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

Published September 29, 2014

ANKARA, Turkey A human rights group is calling on Turkey to take steps to protect free speech, the right to peaceful protests and the rule of law.

In a report released Monday, Human Rights Watch criticized government moves to control the media and the Internet and its clampdown on critics and protests.

The group said that while thousands face prosecution for taking part in anti-government protests in 2013, few police officers have been held to account for abuses. It also said the government had weakened the rule of law by responding to a corruption scandal with laws that curb the independence of the judiciary.

The group, however, welcomed the government’s efforts to forge peace with Kurdish rebels to end a 30 year-old conflict.

Follow this link:
Human Rights Watch calls on Turkey to protect free speech, rule of law

How to find Keywords: SEO Keyword Research.which search term is best
Keywords: SEO Keyword Research. And search engine optimization seo. This tutorial covers, seo company and how to use Keywords in the right way. seo companies names are shown and address given….

By: All kinds of everything

See the original post:
How to find Keywords: SEO Keyword Research.which search term is best – Video

Free Speech TV Ring of Fire featuring Howard Nations: Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats
Farron Cousins, Host of Ring of Fire, discusses with prominent trial lawyer Howard Nations, how if you've spent any time listening to right wing hate talkers…

By: HowardNations

Go here to see the original:
Free Speech TV Ring of Fire featuring Howard Nations: Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats – Video

Anthony Robbins – FINANCIAL FREEDOM [Part 2/6]
Anthony Robbins is a world famous motivational speaker. Tony Robbins motivates his clients to change their lives. Tony Robbins teaches you how to acquire the right beliefs to do things like…

By: Fraime Werk

View post:
Anthony Robbins – FINANCIAL FREEDOM [Part 2/6] – Video

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

The question, then, is whether this presumpti[on] of validity can ever be rebutted for instance, if a persons felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Some federal courts have stated that the answer would be yes under the right circumstances. United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring). Some North Carolina state court decisions have actually set aside particular claimants state-law gun disabilities, under the North Carolina Constitutions right to bear arms provision. Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (holding that a nonviolent felon whose crime was long in the past regained his state constitutional right to keep and bear arms); Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (same). But Thursdays Binderup v. Holder (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014) is, to my knowledge, the first federal court decision to actually set aside such a gun disability on Second Amendment grounds.

The court began by deciding whether Daniel Binderups conviction counts as a felony for federal felon-in-possession law, and concludes that it does. Federal felon-in-possession law actually bars gun possession by people who have state or federal convictions for any crime punishable by a year or more in prison or, if its labeled a misdemeanor by state law, by two years or more in prison. The focus isnt (solely) on the formal felony-vs.-misdemeanor label attached to a crime by state or federal law, nor on the actual sentence for the crime, but on the maximum sentence authorized for the crime (or so the Binderup court held, consistently with other cases). The crime in this case corruption of minors is labeled by Pennsylvania as a first-degree misdemeanor, which means it carries a maximum sentence of five years. It must therefore be treated, the court held, as a felony for purposes of the federal felon-in-possession statute.

But then, the court asked whether the Second Amendment nonetheless preempts federal felon-in-possession law in this particular case. In Barton, one of the cases cited above, the Third Circuit the federal appellate court that sets binding federal precedent for Pennsylvania and some other jurisdictions wrote:

To raise a successful as-applied challenge, [a defendant] must present facts about himself and his background that distinguish his circumstances from those of persons historically barred from Second Amendment protections. For instance, a felon convicted of a minor, non-violent crime might show that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen. Similarly, a court might find that a felon whose crime of conviction is decades-old poses no continuing threat to society. The North Carolina Supreme Court did just that in Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546 (2009), finding that a felon convicted in 1979 of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, at least as that right is understood under the North Carolina Constitution.

And Binderup, the court held, did present such facts about himself and his background. His only conviction was nearly 17 years before. It stemmed from a nonviolent incident a consensual sexual relationship Binderup had with a 17-year-old employee. Pennsylvania law does not even treat the offense as a statutory rape; the formal age of consent in Pennsylvania (as in most other states) is 16, and sexual conduct by an adult with a 16- or 17-year-old is treated as consensual, though bad for a the minor and therefore the crime of corruption of minors. The statistics presented by the government, showing that people with criminal convictions even nonviolent ones are likely to commit other crimes arent probative given the nature of the crime, how long ago the crime was, and Binderups current age (59). For these reasons, the court held,

[P]laintiff has demonstrated that, if allowed to keep and bear arms in his home for purposes of self-defense, he would present no more threat to the community that the average law-abiding citizen.

And because of this, the presumption that theres no Second Amendment problem with barring felons from possessing guns, the court held, has been rebutted.

Go here to see the original:
Volokh Conspiracy: A rare Second Amendment exemption from federal ban on felons possessing guns

Defend Freedom in Kentucky, Defeat Alison Grimes
It's your choice and your right to own a firearm for self-defense, but Alison Lundergan Grimes won't defend your rights. This Election Day, vote for the candidate who has defended your…


See the original post:
Defend Freedom in Kentucky, Defeat Alison Grimes – Video

To get the best picture of your website's performance, regularly check these reports and make sure youre using them the right way.

View post:
5 Powerful SEO Metrics and Data Points You Need to Watch

YAKIMA – Fourth Congressional District candidate Dan Newhouse received an endorsement from the National Rifle Association, citing his track record of protecting Second Amendment rights.

We are very pleased to receive this very important endorsement, Newhouse stated. The NRA is the preeminent leader in the fight to protect Second Amendment Rights. Their support demonstrates their belief that I am best qualified to represent central Washington and protect the right to keep and bear arms.”

In their endorsement of Newhouse, NRA Chairman Chris W. Cox stated Newhouse has “consistently opposed all attempts to ban lawfully owned firearms and magazines” during his tenure in the Washington state legislature from 2003 to 2009.

“The Second Amendment and our right of self-defense are very important to Washingtonians, and your (Newhouse) position on these issues demonstrates a stalwart commitment to the rights of law-abiding gun owners and hunters,” Cox stated.

NRA endorsed Newhouse for congressional Fourth District

FREEDOM is under Attack!
Free Speech, Right to Bear Arms, Privacy, Due Process, Search and Seizure!

By: AmericasThirdParty

Original post:
FREEDOM is under Attack! – Video

SILVER GOLD BITCOIN PREDICTION MY CRYSTAL BALL IS RIGHT. Silver and Gold Predictions and that beginning of 2014 were correct. As well as my take on Bitcoin…

By: FreedomForceUSA

Read the rest here:

DMACC Celebrates Constitution Day
Students exercise their right to free speech and local politicians visit the Ankeny campus.


See the original post here:
DMACC Celebrates Constitution Day – Video

If Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) and Liberty Global Plc (LBTYA) really want to dominate the phone, cable and wireless market in Europe, they should quit competing and try merging.

The companies were among large cable and phone operators that gobbled up smaller players in more than $200 billion of European deals since 2011 to gain customers and market share. A merger of Vodafone and Liberty would be the next logical step, according to Bank of America Corp. Vodafone Chief Executive Officer Vittorio Colao told Bloomberg News last week that John Malones Liberty could be a good fit at the right price. A deal would create the biggest company in Europe selling bundled packages of mobile, phone, Internet and TV services.

A combined company could see a 3.2 percent jump in earnings per share from the deal by next year, were Vodafone to offer London-based Liberty a 20 percent premium, or more than $80 billion including debt, and pay for half in cash, according to Erhan Gurses, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. Acquirers paid an average premium of 20 percent for cable assets in the last five years, he said.

It makes a ton of sense because Vodafone just bought cable companies in Germany and Spain and theres the sense that once you start on this track you dont stop, said Amy Yong, a media analyst at Macquarie Capital in New York. At the end of the day, Malone is not emotional about business. Hes rational, and at the right price he would obviously let Liberty go.

Vittorio Colao, Chief Executive Officer of Vodafone Group Plc. Close

Vittorio Colao, Chief Executive Officer of Vodafone Group Plc.


Vittorio Colao, Chief Executive Officer of Vodafone Group Plc.

Selling mobile services alongside fixed offerings such as TV and Internet access in quad-play packages helps carriers generate more revenue and makes it less likely that a customer will leave. Thats vital for companies like Newbury, England-based Vodafone that have been struggling with oversaturated markets in Europe and sluggish economies that are eating into revenue. Even in the U.K., Vodafones home market, the wireless operator is only the No. 3 mobile provider.

Liberty, which has forged resale agreements with wireless providers, has also found that adding mobile service to its broadband and video packages cuts customer defections and increases sales, CEO Mike Fries said last week, appearing at the same New York conference organized by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. at which Colao spoke.

Read more from the original source:
Vodafone-Liberty Global Deal Is Way to End Duel: Real M&A

Most SEO campaigns are destined for failure because expectations are too high, budgets are too low, decisions are made based on assumptions instead of data and customer expectations are misunderstood.

Whether you’re managing a campaign yourself, or you’ve hired an SEO professional, ask these 7 questions to determine if your campaign is on the right track.

Setting unrealistic goals for your SEO campaign, such as dominating Google and Bing for every product or service you offer right out of the gate, will most always result in failure. Instead, set realistic objectives for your campaign and achieve success incrementally. For example, most businesses offer multiple products or services. If your business falls into this category, it can be daunting to achieve top rankings for everything you offer. With an incremental strategy, you can optimize for one product or service, and after you’ve achieved success, move onto the next product or service and so on.

Also, keep in mind that a successful SEO strategy can be perceived as unsuccessful only because the goals are so completely unrealistic.

This is a big one. Most businesses do not have realistic timeframes or budgets for their SEO campaigns. They want results immediately, and at the same time, are only willing to make a minimal investment. Consult with an SEO professional and determine what a realistic timeframe and budget would be for your type of business. The more competitive your industry, the greater timeframe and larger budget you should expect. If you go into an SEO campaign with a short timeframe and unwillingness to make the necessary investment, it will most likely fail because you are not giving your SEO professional the necessary time to test and make adjustments needed for a successful long-term campaign.

Optimizing for the wrong keywords is common and often the cause of an SEO campaign’s failure. Ideally, you’ve hired an agency or professional to manage your campaign and they’ve chosen the right keywords after performing extensive keyword research. However, if you’ve selected your own keywords based on what you “think” your customers are searching, without verifying with real data, it’s highly probable that your campaign is not using the right keywords.

Analyze keyword data using a reputable keyword research tool and see what keywords your (successful) competitors are using, to make sure you’re optimizing for the right keywords.

If you have failed to select the right keywords, then you’re either not delivering enough traffic to your site, or not delivering the right traffic or a combination of both. A quick sniff test to determine if your campaign is delivering the right traffic is to look at your site’s bounce rate for organic search traffic. If you see a high bounce rate for organic search visitors, then what they’re searching for is not consistent with what they’re finding on your website. It’s important to distinguish the bounce rate for organic visitors from other visitor types (i.e., direct visits, referral visits, etc.) so you can make informed decisions based on your organic search traffic specifically. If you have a high bounce rate for all visitor types, this means you may have a larger issue to address, such as your website.

A successful SEO campaign starts with a professional website that engages visitors upon arrival. Visitor engagement is crucial to a campaign’s success, because engagement ultimately results in conversions, which is how most businesses measure a campaign’s success. The lack of a professional website discredits your brand and therefore reduces engagement and conversions.

Here are some questions to ask when evaluating your website:

Continue reading here:
7 Reasons Your SEO Campaign Will Fail and What You Can Do About It

Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats
This segment originally aired on the September 7th, 2014 episode of Ring of Fire on Free Speech TV. If you've spent any time listening to right wing hate talkers, you might think that the…

By: Ring of Fire Radio

Continue reading here:
Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats – Video

Sep 112014

D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT?
Well we'll be talking about the attempt by 49 democrats to appeal the first amendment. Also we might even get to see Kansas Hillbilly prepper.

By: GreenDragon Tavern Chats

D.T. Hour Kansas was RIGHT? – Video

Ep 1 : DayZ – The Second Amendment
Today I will be discussing the right to bear arms in Dayz.

By: GeorgeAgainstTheMachine

Go here to read the rest:
Ep 1 : DayZ – The Second Amendment – Video

Sep 082014

Why Bitcoin is a Right
Bitcoin is free speech. The New York State Department of Financial Services is violating free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment…

By: BraveTheWorld

Read more from the original source:
Why Bitcoin is a Right – Video

Sep 072014

Project LIBERTY: Bio Mass
Local farmers contract with POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels to supply biomass in the form of crop residue (corn stover). DSM reserves the right to remove comments…


See the original post here:
Project LIBERTY: Bio Mass – Video

Hector Guzman said he’s participated in several peaceful protests all across the valley, but when protesting for worker’s rights in McAllen, he felt his rights to free speech were trampled on twice.

Action 4 News was there when police showed up at the May Day protest in McAllen where Fuerza Del Valle gathered to protest wage theft and workers rights.

“We dont have tons of money to hire fancy lawyers. All we have is our right to assemble, our right to free speech, this is the tool that workers have to make their grievances known to society,” said Fuerza Del Valle Coordinator Hector Guzman Lopez.

Guzman said police and city code enforcers told demonstrators they were in violation of a city noise ordinance and needed to stop or be cited.

We’ve been having direct actions, marches, protests all across the valley from Brownsville to Mission, Pharr, San Juan. Almost every action and we never encountered this violation of free speech,” said Guzman.

Guzman said it happened again two weeks later, when also protesting workers rights.

We asked the City of McAllen about their noise ordinance back in May just after the protest.

They said that amplified noise and use of bull horns were prohibited because it creates a disturbance, but Guzman said the city does not enforce the ordinance evenly across the board.

We have not heard of any other incident where this has been enforced either not at football games, not at other protest, pro-immigrant protests, anti-immigrant protests, happened in McAllen,” said Guzman.

His lawsuit points to other incidents where shouting and bullhorns were also used, such as the protest held last month at the bus station by a group named the Border Convoy.

Read the rest here:
Activists believe free speech rights were violated at wage theft protest

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