Search - JEvents
Search - Categories
Search - Contacts
Search - Content
Search - News Feeds
Search - Web Links
Search - SunBay
Search - JComments
Items filtered by date: Sunday, 14 May 2017
Monday, 15 May 2017 07:13

WHEN DOES A PROTEST BECOME A RIOT?

During Barack Obama’s Presidency he began preparing for an underground war. You see, the only thing he was ever good at was dissention and “organizing” to oppose, obstruct and dissent. Community Organizer is a politically correct way of saying…organizing militant civilians who want to obstruct!

Organizing as a citizen, to “change” things peacefully is a Constitutional right. Organizing as a citizen, to change things by force or violence is a crime…could even be sedition, treason or a multitude of US Code criminal acts. Now, when a President…a sitting President, organizes a 32,000 strong

Army of agitators and tells them he was “heartened” by anti Trump protestors he is definitely sending them a message.

According to many sources, including Paul Sperry, a New York Post Columnist, Barack Obama has a well financed and professionally organized army called the OFA (Organizing for Action) whose goal it is to obstruct and disrupt using any means necessary, to dethrone our duly elected, duly sworn in President Donald Trump. I mean how wonderfully American can Barack Obama, a former US President, be? He can disrupt our Rule of Law …that is, a duly elected President gets to lead, protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States and protect the Nation, UNLESS almighty

GOD or Barack Obama, objects! Then it is his RIGHT to dethrone whoever was elected. It is OK, legal, honorable even a duty, to overthrow a President of the United States, who Barack Obama doesn’t want!

Maybe Allah or Mohammed told him to!

Can you imagine… Obama has 250 offices in the US manned by 32,000+ volunteers led by Obama aids and campaign workers whose objective it is to disrupt, obstruct, and overthrow a US President? What the hell kind of president does something like that, while being the President?

In November 2015 the Posts Speery wrote “The senseless protests we’re seeing break out on the campuses of the University of Missouri, Yale and other colleges, as well as on bridges and highway overpasses and outside police stations, are precisely the kind of thing Obama was trained to organize while attending leftist agitation schools founded by Chicago communist Saul Alinsky. He learned to a fare-thee-well how to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”

According to Mr Speery, Obama’s clan, “Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization, Obama for America in 2013.”

On Feb11, 2017 in a NY Post article titled, “How Obama Is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency”, Sperry does an excellent job tying Obama’s Organizing for Action, Black Lives Matter, and other radical left wing groups together, many of which are financed by George Soros!

It is hard for some of you to believe but former President Obama, by setting out to dethrone a duly elected president by causing riots or “abusive” language, is violating many statues and maybe even this one, The Sedition Act of 1918, enacted during World War I. It made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States" or to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production" of the things…”when we are at war…are we? Are we at war with ISIS, Syria, Al Qaida?

In my opinion, Barack Obama is truly a Traitor! He is in violation of Inciting to Riot statutes, Treason, Hobbs Act, Counterfeiting Official Documents, and President Trump must direct AG Sessions to open a RICO investigation on Obama and his administration or Obama, backed by George Soros’ money, WILL bring down, by any means he can, our duly elected President!

When does a “protest” become a riot? When it turns violent! Have any protests since President Trump was elected, turned violent? If so, did it appear they were well organized…you know, commercial, professional signs, buses, masked faces, same clothing…c,mon man, too many coincidences make a fact!

Barack Obama is STILL destroying America and nobody seems to be doing anything about it!!!

J Gary DiLaura
Retired FBI

Published in Outdoor
The White House Correspondents Association dinner exposed anew how far from Middle America our elite media reside.
 
At the dinner, the electricity was gone, the glamor and glitz were gone. Neither the president nor his White House staff came. Even Press Secretary Sean Spicer begged off.
 
The idea of a convivial evening together of our media and political establishments is probably dead for the duration of the Trump presidency. 
 
Until Jan. 20, 2021, it appears, we are an us-vs.-them country.
 
As for the Washington Hilton's version of Hollywood's red carpet, C-SPAN elected to cover instead Trump's rollicking rally in a distant and different capital, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
 
Before thousands of those Middle Pennsylvanians Barack Obama dismissed as clinging to their Bibles, bigotries and guns, Donald Trump, to cheers, hoots and happy howls, mocked the media he had stiffed.
 
"A large group of Hollywood actors and Washington media are consoling each other in a hotel ballroom ... I could not possibly be more thrilled than to be more than 100 miles away from Washington's swamp ... with a much, much larger crowd and much better people." 
 
Back at the Hilton, all pretense at press neutrality was gone. Said WHCA president Jeff Mason in scripted remarks: "We are not fake news. We are not failing news organizations. We are not the enemy of the American people." 
 
A standing ovation followed. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press was repeatedly invoked and defiantly applauded, as though the president were a clear and present danger to it.
 
For behaving like a Bernie Sanders' rally, the national press confirmed Steve Bannon's insight -- they are the real "opposition party."
 
And so the war between an adversary press and a president it despises and is determined to take down is re-engaged.
 
As related in my book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever," out May 9, that war first broke out in November of 1969.
 
With the media establishment of that day cheering on the anti-war protests designed to break his presidency, President Nixon sought to rally the nation behind him with his "Silent Majority" speech.
 
Nixon was livid. Two-thirds of the nation depended on the three networks as their primary source of national and world news. ABC, CBS and NBC not only controlled Nixon's access to the American people but were the filter, the lens, through which the country would see him and his presidency for four years. And all three were full of Nixon-haters.
 
Nixon approved a counterattack on the networks by Vice President Spiro Agnew. And as he finished his edits of the Agnew speech, Nixon muttered, "This'll tear the scab off those b------s!"
 
It certainly did. 
 
Amazingly, the networks had rushed to carry the speech live, giving Agnew an audience of scores of millions for his blistering indictment of the networks' anti-Nixon bias and abuse of their power over U.S. public opinion. 
 
By December 1969, Nixon, the president most reviled by the press before Trump, was at 68 percent approval, and Agnew was the third-most admired man in America, after Nixon and Billy Graham.
 
Nixon went on to roll up a 49-state landslide three years later. 
 
Before Watergate brought him down, he had shown that the vaunted "adversary press" was not only isolated from Middle America, it could be routed by a resolute White House in the battle for public opinion.
 
So where is this Trump-media war headed? 
 
As of today, it looks as though it could end like the European wars of the last century, where victorious Brits and French were bled as badly and brought as low as defeated Germans.
 
Whatever happens to Trump, the respect and regard the mainstream media once enjoyed are gone. Public opinion of the national press puts them down beside the politicians they cover -- and for good reason. 
 
The people have concluded that the media really belong to the political class and merely masquerade as objective and conscientious observers. Like everyone else, they, too, have ideologies and agendas.
 
Moreover, unlike in the Nixon era, the adversary press today has its own adversary press: Fox News, talk radio, and media-monitoring websites to challenge their character, veracity, competence, and honor, even as they challenge the truthfulness of politicians. 
 
Trump is being hammered as no other president before him, except perhaps Nixon during Watergate. It is hard to reach any other conclusion than that the mainstream media loathe him and intend to oust him, as they relished in helping to oust Nixon.
 
If this war ends well for Trump, it ends badly for his enemies in the press. If Trump goes down, the media will feel for a long time the hostility and hatred of those tens of millions who put their faith and placed their hopes in Trump.
For the mainstream media, seeking to recover the lost confidence of its countrymen, this war looks like a lose-lose.
 
 
Patrick J. Buchanan 
Published in Politics
 
 
...........................................
 
The U.S.-led coalition will accelerate its campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said today in a joint press conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, with Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen.
 
“We will further accelerate this fight to free people from ISIS’ crushing occupation and [the] enemy’s terror threat to Europe and beyond,” Mattis said.
 
The secretary is on his first stop of a three-country trip to Europe. In Copenhagen, he and Fredericksen co-chaired a 15-country defense ministerial on defeating ISIS, officials said.
 
The Danish defense minister described the effort to defeat of ISIS as one of Denmark’s highest priorities. Denmark agreed during the ministerial to substantially increase its defense budget to aid in the counter-ISIS campaign.
 
“We are committed to working together -- all of us -- and that was reinforced today in our meeting with many partners: to defeat [ISIS] wherever it attempts to establish its roots,” Mattis said.
 
 
ISIS Won’t Escape
 
The secretary said the coalition in Raqqa, Syria, is getting into position to surround the city.
 
“The idea, ladies and gentlemen, is that the foreign fighters not be allowed to escape and return to constitute a threat against free and innocent people elsewhere, whether it be in the Arabian Gulf, North Africa, and certainly Europe,” he said.
 
ISIS has lost a significant amount of territory that it once held -- more than half in Iraq and in Syria, Mattis said.
 
“ISIS has lost two-thirds of its strength in Afghanistan,” said the secretary, who also noted the death in Nangarhar province of the ISIS-Khorasan emir over the past weekend.
 
“In our anti-ISIS campaign, we are dealing that group one more significant blow with the loss of their leader,” Mattis said. And the fight will go on, he emphasized.
 
“We continue to integrate our military and nonmilitary efforts,” Mattis said. “You have to remember the battlefield we are fighting on is also a humanitarian field where innocent people live [and] are sometimes forced to stay on a battlefield by ISIS. We’re doing everything humanly possible to limit the suffering and any casualties among those innocent people.”
 
 
Bilateral Meeting
 
Mattis said he and Frederiksen also conducted a “substantive” bilateral meeting in Copenhagen.
 
“Denmark has always been a stalwart ally and friend of the United States, and the close defense relationship between our two countries reflects the enduring strength of NATO’s transatlantic bond, [with us] having stood by each other in good times and in bad,” Mattis said.
 
“The American people are truly heartened by your government’s commitment to share the cost of the common defense through a substantial increase in defense spending,” Mattis said to Frederiksen. “Times have changed; 2014 was an eye-opener for all of us, minister, and we have to change with the times.”
 
Mattis said he and the Danish defense minister also recognized that Denmark occupies a “rather unique role” as a member of NATO, as a member of the European Union and as a member of the Arctic Council.
 
“In our NATO affiliation, I affirmed that the U.S. commitment to Article 5 [of the North Atlantic Treaty] is ironclad,” Mattis said. Article 5 established the alliance in 1949, and states that an attack on one allied country is an attack on all.
 
 
Terri Moon Cronk
DoD News
Published in Outdoors
Some government officials are being condemned by millions of Americans for a strange reason: They are enforcing the law.
 
That makes no sense except to those who have forgotten our very freedom is based on rule by law, not by the whims of powerful individuals or whatever happens to be the politically correct trend of the day.
 
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly lost his patience with critics of his agency for enforcing immigration laws.
 
During a speech in Washington, Kelly felt it necessary to defend personnel in his agency. "They have been asked to do more with less and less and less. They are often ridiculed and insulted by public officials and frequently convicted in the court of public opinion on unfounded allegations testified to by street lawyers and spokespersons," Kelly noted.
 
That sort of attitude toward those we rely on to protect us in a variety of ways may ring a bell with those who remember America during the 1960s and early 1970s. That was a time when soldiers returning from the Vietnam War, where many laid their lives on the line for us, were accused of being "baby killers" and sometimes suffered being spat upon by the very people for whom they fought.
 
It won't do. Many of the men and women who enforce immigration laws make enormous sacrifices and display courage and dedication. On rare occasions, they give their lives in service.
 
Those critical of immigration enforcement efforts are targeting the wrong people. If they want the laws changed, they should be talking to their members of Congress -- including both Democrats and Republicans.
 
It needs to be remembered that even when Democrats controlled Congress and President Obama was in the White House, immigration law was not altered.
 
Kelly made the point well: Those who dislike immigration policy "should have the courage and skill to change the laws. Otherwise, they should shut up and support the men and women on the front lines."
 
Published in National

For all the talk of deep partisan divides on the Supreme Court, justices found ground for unity last week on the controversial topic of asset forfeiture. Seven of the eight participating justices rejected a Colorado requirement that people must prove their innocence before they can recover assets seized in criminal cases where the defendants were found not guilty.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. Newly sworn Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate. Otherwise, conservatives and liberals agreed that Colorado's asset-forfeiture law went way too far in granting government the authority to retain seized assets without due process.

Asset forfeiture is a tricky issue. No one likes the idea of, say, a major drug trafficker getting to keep a mansion, yacht or millions of dollars in probably ill-gotten gains simply because the government couldn't prove that these were the direct proceeds of a criminal enterprise. But our court system requires a presumption of innocence. The prosecution has the burden of proof, not the defense.

In the Colorado case, two former criminal defendants whose convictions were overturned had to sue the state to recover fees and assets taken during their prosecution. Colorado law required them to prove their innocence in court before assets could be released.

"Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "To get their money back, defendants should not be saddled with any proof burden."

Numerous states have laws that impose enormous costs and hassles on former defendants seeking to recover seized assets. Police departments and prosecutors' offices often rely on those assets to fund their operations. Nationally, asset forfeitures in 2014 exceeded $5 billion.

Officers in one notorious East Texas case for years used their state's asset-forfeiture laws to systematically shake down mainly black and Latino motorists on local highways for innocuous offenses like driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. In Missouri, seized assets must be used to fund schools, which helps remove the incentive for police to use asset forfeiture to boost local coffers. Still, abuses abound.

President Donald Trump stepped into the middle of this debate during a February meeting with law enforcers when a Texas sheriff complained about a Republican state senator who had proposed a bill requiring conviction before authorities could seize a defendant's money. Trump offered to destroy the senator's career.

Trump failed to recognize that this is a sore point among many of his party's conservative hardliners who see asset forfeiture laws as an example of government run amok.

The Conservative Review said Trump's threat "should scare all of us." Jacob Sullum, of the libertarian magazine Reason, labeled asset forfeiture "legalized theft."

It's a rare day, indeed, when Justice Ginsburg stands with them at the Supreme Court.

Published in General/Features

Dear Doctor: Which pain reliever is safer -- acetaminophen, ibuprofen, celecoxib or naproxen? It seems as if they all carry some risks.

Dear Reader: Pain is a symptom to which we can all relate. It's also an important indicator of possible injury within the body and should be acknowledged, not simply by taking medication, but also by understanding the cause of the pain. That said, one person's pain is different than another's, with some people needing greater pain relief.

So, if you need a medication for pain, what should you use? Let's look first at acetaminophen (Tylenol). Acetaminophen has been used since 1955; it is available in multiple products, works well for pain, and is for the most part safe. However, at high doses -- specifically, above 4,000 milligrams a day, or eight tablets of Extra Strength Tylenol -- the medication can cause liver damage, or even death, especially in those who are malnourished, drink alcohol in excess or consistently take more than 4,000 mg per day. Age is also a factor, as those over 40 have a greater risk of liver failure and death after over-dosage.

Ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) has been used for pain since 1974. It is one of many medications classified as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). NSAIDs work by inhibiting formation of mediators of pain and inflammation, and they're notably effective at decreasing inflammation in swollen joints related to arthritis.

Naproxen (Aleve) was first marketed in 1976 and works similarly to ibuprofen. But it has a longer half-life, giving it a longer-lasting effect. Both ibuprofen and naproxen decrease the formation of prostaglandins in the stomach. These chemicals produced by the body have hormonelike effects, protecting the stomach lining from acidity. The decrease of prostaglandins can injure the stomach lining, leading to stomach inflammation, ulcers and possibly severe bleeding.

Celecoxib (Celebrex) is a more selective NSAID and does not decrease prostaglandins in the stomach. This translates into significantly less likelihood of creating ulcerations.

All NSAIDs also reduce prostaglandins in the kidneys, which can lead to kidney injury. This injury becomes worse in people who have a history of chronic kidney disease, who are older, or who have congestive heart failure or cirrhosis.

Lastly, the chronic use of high-dose NSAIDs has been linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. Celecoxib may have a slightly greater risk of this than ibuprofen and naproxen, but a recent New England Journal of Medicine study looking at those who used NSAIDs chronically for arthritis found no difference in cardiovascular events between celecoxib and either ibuprofen or naproxen.

Of the drugs you listed, my feeling is that acetaminophen is the safest when used regularly. However, I would use acetaminophen at no higher doses than 4,000 mg per day and, if you were to use it regularly, I would recommend decreasing this amount to 2,000 to 3,000 mg per day.

The NSAIDs -- ibuprofen, naproxen and celecoxib -- are needed by some who have inflammatory arthritis, and they are good medications in the short-term. I would caution against consistent long-term use, especially at high doses and especially if you have any history of heart disease.

 

Robert Ashley, M.D.

Published in Lifestyle

Sunbay News Archive

Archive Date Search

« May 2017 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31