Net Free Ads

frun · Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Posts: 7

Congressional candidate Dr. Alec El-Difrawi supports the passing of a law that would charge for every email sent. El-Difrawi maintains such a law is the only way to stop spam.

For more information visit www.eldifrawiforcongress.com or www.eldifrawiemailreform.com

Recently, “Dateline NBC” aired an episode where they set up a hidden camera investigation to capture child sex predators. In the report, 19 men were caught going to a suburban home where they thought they'd be meeting with sexually available teens. One man entered through the garage completely naked and sat down in the kitchen, where the reporter handed him a towel to cover up. Another turned out to be a rabbi.

All of the alleged predators had one other thing in common besides getting caught in a sting: they all met their “underage” victims online. Adults posing as children entered chat rooms and waited to be contacted by men looking for sex. It didn’t take long. Of course, the perpetrators used screen names, not their real names.

What can be done about such lurking dangers? Alec El-Difrawi believes a viable first step is the Internet Reform Act II. This bill would charge (under a penny) for every e-mail sent. By charging, payment can be tracked thus eliminating the anonymous e-mails child molesters use so often to hunt their prey.

That wouldn’t be the only benefit of this forward-thinking bill. Fraud and spam would be eliminated because e-mails could be tracked. Like internet child predators, Spam survives in the shadows. By paying for each e-mail sent, companies will stop outgoing unsolicited mail and strive to send only to interested recipients. Why? Because it will cost them cash, while saving consumers and affected companies money. Time, energy and dollars used to try and catch spammers could then be freed up to pursue more noble, and profitable, pursuits.

But won’t the cost to the consumer be prohibitively expensive? Not at all. Most Americans use e-mail constantly and find ii indispensable. Say the average person sends 10 e-mails a day. If they are charged .5 cents per message sent, that adds up to only $1.50 per month. It would be difficult to find anyone who considers that a burden.

Alec El-Difrawi has faith in the American people. He has faith that the American people will invest a few dollars to battle big problems. Costing just pennies a day, the Internet Reform Act II will shrink the amount of spam and number of viruses our computers receive. More importantly, Alec El-Difrawi has faith that the American people will do the right thing to help protect our vulnerable children.

soul665 · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 13

Congressional Candidate Alec Difrawi praises Bush/McCain Cruelty Ban

Today Congressional frontrunner Dr. Alec Difrawi praised President Bush and Senator John McCain for reaching an agreement to ban cruelty

Bush, MCain reach deal on 'cruel, inhuman' treatment ban
Fox News
WASHINGTON — President Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., agreed to language Wednesday on a bill to ban U.S. interrogators from using "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees in the War on Terror.
"We reached this agreement and now we can move forward and the whole world can know as we know that the United States does not permit cruel and inhuman treatment," McCain said Thursday after an Oval Office meeting with the president and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," McCain said. "We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the War on Terror."
Bush made clear that the language is not about banning torture. That is something the United States already prohibits.
"This government does not torture," he said. "We adhere to the International Convention of Torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
Bush also thanked McCain, who spent more than five years in a POW camp in Vietnam where he was frequently tortured, for being a leader who upholds American values.
Outside the White House, McCain and Warner said they were confident the language agreed to by the president for the defense authorization bill is a done deal and that loose ends will be tied up in the next 24 hours.
"I'm absolutely confident, Senator, that this McCain legislation, which is landmark legislation very much needed for our nation, will become finalized by our president," Warner said.
The Senate included McCain's provisions in two defense bills, including a must-pass $453 billion spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war. But the House omitted them from their versions and the bills have stalled.
Still, the language proposed by McCain has received overwhelming support in Congress. Late Wednesday, the House voted 308-122 for a non-binding resolution in support of the Senate-passed ban.
For months the White House has stated concerns that the McCain language goes too far. Administration officials cited doomsday scenarios where a detainee may have information that is critical to the safety of the United States and interrogators may need greater latitude to get prisoners to speak.
The administration was seeking language in the bill that would offer some protection from prosecution for CIA interrogators accused of violating McCain's provision.
"The debate has never really been about torture. There's a domestic law on the books prohibiting torture and we have an international prohibition against torture and the president says as a matter of policy, we don't engage in torture," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told FOX News.
"The debate has been about, what does it mean to deal in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment? In some countries, there's stuff on the books to say you can't even insult somebody.
So, we want to simply insure that the American government has the tools necessary to question dangerous terrorists in order to gather information that may protect America from another attack," Gonzales said.
Supporters of the provisions say the extra language is needed to clarify current anti-torture laws in light of abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. McCain said the deal addresses "legitimate concerns raised regarding the rights of interrogators."
The language mimics the military code by saying it will provide CIA and other interrogators with legal counsel and certain protections when they followed orders that a reasonable person would be expected to carry out. Those orders are not to contradict principles agreed to under the Nuremberg Principles developed in 1950, McCain said.
The language also includes a specific statement that those who violate the standards will not be afforded immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits.
"I think it's excellent, I think Sen. McCain was on the right track," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told FOX News after he heard about the deal.
But others question whether the U.S. government will have enough leeway to get the information that they need. It is still uncertain if the deal would limit measures such as stress techniques even in interrogations of high-value terrorists who may know about coming attacks.
Some analysts add that limiting "degrading" treatment could mean almost anything. For instance, a female interrogator questioning a Muslim prisoner could be perceived as degrading to the prisoner.
"If you apply it literally, it prohibits detention as such because it is absolutely degrading to be sitting, instead of running around and applying your trade of killing Americans, it is degrading to be sitting in a cell," said David Rivkin, an international law attorney and former Justice Department official.
A deal between the White House and McCain does not mean a deal between the Senate and House.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is said to still oppose the ban, though he and Warner were working on "refinements," which deal with legal protections for both military and civilian interrogators.
The protections would guard interrogators from a private suit or prosecution as long as they were following orders and "a reasonable person would think it was a lawful order." That is a standard that already applies to members of the military and would now be extended to civilian interrogators, including the CIA and any contractors.
Hunter said he would hold up completion of one of the two bills that includes the ban unless he got White House assurances that the new rules would still allow "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" as under current procedures.
But officials said the ban would remain intact in the other bill, the final defense spending measure. After hearing Hunter's remarks, Warner said Thursday that the deal is coming.
"I have full confidence in the president's endorsement of Senator McCain's legislation," Warner said.
At one point, Bush threatened a veto if the ban were included in legislation sent to the president's desk, and Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators to give an exemption to the CIA.
But support in Congress has forced the White House to renegotiate, particularly as Congress tries to get the defense spending bills completed before lawmakers adjourn for the year.
For more information see

www.defrawyforconrgess.com or

http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=9734&sectionID=1161

soul665 · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 13

Alec Eldifrawi donates $5 Million

Congressional candidate Alec Eldifrawi who is credited for establishing the online modeling industry as founder of emodel.com recently made a $5,000,000 donation to help hurricane relief.

For more about Alec Eldifrawi visit www.eldifrawiforcongress.com

soul665 · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 13

El-Difrawi champions Internet Reform act

Congressional candidate El-Difrawi supports Internet reform act

Congressional candidate Dr. Alec El-Difrawi backs the passing of a law that would require every internet website to have verifiable contact information. In addition any posting would require verifiable information.

For more information visit www.eldifrawiforcongress.com or www.eldifrawiinternetreform.com

Congressional candidate Alec El-Difrawi supports the Internet Reform Act I for one simple reason: It makes sense. The internet is a place where anyone is free to state anything about anybody else at anytime. It does not matter whether the statements, accusations, declarations or decrees – no matter how inflammatory – are factual or not. Truth does not enter the equation.

Think someone doesn’t like you and wants to exact revenge? They can post all manner of misinformation and slander about you, your family and your background – without fear of repercussion or accountability. Additionally, the perpetrators of this cut-and-run mentality do not have to identify themselves. So you’re not only getting clobbered over the head, you have no idea who the assailant is. It happens more often than you might think. And there is virtually nothing you can do about it.

The World Wide Web has become the Wild, Wild West. Feuds aren’t settled with bullets and lynchings, but with slurs and allegations.

This bill isn’t designed to take on the media; they have always been held accountable for blatant misinformation. Remember Jayson Blair? The New York Times reporter admitted to plagiarism and falsehoods in his articles. The resulting fiasco not only ended with his firing, but also led to the resignation of editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd.

The internet as it stands has no such built-in fail-safes. It’s anything goes, and it will lose its value as a haven of free speech unless responsibility is added. This bill will protect consumers and businesses from smear campaigns and half truths

How does the bill work? Anyone creating a site or posting on a message board must provide a valid and verifiable name, address and phone number. That’s all there is to it. Simple, yet effective. Cyberbullies will think twice about spewing possible slander if they know their words can be traced.

Mr. El-Difrawi’s sponsorship of a bill to require accountability makes perfect sense. Free speech only works if speakers are responsible for what they say. And it is the responsibility of every American to exercise and protect free speech. This bill goes a long way toward preventing the internet from turning into the OK Corral, where a misinterpreted deed or discourse could result in character assassination.

We live in the United States and the First Amendment protects free speech. Free speech, however, should not be wielded haphazardly. Words can harm. And it is the malicious misuse of free speech on the internet that makes it the final frontier to conquer and defend, so every American is protected.

alyceclover · Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 19 Location: PA/CA USA

Interesting. If paying to use email would work to get rid of predators, scammers, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, it seems that it will start out being affordable to the average person, and price soon raised again and again and again.

When I look at my email, there's ads attached...what does zucchinni have to do with Port-a-Pots? The ads were targeted because my mail had been read (by a machine?), telling about my sick Mom.

Now if that isn't an invasion of privacy what is? And if that is possible, then it should be possible to catch crooks without charging for email use. Won't you think?

People do slander in real life, and get away with it. Even knowing who they are does not help stop attacks.

We need well publized Internet Police where we can report when we find persons doing things unethically, or illegally.

I have had websites take over the computer I use, and pop-up Porno sites. Won't want that to happen to children.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.
_________________
"Be the change you want to see in the World" Gandhi
http://www.mamariano.biz

alyceclover · Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 19 Location: PA/CA USA

Is paid email really a good thing? Read this. What do you think?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
_________________
"Be the change you want to see in the World" Gandhi
http://www.mamariano.biz