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

Does cannabis kill cancer?

The National Cancer Institute finally admitted that cannabis kills cancer.

The institute recently updated its ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ page about marijuana by including various studies revealing how cannabis “may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow” without affecting normal, healthy cells.

“A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells,” the NCI stated. “Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors.”

• “A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
• A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.
• Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.
• A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along withchemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.
• A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors.”

“Evidence from one animal study suggests that extracts from whole-plant marijuana can shrink one of the most serious types of brain tumors,” stated the NIDA in April. “Research in mice showed that these extracts, when used with radiation, increased the cancer-killing effects of the radiation.”Unfortunately, medical marijuana is still illegal in most states.

“The worst part is that even marijuana without THC is still illegal, despite having zero ‘high’ effects,” health expert Anthony Gucciardi wrote. “A quick search within the PubMed National Library of Medicine database for ‘marijuana’ turns up a host of studies, highlighting every aspect imaginable regarding the plant in its many forms.”

Ironically, while marijuana is still illegal, the FDA approves expensive medications that cause tons of negative side-effects and less research done on them.

“The truth? Marijuana is backed by more clinical research than most pharmaceutical drugs,” Gucciardi added.