Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Humane Society International, an NGO which had been campaigning for it, said the Indian government inserted a new rule 135-B in Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, banning import of such products.

“No cosmetic that has been tested on animals after the commencement of Drugs and Cosmetics (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2014 shall be imported into the country,” the official notification, which will come into effect from Nov 13, said.

Get a copy of tabla! for more stories.

More:
India bans cosmetics tested on animals



Jeff Clements of Free Speech For People at the 28th Amendment Nation Roadshow
On October 3, Jeff Clements, co-founder of Free Speech For People and author of “Corporations Are Not People” joined the 28th Amendment National Roadshow in …

By: freespeechpeople

Excerpt from:
Jeff Clements of Free Speech For People at the 28th Amendment Nation Roadshow – Video



First Amendment test. NYC FUCK YOU PIG!
Nypd pass first amendment test only after being reminded of oath. Fuck the police! COP=criminals on patrol, cowards on patrol.

By: Pocholo

See the article here:
First Amendment test. NYC FUCK YOU PIG! – Video

Oct 102014



First Amendment Song Mashup
via YouTube Capture.

By: Karissa Hair

View original post here:
First Amendment Song Mashup – Video



First Amendment test CCSU
This is the encounter that occurred after I filmed the officer stopping vehicles for what I thought was student id checks.

By: Cody DallaValle

Continued here:
First Amendment test CCSU – Video

With only a month until the scheduled trial of Ross Ulbricht, the alleged creator of the Silk Road drug site, Ulbrichts defense lawyers have zeroed in on the argument that the U.S. government illegally hacked the billion-dollar black market site to expose the location of its hidden server. The prosecutions latest rebuttal to that argument takes an unexpected tack: they claim that even if the FBI did hack the Silk Road without a warrantand prosecutors are careful not to admit they didthat intrusion would be a perfectly law-abiding act of criminal investigation.

On Monday evening the prosecutors submitted the latest in a series of combative court filings from the two sides of the Silk Road case that have clashed over Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The governments new argument responds to an affidavit from an expert witness, tech lawyer Joshua Horowitz, brought in by Ulbrichts defense to poke holes in the FBIs story of how it located the Silk Road server. In a letter filed last week, Horowitz called out inconsistencies in the FBIs account of stumbling across the Silk Roads IP address while innocently entering miscellaneous data into its login page. He testified that the FBIs actions instead sounded more like common hacker intrusion techniques. Ulbrichts defense has called for an evidentiary hearing to cross examine the FBI about the operation.

In the governments rebuttal, however, Ulbrichts prosecutors dont directly contest Horowitz description of the FBIs investigation, though they do criticize his testimony in passing as factually and analytically flawed in a number of respects. Instead, they obliquely argue that the foreign location of the sites server and its reputation as a criminal haven mean that Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches dont apply, even if the FBI did use hacking techniques to penetrate the Silk Road, and did so without a warrant.

Even if the FBI had somehow hacked into the [Silk Road] Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the prosecutors new memo reads. Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to hack into it in order to search it, as any such hack would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.

The Silk Road server in question, after all, was located not in the United States but in a data center near Reykjavik, Iceland. And though Ulbricht is an American citizen, the prosecutors argue that the servers location abroad made it fair game for remote intrusion. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise, the prosecutions filing reads.

In a footnote, the memo adds another strike against Ulbrichts Fourth Amendment protections: The Silk Road was not only hosted in a foreign data center, but also rented from a third-party web hosting service. And because Ulbricht allegedly violated the companys terms of service by using its computers to deal in narcotics and other contraband, that company was exempted from any obligation to protect his privacy.

Finally, prosecutors argue that for the 30-year-old Texan to claim privacy protections for Silk Roads server, he would have to declare that it belonged to hima tricky Catch-22. Ulbricht hasnt claimed personal possession of that computers data, as doing so would almost certainly incriminate him. But because he hasnt he cant claim that his privacy was violated when it was searched, according to the prosecutors reasoning. Because Ulbricht has not submitted any affidavit alleging that he had any possessory interest in the SR Serverlet alone one that would give him a reasonable expectation of privacyhis motion should be denied, reads the prosecutors filing.

Early Tuesday, Judge Katherine Forrest ordered Ulbrichts defense to decide within the day whether it will argue that Ulbricht did have an expectation of privacy for the Silk Road server, as well as all his other seized computers and online accounts. Shes given him until the end of the day Wednesday to make that argument Ulbrichts defense didnt immediately respond to a request for comment.

The pre-trial motion over which Ulbrichts defense lawyers and the prosecution have been sparring for the last two months doesnt directly seek to have the central narcotics conspiracy and money laundering charges against Ulbricht dismissed. Instead, his lawyers have sought to prove that the evidence gathered by law enforcement is tainted. If the initial pinpointing of Silk Roads server was illegal, they argue, practically all the evidence from the resulting investigation could be rendered inadmissible.

Early last month, the government responded to that motion with an affidavit from former FBI agent Christopher Tarbell describing how the Silk Road server was first found. As he described it, a misconfiguration of the anonymity software Tor allowed the sites login page to leak its IP address.

See the original post:
Feds Hacked Silk Road Without a Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue



MSNBC Blames Ebola Outbreak on 2nd Amendment
MSNBC: Ebola's Worse Because of the Second Amendment. http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-ebolas-worse-because-of-the-second-amendment/ Police in Dallas are searching for a homeless man who rode…

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Original post:
MSNBC Blames Ebola Outbreak on 2nd Amendment – Video



Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court
Will the Supreme Court grant religious rights to prison inmates? Does the first amendment freedom of speech protect you from posting violent language on Facebook? Are police subject to the…

By: AnneElise Goetz

See the original post:
Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights & Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court – Video

The Second Amendment, known as the right to bear arms, has been in the news thanks to a handful of shooting spree massacres. The Inquisitr has covered stories that tackle both sides of the argument. On the side that wants to change the amendment, there was an argument which states tanks and rocket launchers are not included, followed by a debate if the government should subsidize guns for everyone. In retaliation, the side supporting the amendment rallied for their rights or to go topless. Even some restaurants are showing their support, including one that welcomed guns and another which gave a discount for patrons bringing their guns in.

One of the benefits of the Second Amendment was shown in a report about a man who was able to fend off a robbery involving four armed suspects with his own firearm. Two of the suspects escaped, while two others were killed.

According to KHOU, four suspects barged into a bar known as EJs Place, located on the 16500 block of Kuykendahl Road in Harris County, just after closing at 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Upon entry, the armed suspects demanded money. However, they did not expect another bar patron to pull out his gun and exchange fire with the suspects. During the firefight, two of the suspects were killed and the other two ran from the scene. Shortly after, the patron left too. The Harris County Police Department is trying to identify the man, as confirmed by Sgt. Robert Spurgeon.

Were still trying to determine who he is, and why he left the scene, He has his right to protect himself and his family and his friends. Its just unfortunate something like that happened.

Harris County Sheriffs deputies are investigating if the four suspects are associated with a robbery at a gas station on Cypresswood earlier that night. As for the patron who fended off the robbery, people believe he was in the right.

The Blaze followed up on the report, and were able to attain more insight from others who heard about what happened at EJs Place. Danielle Russell was one of the first to make her opinions known.

Being a mom, yeah. I would feel safe knowing that he has a gun and hes going to protect me in a robbery.

Another person, who is a customer at EJs Place, reportedly stated that the man who stopped the robbery typically stays until the bar closes, and then walks female bartenders to their vehicles. The person added that the customer wouldnt start violence but would protect his friends.

Now that youve read the news about the man who seems to be a hero in his community by stopping a robbery, what are your opinions? Please let everyone know in the comments below.

[Image via KHOU]

The rest is here:
Thanks To The Right To Bear Arms, Man Was Able To Halt Robbery By Four Suspects



The Original 1st Amemdmemt RATIFY
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Subject: Congress Please Transmit the Original First Amendment To The States For Ratification – (Click Here for more information). Hi, We created a non-partisan…

By: Stanley Klos

More:
The Original 1st Amemdmemt RATIFY – Video



Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project
My fourth amendment project for Mrs. King's Ap gov class I do not own, and do not claim to own, the rights of any of the images in this video.

By: RJ Wynn

The rest is here:
Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project – Video

Oct 042014



First Amendment Project

By: Max Schoenbrun

Excerpt from:
First Amendment Project – Video



The People March For The 2nd Amendment, 2014.10.03
Since my First Amendment Rights were violated by the operator of the Event page by deleting my comments on his event. We are normally a friendly News agency and will make the best of any failings….

By: TwoHatsPublishing

See more here:
The People March For The 2nd Amendment, 2014.10.03 – Video



First Amendment – Chelsea Graff and Teahl Rice
Class Project.

By: Chelsea Graff

Read the original here:
First Amendment – Chelsea Graff and Teahl Rice – Video



Sencond Amendment Rally At State Capitals Across America – in HD
in hd- high definition second amendment rally at state capitals- Guns Across America Pro-Gun Rally – Feb 8th … Help us caption and translate this video on Amara.org:

By: Pak Doobleeh

Read more:
Sencond Amendment Rally At State Capitals Across America – in HD – Video

Published: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Friday, September 26, 2014 at 3:53 p.m.

By recently voicing full-hearted approval of a bill eviscerating the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, 54 Senate Democrats showed themselves to be among the most extreme, irresponsible, self-serving and historically ignorant establishment politicians of this era.

If they should actually get their way and they conceivably could short of voter outrage we could someday see a once strapping American spirit hopelessly hobbled when imperiousness comes its way.

It will never happen, say many who apparently haven’t noticed what I’ve noticed in my lifetime, namely that almost every significant, broad political or cultural change was once something that would never happen.

No, it will not happen soon, and there are major hurdles, such as the need for supermajorities in Congress prior to ratification by states. But 54 Democrats getting behind a failed resolution in a party-line vote is hardly a timid start, and the amendment has much more going for it: fear of billionaire, special-interest fat cats, a public seemingly susceptible to cries of crisis and victimhood, and great numbers of pundits and academics who share these worries.

Some of us would insist in return that government should stay out of the way of our discourse. We would maintain that democracy entails the assumption that citizens themselves are the ones charged with evaluating what they hear, and we would add there’s always an answer when politicians sell their souls: Throw the rascals out.

Of course, such reasoning carries something on the order of no weight at all with members of Congress forever crafting campaign finance laws supposedly aimed at ending the corruption of special interests buying political favors.

Such things are hard to test, but some say the laws have accomplished no such end. What they have done instead, some will tell you, is suppress nonprofit corporations concerned strictly with issues while assisting hugely advantaged incumbents by limiting funds campaign challengers can come up with.

The First Amendment is not foggy on any of this. It bluntly says Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech. These campaign laws clearly did, and in 2010 the Supreme Court looked at a case in which a group was being denied the right to criticize Hillary Clinton.

The organization had made a Clinton movie, wanted to advertise it on TV and pay to have it shown close to an election. Campaign law said no. The Supreme Court, figuring out this was no different in kind from banning a book, continued a prohibition against corporations contributing to candidates, but also ruled that they could speak out by other means.

Continued here:
Ambrose: 54 Democrats have lost their minds

Sep 272014



Cult Following(2)
These religious fanatics or as I would like to call them terrorist, drunk drivers, its the same thing Cruz they are on the road disrupting other drivers when they are tired, working,

By: violaters of the first Amendment

More:
Cult Following(2) – Video



Today vs the Founders: Are Things Worse for Liberty? (TAC001)
When the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence to separate from the British empire, things were bad for liberty. Real bad. But how would it compare today? Are we better off due to…

By: Tenth Amendment Center

Here is the original post:
Today vs the Founders: Are Things Worse for Liberty? (TAC001) – Video



Fifth Amendment Projectb

By: Bailey dotto

More:
Fifth Amendment Projectb – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com