," "you'll know one, when you see one," is not a proper basis for legislation or penalizing. Nor is leaving it to be determined via "community standards," which for any lovers of freedom who detest collectivist statist BS, such arbitrary, malleable basis for legislation should be an anathema to ALL elevation of human freedoms.

But, no matter how distinctly recognizable someone's creative work, or efforts, or traits may be, to those within the field, and without, the very act of recognizing manifestations of creativity, itself, at the end of the day, is a subjective one: no matter how many times humans try, you CANNOT legislate, regulate, or enforce subjective human behaviors, or perceptions.

And, "perceptions" are essentially what IP 'laws' seek to regulate.

Then again, recognizing insanity has never been the State's strong suit; they only love thriving in it: like ANY psychotic, they simply do not see themselves as one. LOL, go figure.

All of which simply illustrate just how insane it is that anyone would seek to legislate creativity, like all other facets of human condition that govt seek to butt its nose into things that it has absolutely zero understanding of.

This is why, it's a commonly accepted practice. And, like any specialized industries, these are just things that general public has hard time grasping, unless you've been involved in creating, inventing, engineering, reverse-engineering, or commercially manufacturing things for a living.

Please check out PBS's "Triumph of the Nerds," especially the following segment on how TX Instrument/Compaq specifically set out to 'commit a crime,' with the full intent of get away with it, and dan dan dan: profit off of copying someone else's designs, as their own!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbRmaIzGTOM&feature=player_de...

If you 'get' that, this is WHY in the software world, lawsuits and counter lawsuits over IP has become so asinine: EVERYONE COPIED EACH OTHER, from the beginning. Just look at the current one between Apple and Samsung.

Also the 'challengers' know how precarious their positions are, because they attained it, essentially on the backs of others.

So if they can do it, they know that next garage/basement operation can easily become the next Microsoft, in the software world.

That, is why Bill Gates has been such a dick about suing everyone and kept a tight leash on 'his' app's licensing structure, because in reality, nothing MS has done, did, or is doing, is original work, PERIOD.

Take it from a guy who worked in the design industry: I used to be all for copyright/patents/IP, as I too know all too well the costs involved in creating and manifesting a new idea into a manufacturable reality.

But clearly, IP 'laws' are complete bunk, just like all other govt scams. In the end, it only produces govt approved corporatist monopolies of their choice.

That, was my last vestige of statism.

Though realizing it 'hurt,' but not as much as what it truly means in the long run: the pace of human evolution suffers.

But, I still believe no one has the right to produce an exact copy of your brand and simply copy the label, and sell a direct knock off as their own. Then again, even the most perfectly manufactured 'copy' is not truly a copy, as anything someone else makes resembling another design, by definition is NOT a 'copy.'

As far as the enforcement of these 'laws,' though as seen with Righthaven lawsuits, SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and TPP, the monopolists will never stop, but to me, realistically it's kinda like the almost 100yr old NYC law that say you cannot eat icecream while crossing street, because the good ol' govt loves you, wants to protect you, because you're too stupid to discern whether an oncoming traffic may ignore you and simply run you over... while you're munching on your icecream...and walking at the same time.

But, rarely is that 'law' enforced, so the people ignore it, and cops, too, ignore it, even under the current policestate.

Though tell that to the Oregon man just arrested, prosecuted and jailed under the 1920's 'law' forbidding the use of collected rain water.

So for those harping about logo, branding, fair use, etc. please familiarize yourselves before truly "knee-jerk" defending statist thugs, as if they give out medals to you, for being so 'principled'... about all the WRONG things.

You've been corrected.

You're welcome.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Trouble with name credit rights...

Superimposing of his brand/tag/label "MoxNews" on someone else's product is inappropriate. He put in a lot of work finding those vds; I like the materials he spent a lot of time gathering, but finding them does not give him name-credit rights. The other vds people re-post here and there do not carry the "finder's" brand over the original source.

I hope he continues to post without branding.

I say: if you can't make it better, don't make it worst!

NSA/CIA Funded and Controlled

Google and by extension YouTube can go to hell while those of us who cherish liberty and free speech should go to Vimeo.

Many in the truth movement have or will be using Vimeo exclusively in the future because of censorship at YouTube. Ryan Dawson is the most recent example.

We need to send a message to Google that the 1st amendment applies to everyone.

"The problem is not those in power, the problem is right between your ears." ~Larken Rose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs&list=FL4wdZ0dK3HG...

Donate to Moxy!

Don't forget he could use anything you can give him to keep going.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

scawarren's picture

Jeez how many times now?

Jeez how many times now?

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

reedr3v's picture

bump for a hero

of the internet.

Jefferson's picture

bump

for Mox