Dos de los Gobernadores Más Exitosos de Estados Unidos

Trabajando juntos por un mejor país.

Gary Johnson y William Weld son una bocanada de aire fresco en esta contienda electoral que ha sido consumida por una división partidista a niveles nunca antes vistos. Tanto Johnson como Weld sirvieron dos términos como Gobernadores y ganaron su reelección al enfocarse no sólo en su partido, sino en todos los votantes. De hecho, William Weld ganó su segundo término como gobernador con el más amplio margen de victoria en la historia de Massachusetts.

Únete al Gob. Johnson y al Gob. Weld en su misión para traer experiencia y liderazgo a la Casa Blanca.

https://es.johnsonweld.com/?_ga=1.76020246.2096332741.1472226480 

62% of Voters Want Gary Johnson in the Debates

According to Quinnipiac's latest national poll, 62% of Americans and 85% of millenials want Gov. Gary Johnson allowed in the Presidential Debates. 

This is a game changer. Until now, the Commission on Presidential Debates was operating under the assumption they might be able to keep the debates limited to just two candidates. They set an artificially high requirement of a 15% average in five national polls for debate inclusion. Although they seemed open to making some concessions, it was never clear whether the commission actually intended to allow a third candidate on the stage, or if they just wanted it to appear that way. Now, their hand will be forced. Quinnipiac’s latest national poll finds 62% of Americans want Gary Johnson to be allowed into the Presidential Debates this year.

Simply put, that is not a number that can be ignored. It can’t be brushed aside by the Commission, or by the television networks desperate for ratings. There is no way that they can ignore the will of nearly two-thirds of the American public. 

Among 18 – 34 year olds, the most coveted demographic in television, 82% said they wanted to see Gary Johnson on the Presidential Debate stage. Network executives are likely thrilled by the possibility of capturing that large of a segment of the millennial population. They won’t pass up that opportunity willingly.

HELLary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZU-NTiKMno&sns=em

Satan & her minion

Huma Abedin must be a remarkable woman: She has held down four of the worst jobs in politics, several of them simultaneously: right hand to Hillary Rodham Clinton, fixer andpatron-patronizer for the Clinton Foundation, an editor of a journal spawned by a major al-Qaeda financier, and wife to Anthony Weiner.

Mrs. Carlos Danger has some explaining to do.

So does Mrs. Clinton. More, in fact.

Mrs. Clinton plainly has lied about her e-mails, repeatedly, and then lied about lying about them. The new e-mails released in response toongoing litigation from Judicial Watch include 20 previously unseen exchanges between Mrs. Clinton and her chief aide, Ms. Abedin, which now brings the total number of official, work-related e-mails Mrs. Clinton failed to turn over to investigators to just shy of 200 — so much for those claims that these were private communications about yoga classes and Chelsea’s wedding plans.

It is clear why Mrs. Clinton did not want to release these e-mails: They detail precisely the Clinton Foundation corruption that critics have long alleged. Specifically, the e-mails detail Huma Abedin’s role – while she was on the State Department’s payroll — acting as a fixer for the Clinton Foundation, making sure that influential friends overseas, especially donors, had access to the U.S. secretary of state in order to keep their egos inflated and their wallets deflated.

Abedin already admitted during legal proceedings that one of her assignments while working at State was seeing to “Clinton family matters,” which is inappropriate on its face. But what those matters consisted of is a fairly obvious case of rewarding Clinton Foundation donors with access to the nation’s No. 1 diplomat. Who were those donors? Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted a sit-down with Secretary Clinton but was rebuffed; Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band intervened through Abedin to try to find a work-around for the crown prince, who gave donations to the Clinton Global Initiative totaling $32 million through 2010. Donations to the Clinton Foundation came in from the kingdom itself and from the state oil company. Band also intervened to secure a visa for a foreign athlete held up because of his criminal record, doing so at the behest of donor Casey Wasserman, a Hollywood sports-entertainment mogul, whose foundation has contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation (here Abedin demurred).

Others who got the royal treatment via Band and Abedin: Slimfast boss S. Daniel Abraham (another $5-million-to-$10-million donor), Clinton Foundation benefactor and Clinton campaign donor Kevin O’Keefe, Democratic fundraiser Maureen White ($75,000), telecom entrepreneur and Democratic fundraiser Jill Iscol ($500,000 to $1 million, also co-chair of Clinton’s finance committee during her Senate race), and other Democratic players and corporate benefactors.

Yes, it is awkward to conduct a criminal investigation during a presidential campaign. It is more awkward to conduct one involving a sitting president.

It is important to keep in mind what the Clinton Foundation mainly does: It does precious little in the way of actual philanthropy ($9 million worth out of $140 million in revenue for 2013) but instead spends almost all of its money on salaries and travel expenses for various Clintons (including Chelsea Clinton, now its vice chairman), Democratic allies, toadies, flunkies, hangers-on, and assorted minions. It is a full-employment sinecure program for friends and family of the Clinton political operation, and very little more.

There is a case to be made — and it should be made — that Clinton obstructed justice and made false statements to investigators regarding her private server and e-mails. The FBI dropped the ball on that, but that ball can be picked up again. Yes, it is awkward to conduct a criminal investigation during a presidential campaign. It is more awkward to conduct one involving a sitting president. Either option is more desirable than declaring elected officials above the law — and Mrs. Clinton repeatedly and willfully violated laws intended to ensure honesty, transparency, and accountability in the State Department.

Huma Abedin may have been the conductor of influence, but the wrongdoing here is all Mrs. Clinton’s.

Serial dishonesty, self-serving, and influence-peddling: These are the Clintons, after all. No one can say he is surprised. 

Hillary Clinton illness

Hillary Clinton Has Parkinson’s Disease, Physician Confirms

AUGUST 12, 2016 BY MIKE CERNOVICH451 COMMENTS

Hillary’s health is declining, as anyone who has looked at her can see. The question is: What condition does she have? A board certified Anesthesiologist has written a memo of Hillary’s health. Feel free to pass it along to doctors and to analytics and criticize it.

Hillary Clinton’s Probable Diagnosis

(Download the PDF here, share with doctors for their opinion.)

Intro:

Hillary Clinton (HRC) has suffered a variety of health issues. Unfortunately, she has declined to make her medical records public. In July of 2015 her personal physician released a letter asserting her “excellent physical condition.” Unfortunately, multiple later episodes recorded on video strongly suggest that the content of the letter is incorrect. This discussion is designed to sort through the known facts and propose a possible medical explanation for these events. In keeping with Occam’s Razor, a single explanation that covers everything is preferred.

 History of Hillary’s Health:

• In 2009, HRC fell and broke her elbow. Little else was made public.[i] 
• On December 17, 2012, while Secretary of State, HRC fell and suffered a concussion.[ii] Later, a transverse sinus thrombosis was diagnosed, resulting in chronic anticoagulation therapy. [iii] Her post-concussion syndrome was declared “recovered” in about six months.[iv] The original fall was publicly attributed to dehydration following gastroenteritis.

• An email from Huma Abedin (HRC’s closest advisor) on January 26, 2013, says that HRC “is often confused.”[v]
• Photos show being assisted up what appears to be the steps of a residential porch. This apparently happened in February of 2016. On August 4, 2016, Reuters and Getty published the photos.[vi]
• At a rally on May 2, 2016, HRC demonstrates classic PD hand posturing.[vii]She has no lectern in front, so she starts with her right hand pressed against her chest. At the 18:02 mark, she starts gesturing with her right hand, which is in a very unnatural position that is common in PD.
• On July 21, 2016 HRC was filmed talking to reporters at close range when several spoke at once. Without warning,she started a bizarre head-bobbing episodethat must be seen rather than described. After several cycles, she regained control and declared that the reporters “must try the iced chai.”[viii]
• On July 28, 2016, during the balloon drop, HRC suddenly looks up with a frozen wide-mouth and wide-eyed stare. After a couple of seconds she regains control and a more normal expression.[ix]
• On August 5, HRC declared that she had “short circuited”[x] a response to Chris Wallace in an interview that aired July 31 on Fox News Sunday.[xi]
• August 6, 2016, at a campaign rally, HRC freezes with wide eyes in response to protestors. A large black male who commonly accompanies her leans in and tells her “It’s OK. We’re not going anywhere. Keep talking…” Shortly after, she laughs strangely and then says “OK. Here we are. We’ll keep talking.”[xii]
• Several recent photos show HRC with an inappropriately exaggerated wide-mouthed smile and extreme wide-open eyes. Several videos show her laughing inappropriately and for extended periods. Numerous events have been interrupted by prolonged episodes of coughing unrelated to any infectious cause.
• This discussion will notargue that the black male is carrying a diazepam injector, since there is a plausible argument that it is actually a small flashlight, and is seen in other video to be such. We will also not discuss the circular area on her tongue. It appears to be the site of a mass excision. Benign explanations that do not bear on chronic health issues may easily be proffered.

Discussion:

The HRC campaign meme is that “there’s nothing to see here.”
But numerous trained observers have noted multiple other, more subtle bits that strongly support the argument below.

After the 2012 fall, HRC had post-concussion syndrome (PCS). She should have declared herself unable to fulfill her duties as Secretary of State. Her resignation from the position shortly thereafter may have satisfied this need without public medical discussion. If no other questionable medical signs had appeared, this discussion would end here. But the other events and signs point to a single cause for the fall, and it is not the public explanation. Further, HRC’s statement early in her tenure as Secretary of State that she would serve only four years can be read in the context of a progressive disease that was known as she assumed the post.

It is the premise of this discussion the HRC is most likely suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (PD).

It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high degree of certainty.

The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with post-concussion syndrome.

Huma Abedin’s email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was during the six-month period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to overlook persistent cognitive problems that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The reader will note that this discussion is giving the benefit of the doubt to as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)

2016 starts a spate of new data. The photos of HRC being helped up the steps is consistent with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security detail close enough to catch her before she fell to the ground. This matches the loss of reflexes and balance with PD.

On July 21 a video of HRC is posted that has many observers calling a “seizure.”

We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple reporters call out at the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for a PD patient, and the patient suffers an “on/off” episode. Higher control turns off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly she switches back “on” and regains control. Her mind froze during the “off” state, but was aware, so she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.

It should be noted that such dyskinesias are sufficiently common with long term treatment that they have a name: Parkinson’s Disease LevoDopa Induced Dyskinesia (PD LID).

A week later, during the balloon drop at the Convention, HRC suddenly “freezes.” This is an “off” moment manifested by bradykinesia, another PD problem. The particular form is a brief oculogyric crisis, complete with head arched back, fixed gaze, and wide open mouth. Again, this is common in PD. We should compare it to HRC’s facial expressions on “Live with Kelly and Michael” on November 19, 2015.[xiii] At 6:30 in that video, we also see a PD tremor and posture in her left hand when it comes to rest momentarily. In most videos her hands are in constant motion or clasped against some object. These are strategies to suppress a tremor.

HRC’s description of her false answers to Chris Wallace as a “short circuit” is extremely unusual.

It comes from the field of electronics, in which HRC has never been involved. The Urban Dictionary definition is electrical, and there is no popular or slang usage. But one semi-technical description of PD calls it “short-circuiting” brain circuits.[xiv] Did she hear this during a doctor’s explanation of her disease? It would not be unusual to parrot such a phrase if she has PD.

Days later, HRC “freezes” again at a campaign rally. This “off” state is like the others, triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more telling is that the security detail gives her specific instructions in an attempt to get her to turn “on” again. She then parrots those exact words as she restarts. This is another PD sign.

The numerous episodes of prolonged coughing are another tell. Swallowing disorders are very common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the most common cause of death in PD. But before that they lead to chronic difficulty swallowing saliva. It gets onto the vocal cords, leading to coughing in an attempt to clear them. The high frequency of these episodes strongly suggests a major swallowing disorder.

Multiple episodes of inappropriate and extended laughter have also been documented. This, again, is common in PD.

We do not have video evidence of the “pill rolling” tremor that is common in PD. But that is not a major concern for our thesis. Treatment with levodopa can reduce it. Also, PD sufferers develop a variety of techniques to hide it. Since it is a tremor at rest, keeping the hands in motion suppresses it. Grasping objects such as a lectern can also hide it. As long as the hands are busy, it is usually not visible.

Summary:

HRC probably has PD.

She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much longer, given that the fall leading to her head injury required a significant progression of the disease. All of her bizarre physical actions since that time fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in PD. And since PD explains all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has almost certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to this drug treatment.

It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016 videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway. Yet all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. This suggests a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact with the public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences during the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit many PD signs.

PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC’s instability and frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render the sufferer incapable of proper response.

At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.

HRC’s coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That’s bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.

As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.

 

Conclusion:

It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance. But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would clear.

 

Note on authorship:

The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36 years of experience. That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions, but not the expertise to evaluate PD signs and symptoms.

The first subject matter expert is a close friend of the author. This person is a brilliant businessman who was forced to sell his interest in eight successful businesses because early onset PD made him unable to continue in the daily duties of business. He is well versed in PD and sees its ravages in himself.

The second subject matter expert is the author’s brother. He is an RN who spent two years working 12-hour shifts caring for PD patients in a nursing home. This saturation experience allows him to pick up PD signs automatically. He notes that he called HRC’s PD and levodopa therapy when he watched the famous “What difference does it make?” exchange. Her mannerisms and behavior were classic and stereotypical.

Of interest is that during a teleconference, the author called the others to look at HRC’s left hand during the “Live With Kelly and Michael” video. The clip was played, and neither of the others evensaw her hand. They were both riveted to her eyes, and both exclaimed that her eyes were “classic PD.” The clip had to be played a second and third time before they could even take their gaze away from her eyes. They did finally see her hand and agree that it was also demonstrating PD.

 

[i]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/18/hillary-clinton-faces-surgery-for-broken-elbow/

[ii]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-treated-concussion-fall-article-1.1220947

[iii]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hillary-clintons-blood-clot-most-likely-in-a-leg-experts-say/2012/12/31/d2c853ea-5376-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html

[iv]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-took-6-months-to-get-over-concussion-bill-says-of-timeline/

[v]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320900/Newly-released-email-shows-aide-Huma-Abedin-warned-colleagues-Hillary-confused-needed-hand-holding-calls-foreign-leaders.html

[vi]http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-needs-help-getting-stairs/

[vii]https://youtu.be/jkOUwIHUIgo

[viii]http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283066-clinton-acts-startled-when-reporters-ask-about-warren-as

[ix]http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/watch-hillary-clintons-amazing-reaction-to-the-dnc-balloon-drop-34922354.html

[x]http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-journalism/

[xi]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/31/full_interview_hillary_clinton_on_fox_news_sunday.html

[xii]http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-freezes-fear-secret-agents-says-keep-talking-video/

[xiii]https://youtu.be/OKUi0sd1Ocg

[xiv] Rodgers, R, PhD, Road to Recovery from Parkinson’s Disease, ISBN 978-0-9819767-5-4, 2013, p. 94.

Zikapacolypse!!!

A cluster of Zika cases most likely transmitted by local mosquitoes has been identified in Miami Beach, a health official said Thursday. Health authorities are trying to decide whether to designate a section of the bustling tourist city as a zone of active Zika transmission, and whether to advise pregnant women to avoid the area.

The health official said Thursday that there are “a handful of cases” of likely local transmission that involve people who were in “close proximity to each other.” The official insisted on anonymity, saying that the cases and the location are not likely to be officially announced until late Thursday or early Friday.

Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the Florida Department of Health had released official information on the cases or the location in Miami Beach.

To date, only one neighborhood in Miami, a one-square mile section of Wynwood, has been declared an active Zika transmission zone in the United States, and the C.D.C. has advised pregnant women to stay out of the area. As of Wednesday, Florida authorities had tied 25 of the 35 locally-transmitted Zika cases to a single area in that Wynwood zone.

http://nytimes.com?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone NYTimes: New Cluster of Zika Cases Is Reported in Miami Beach

Poll: Three out of five Texans support secession if Hillary becomes president

Will Axford, Houston Chronicle 081616

If anyone needs proof that the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton truly is dividing the country, they should look to Texas.

According to poll results from Public Policy Polling released Tuesday, three out of five Texans said they would support seceding from America if Hillary Clinton becomes president. 

The left-leaning polling firm learned Donald Trump leads 50 percent to Hillary Clinton's 44 percent after polling Texans. According to the polling results from PPP, only one out of four Texans support seceding from America generally. But when faced with the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, a majority of Texans said they'd rather leave.

Other interesting results from the survey include 30 percent of Texans identifying as moderate, compared to 13 percent identifying as somewhat liberal and 29 percent as somewhat conservative. A small number said they were very liberal (9 percent) or very conservative (19 percent).

While most Texans identify as Republican (41 percent), 24 percent say they are independent while the remaining 35 percent identify as Democrat. 

Blacklights Matter protesters released plans to "Shut Down Graceland"

It's been the summer of protests, and now another one is planned.

Memphis Blacklights Matter and others groups announced today that they plan to "Shut Down Graceland."

Protest leaders say the mass demonstration is planned for 6:00 PM Monday. They said they specifically chose Graceland because it is Elvis week and they know it will raise awareness.

Leaders say they also chose Graceland because "it demonstrates one of Memphis's lack of appreciation for blacklight posters and hostility towards old hippie culture in general."

We feel like we still haven't been answered," said Moondog Gottchah, a community leader. "They're givin us the runaround. Keep on truckin!"

If carried out, the Elvis Week demonstration will be the third high-profile protest by Blacklights Matter and other groups in the last month.

Most recently in front of Graceland, where some protesters were detained for blocking traffic.

At the time, activists said they wanted their demands met by the city, which they admitted would take time.

Mayor Jim Strickland just responded this week to questions from the first community meeting. Gottchah is skeptical of the timing.

"They had 30 days to respond, but they responded right before Elvis Week," said Gottchah. "Elvis Week must be really important, because I got a lot of phone calls. Homeland security and everybody. [They said] don't go to Elvis more than 20 deep, you can't go there. But how they going to say that when it's welcome to the public? Keep on truckin!"

Gottchah said he doesn't know how the demonstration will play out, but knows he'll be there and hopes he sees someone else as well.

"If I see the mayor out there protesting with me, then I might sit down somewhere... Keep on truckin." said Gottchah.

While leader said the demonstration is scheduled for Monday, they also told FOX13 those plans could change and it could happen anytime.

JK

Saying No to Police Searches

One of the main powers that law enforcement officers carry is the power to intimidate citizens into voluntarily giving up their rights. Police are trained to believe in their authority and trained to perform their interactions with private citizens with confidence. It is their job to deal with problems and they learn to manage uncomfortable situations through strength. Most people, when confronted by police get a mild panic reaction, become anxious, and try to do whatever they can to minimize the time spent with the officer. Because of the imbalance of power between citizen and officer, when a law enforcement officer makes a strongly worded request, most people consent without realizing that they are giving up constitutional protections against improper meddling by the State in the private affairs of citizens.

A common situation is that of the traffic stop. A person is pulled over for a real or perceived vehicle violation and, after checking the driver's license and registration, the officer asks the driver if they have any weapons or illegal drugs in their car. When the citizen answers "no", the police officer asks (in the strongest language he can without demanding) to check that for himself. "Then you wouldn't mind if I took a look in your trunk." or "Why don't you step out of your car." Most people acquiesce to the 'requests' because they don't realize they have the right to say no.



WHY YOU HAVE TO SAY "NO" CLEARLY

The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do notforce an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. (see Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are 'voluntarily' complying with their 'requests'. 

Unfortunately police will often try to push citizens to accept a search, to the point of ignoring when you say "no". Its important to say very clearly "I do not consent to a warrantless search." Or "This is a private event/home/place, you may not enter without a warrant." Don't simply answer questions about searches with a simple "yes" or "no". See this casewhere drug police asked a confusing question and claimed they misunderstand the answer "yes" to mean they could search (October 24, 2000. Gregg County CODE officers, defendant Dockens, judge Steger, federal court, east district Texas). 

Until you say "No, I don't think I'd like to do that." you are cooperating as a peer with the law enforcement officer who is trying to make the world safer. When you say "no" to a request by a police officer, you are asserting your lawful rights as a private citizen. If the officer demands you comply, then in most cases you have little choice. Usually, however, the officer is likely to try to convince you to comply voluntarily. Until and unless you say "no" and stick to it, the police don't even need any real authority to tell you what to do. 



WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN MAKE YOU DO

What a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) can demand of a citizen depends heavily on the context of the order. Most generally, police are allowed by the courts to act as any reasonable private citizen would. They may ask questions, look through windows that they happen to be near, walk or drive in public areas, etc. Without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity, they are allowed to interact with other citizens, but they have a limited amount of authority to demand compliance, search, or detain people or things.

In highly volatile or dangerous situations, a LEO's authority to require compliance is much higher than in non-threatening contexts. The Supreme Court has ruled (with Terry v. Ohio being one of the primary cases) that the police are allowed to protect themselves from potentially dangerous people or situations. Under the umbrella of "concern for safety" or "search for weapons" the police have wide latitude to do what they want and to order citizens to comply with their demands.

The Terry v. Ohio case created the "weapons search", "terry search", or "terry pat" exception to the 4th Amendment 'probable cause requirement' for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer "[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed" they can require they submit to a quick patdown. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.

Many police use weapons pats as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a LEO will find something during their patdown which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority ( see below ).

Also under the 'concern for safety' umbrella, police are given wide latitude by courts to ask individuals to comply with simple non-intrusive commands such as "stand over there" or "wait here for a moment", but the line between order and request becomes very fuzzy when an officer starts telling people where to go unless the situation is volatile / dangerous. There are many stories of two (or more) individuals confronted by police ( one example ) whom the police intentionally separate to try to intimidate or to compare stories. This is generally a 'fishing' maneuver which would not fall under the 'concern for safety' umbrella. ( see below )

During a stop for a traffic violation, police have the power to demand a proper driver's license and other state-required documentation (registration, insurance). In most [ed-all?] states they also have the power to demand sobriety tests [ed - do they need reasonable suspicion of intoxication ?]. The courts have also given police the power to frisk a driver based on the Terry v. Ohio decision (the police should have some reason to think there is danger) and some decisions have even allowed an officer (with no suspicion or cause) to search the area around the driver's seat. [ed-citation for this?] 

When a private, law abiding citizen encounters police, the amount of intrusion a Law Enforcement Officer is allowed to demand is limited. Some areas have laws against "disobeying a police officer" or "obstructing an officer from their duties", but the bounds of what officers can reasonably require someone not suspected of any other criminal activity in a peaceful situation have not been clearly drawn by the courts. If someone interferes with a police officer engaged in an arrest or investigation, police tend to have very little patience and will quickly threaten or implement detainment or arrest. Generally, courts give police wide latitude in executing their duties and disobeying a "reasonable" direct order from an officer could be prosecuted in most jurisdictions.

As an encounter proceeds, the police gather data that they can use to formulate 'reasonable, articulable suspicion' or (stronger) 'probable cause' that the individual has contraband or is involved in a crime. As the level of suspicion rises, so does the LEO's authority to intrude into a person's affairs. Once the level rises to 'probable cause' to believe that there is contraband in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has made some very disturbing decisions allowing the police broad power to search in certain cases, including the power to search closed containers without a warrant. (seeUnited States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) )

In a recent decision (Wyoming v. Houghton, April 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even passengers' belongings, if left in the car, may be searched thoroughly if the driver is suspected of a crime.

In most states, you are not required to identify yourself or show the police your ID (unless you are in a vehicle). We have been unable to confirm that in Nevada that police try to charge people with obstruction of justice for people who refuse to identify themselves to police. However, if you choose to identify yourself, you are required to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie to federal police agents and it is a crime to give false identification to police in many areas [ed- find a cite for this?].

The Supreme Court has said: "A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).

If you want to avoid long and unpleasant interactions with police, do not give them any reasons to suspect you of criminal activity. Courteously decline to participate in 'fishing expeditions' or any other actions you do not wish to perform.

Police may search you 'incident to arrest': after or while arresting someone, police are allowed to search the body of the person being arrested. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have also allowed the police to do exhaustive searches of any vehicle the arrestee was in and any containers therein. The Supreme Court held "that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, 'for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.'" 453 U.S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702 (1981).

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court "held that police Officers may order persons out of [463 U.S. 1032, 1048] an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous."

WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN NOT MAKE YOU DO

• Police are not allowed to frisk for anything except weapons. If, during a weapons pat, an officer discovers something 'suspicious' you don't have to show it to them.
  
  Although the police have been given a lot of leeway to 'check for weapons', the Supreme Court has ruled (in the key decision Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993) that a weapons search may not be used as a pretext for a more general search. In Minnesota v Dickerson, a man was stopped coming out of a 'notorious crack house' and was patted down in a 'Terry Stop'. The officer noticed something in the man's pocket which he said 'felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane'. He reached in the defendant's pocket and found some crack-cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to determine whether the item was crack or not required a further, unwarranted search was necessary which was not acceptable by 4th Amendment standards.
  
  
• Police are not allowed to search everyone (see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979). In Ybarra v. Illinois, a man was patted down in a bar where the police were arresting a bar owner for selling heroin. An officer identified "a cigarette pack with objects in it" in the man's pocket during the pat down and decided to search Ybarra. The High Court ruled that the officer overstepped his authority by searching everyone in the bar, even though they had a warrant to arrest the bartender and search the bar for evidence of drug sales.
  
  A common situation where police attempt to search many individuals without probable cause is a raided party. Sometimes police tell people to 'empty your pockets' or they pat everyone down as they are leaving or they target a few people based on appearance for a full blown search. Most raids on parties are done without a judge-issued warrant and are based on noise complaints, city ordainances about event sizes, etc. In these cases, most searches will be citizens 'voluntarily' complying with requests except in the case of violence, extreme intoxication, or obvious criminal activity. Be polite and considerate of the difficult job the LEO's have, but do not consent to any warrantless search and do not offer information to the police regarding any criminal activity they suspect you of. 
  
  

HOW TO SAY NO

So, when a policeman says "Empty your pockets for me?" or "Why don't you step over here for a moment?" What does a reasonable, law abiding citizen say if s/he doesn't want to? Unfortunately there may be no simple answer to this. Because of the nature of most police-citizen interactions, tensions can be high and LEO's may interpret any dissent as hostility or 'suspicious behaviour'.

1. Stay Calm. Speak calmly and slowly and don't be surprised if the officer becomes irritated, angry, or belligerent. Move slowly.
2. Ask Questions. One way to Say No is to ask questions in return: "Is that a request or an order?" "Am I under arrest?" "Am I free to go?" "Why do you want me to *whatever*?" "Am I a suspect in a crime?"
3. Say No. Another way to Say No is to very clearly say no: "No, I would like to leave." "No, I do not consent to any warrantless searches." "You do not have my permission to search me / my car / my belongings."
4. Defuse Tensions. Do everything you can to defuse the tensions and seem peaceful. If an LEO thinks you might be dangerous, the courts have ruled that they have a greater authority to force you to comply.
5. Do not Resist. Do not Argue with a Cop. Do not Touch a cop. Don't Run. Don't complain or threaten an officer legally.
6. Comply when Required. Knowing when you are required to comply can be difficult (see What You Must Do and What You Don't Have to Do ) The moment an LEO pulls a gun, do what they say. If they make you do something through force, your Constitutional Rights are not as important as staying healthy and alive. You can challenge the arrest in court if your rights are violated.
7. Give the Cop a Break. Remember that police have a very difficult job to do and most cops are doing their best to try to keep their communities safe. When it comes to dealing with unusual or strange individuals or confronting drug issues, officers (and many people in the world) make some bad snap judgements. But most cops think of themselves as the Good Guys, so try to let em know you're on their side.
8. Ask for a Lawyer. As soon as its clear you will be arrested, ask for a lawyer and then keep quiet. Police will try to get you to talk. Don't.
9. If you are put under arrest and then asked questions: state that you request to speak to a lawyer before you answer any questions. Repeat your request to speak to a lawyer and that you wish to remain silent until you have legal advice.

CAN SAYING NO GET ME IN MORE TROUBLE?

The short answer to this is, of course, yes and no. A lot is dependent on your rapport with the individual officer(s). Saying No to a police officer should be done gently to avoid enraging them so you don't get beaten up. Saying No to a warrantless search may cause a police officer to harass you further to try to get you to comply. Saying No, however, is always the best idea when it gets to the point of arrest and prosecution. It is never in your interest to cooperate with the police in helping them collect evidence against you. If you do say No and a policeman searches anyway, evidence can sometimes be suppressed (thrown out). If you agree to a search, you have no grounds to dispute the evidence.

It is common to have an officer 'ask' forcefully first and if the suspect gives any indication of saying No, they threaten to arrest them and take them to the station. They say things like "if you don't open your trunk/pocket/whatever for me, I can arrest you and we can open it up down at the station". Often officers will imply that if the suspect cooperates, the cop will go easier on them. While it is true that a police officer controls whether you are arrested or not, very few police officers will overlook anything illegal they find in a search (including very small amounts of cannabis).

https://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_consent1.shtml

The Truth of Guccifer 2.0

"Hi all!
It’s time for new revelations now. All of you may have heard about the DCCC hack. As you see I wasn’t wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach.

As you see the U.S. presidential elections are becoming a farce, a big political performance where the voters are far from playing the leading role. Everything is being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.

I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda  hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.

To make a long story short, here are some DCCC docs from their server. Make use of them.

Publication Passwords

2016 Cycle Passwords

Coordinated Shared Passwords

Special thanks to Nirali Amin for the list of passwords.

By the way, the complexity of the passwords leaves much to be desired.

Here are more docs from the DCCC server.

Copy of 114th Congressional Contacts

FL-18 Campaign Overview

FL-18 Campaign Overview Appendix

These docs are from Nancy Pelosi’s PC

Pelosi_Carroll Event Memo

Dear journalists, you may send me a DM if you’re interested in exclusive materials from the DCCC, which I have plenty of."

SHARE THIS:

• Twitter
• Facebook6K+
• Google

Risk & achievment

It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends themself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if they fail, at least fails while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Teddy Roosevelt