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
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.
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.