It simply baffles me how many SEO experts will quickly denounce Cloaking as “unethical” or against Google’s TOS or even label it as spam which manipulates search results but then on a daily basis create artificial, manual or software generated backlinks for clients.

If you are distributing countless articles with links or posting on blogs/forums to obtain backlinks or using automated backlinking software, isn’t that also spamming to manipulate search engine results?

What is the difference? It all violates Google’s TOS.

There is also a silly mindset that whitehat SEO is risk free and blackhat is full of risks. Really? How many whitehat sites, that supposedly conformed to all of Google’s TOS, suddenly lose their ranking and all their business when Google decides to do a major algorithm change? Ha! Where is the reward for loyalty from Google?

So does “blackhat” or being “unethical” really exist anymore? Isn’t this really about traffic, conversions and surviving within an ever tightening monopoly created by Google for which we now are left with few other options, unless to line the pockets of Google shareholders.

July 29, 2011

While all of the major players in the protracted fight to raise the nation’s debt ceiling agree that a default is unthinkable, that goal now appears out of reach. In the past, raising the limit had been a pro forma congressional act regardless of which party was in power. With this stalemate, I believe the President as Commander-In–Chief not only has the power to unilaterally raise the debt limit, he has a constitutional duty to do so. Our starting point in this is section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads in pertinent part:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law.…shall not
be questioned.” The relevant inquiry is: what does it mean to “question the validity” of the public debt. It is a term of art referring to any act that undermines or dilutes the lawful financial obligations of the United States. In Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) U.S. government bonds were issued to be paid in gold upon maturity. By a Joint Resolution Congress sought to change the terms of the obligation. The Supreme Court stated: “The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States…. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.” Referring to section 4 of the 14th Amendment the Court declared: “We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.” Thus, any governmental action which significantly changes or dilutes a lawful financial obligation of the United States is forbidden because it “questions the validity” of the public debt within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Presently, if joint Congressional action does not raise the debt limit, the United States will be in default. Under Perry, the statute requiring legislative action to raise the debt limit would clearly be unconstitutional and unenforceable because it permits a default to occur. In these circumstances in order to prevent the financial chaos that would result from a default, it is mandatory for the President of the United States who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to raise the debt limit in order to preserve the integrity of the public debt under section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

(The writer of this letter has argued over 40 cases in Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal during his time as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and in private practice. He has also argued 3 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, two of which raised serious constitutional issues.)

If you need someone to assist with the paper work I am available,
how-ever I am in need of a good lawyer perhaps Mr. Spitzer would con-
sider taking a real—my case. The only problem I keep having is CNN
inconsistence in CNN mailing address. In my personal case that needs
legal assistance it involves federal law suites, conspiracy, constitution
violation, in this crime story of criminal exploitation for entrainment,
as robbery is systematic, with liver-hood blocked.
I think my case Mr. Spitzer or his team of Spitzer/Parker will win this
battle.

Thank you for considering my case
Ann Marie S. Finley
http://www.amdesigh2009@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 527047
Flushing, N.Y. 11352