Search - JEvents
Search - Categories
Search - Contacts
Search - Content
Search - News Feeds
Search - Web Links
Search - SunBay
Search - JComments
Items filtered by date: Wednesday, 28 February 2018

"Adam" is a guy I've created to illustrate one big and fascinating idea from a new book by British psychotherapist William Pullen: Movement is medicine.

Yes! Forget the word "exercise" for now. Just moving our bodies -- walking, dancing, jogging, preferably in nature -- can help free us from stress, emotional pain and whatever else we're dealing with that makes our bodies feel stuck, unsettled and depressed.

This therapeutic connection between the mind and body isn't a theory; it's a fact of life. Your body is self-healing and wondrous, and when you move it you automatically get the health benefits that come from the blood and lymph flowing, the molecules of emotion circulating, the tissues nourished, the joints juiced.

And when you add mindfulness to movement, therapist Pullen explains, you're on a self-directed path to enhanced well-being, physical and mental.

So back to Adam: In our hypothetical scenario, Adam is stressed to the point of depression. He's not sleeping. He can't focus at work. And he's starting a relationship with Johnnie Walker in startling and destructive ways.

Why? Because his wife wants a divorce. He's shocked but also a little relieved. Maybe he'd be happier without her. What should he do?

"DRT is a powerful and engaging step-by-step therapeutic method for confronting difficult feelings and circumstances in your life through movement," writes Pullen, author of "Running With Mindfulness," in which he enthusiastically gives detailed instructions.

Adam -- a slow runner, but that doesn't matter -- could use DRT to work through challenging issues around divorce. But Pullen assures us this revelatory combo of movement, mindfulness and provocative questions is also good for dealing with anger, letting go of fear, overcoming the terrors of perfectionism and more.

"Movement makes it easier to shift our perspective, raise our moods, and return to a place of hope, energy and possibility."

The acronym DRT stands for Dynamic Running Therapy, but it's certainly not limited to running or runners. Anyone can do it, at any level of fitness, alone or with a trusted listening partner, as long as you're willing to commit to the process and follow a number of steps.

Adam manages to do most all of them -- from head-to-toe body scans before he runs to journaling for a few minutes right after. At the end of his time using Pullen's techniques, he moves on to a much happier and healthier relationship with wife No. 2.

Such a satisfying ending. Such an enlightening book. Here are a few more of Pullen's steps "to get moving, get mindful, and lift yourself out of low moods."


Listen To Your Body.


DRT isn't designed to involve challenging exercise. If you can barely walk a block, you can still do it. Think of it as a tool for increasing your self-awareness and your body awareness, a method for "noticing the tone of your inner dialogue and meeting whatever you find there with acceptance and patience."


Make Room For Feelings.


When you move with intention and focus on a particular question -- e.g., "Where does the anxiety about divorce live in my body?" -- you will reconnect with feelings you may have hidden deep down. "Emotion in motion can be very powerful," therapist Pullen writes, so be prepared to welcome those feelings, without judgment or shame.


Don’t Strive Too Hard.


Mindful movement isn't like conventional exercise. Striving too hard can create more stress and anxiety. "The key is finding your own pace, finding your footing, and finding yourself. It will happen on its own if you stay present. ...
"The pain you feel when you are depressed provides an ongoing opportunity to improve your mindful practice," he writes, cheerfully.

"Each time you feel the bark of the black dog it is a chance to come back once more to the body, to sensation, and to recognize that thoughts come and go, feelings come and go. ... Acknowledge the thought or feeling as just that, and let it pass on by."

If you get a busy signal when you think about your "inner dialogue," don't stress. Pullen's book gives you lots of questions and prompts to guide you. It's a process, he reminds us, and if you're patient and forgiving, you'll discover gold.

"All of this will take time. Be patient. There is no rush. Let the experience flow and feel organic." -- William Pullen


Marilynn Preston

Published in Lifestyle










How Sepsis Harms




Who’s at Risk?






How to Prevent Sepsis









Watch for Warning Signs








Consumer Reports

Published in Lifestyle

Just because you die in Florida, that does not mean all of your assets are governed by Florida law. If you own shares of a corporation or partnership, for example, your estate's rights may be governed by the laws of another state. Furthermore, your estate may be restricted in terms of how it may dispose of such business interests.


Florida Court Declines to Hear Claim Against Out-of-State Family Partnership

Many businesses use buy-sell agreements as a tool to ensure continuity of ownership. Basically, a buy-sell agreement states that when a partner or owner dies, a specified person or group–often the other partners or co-owners–has the legal option to purchase the deceased party's interest. The agreement should also specify a method for properly valuing the deceased party's share.

Buy-sell agreements are generally enforceable and they can override other provisions of an estate plan or Florida probate law regarding inheritance. This is why it is important to consult with a Florida probate attorney if you are uncertain as to the potential impact of a buy-sell agreement on your own business interests. In some cases, an agreement can even prevent your estate from litigating a dispute in the Florida courts.

Here is a recent example. This case involves the disputed fractional ownership of a farm in Massachusetts. The decedent in this case belonged to a family limited partnership, of which she held a 0.2 percent interest. The partnership agreement, signed six years before the decedent's death, contained a buy-sell provision. Specifically, when a limited partner died, the agreement said the partnership had the right to buy back the deceased partner's share unless she left it to a family member. In this context, family member did not include spouses.

This became an issue when the decedent's husband attempted to claim the shares in the family partnership for himself. The husband opened a probate estate for his wife in Florida. More than three years after her death, he moved to reopen the estate and asked a Florida court to hold that he lawfully owned the shares, as the partnership had not exercised its option under the buy-sell agreement within the specified time period.

The partnership maintained the Florida courts lacked “personal jurisdiction” to hear the case. In any lawsuit a court must have jurisdiction over both the subject matter of the dispute and the parties themselves. Here, the partnership is based in Massachusetts.

Furthermore, the partnership agreement itself–including the buy-sell provision–is governed under Massachusetts law. Given this, a Florida appeals court held the husband could not pursue his claims in Florida unless he could demonstrate some sort of “minimal contacts” between this state and the partnership to justify invoking personal jurisdiction.

Need Advice on Protecting Your Family's Future?

At the Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., we can advise you on a number of options for helping you and your family minimize the burden of transferring property after your death.

Call us today at 239-333-4529 to schedule a free estate planning consultation with a member of our team.

Published in News Around The Bay




More than 2,500 U.S. personnel will take part in a joint exercise with Israel next month aimed at improving interoperability, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters today.

Juniper Cobra is a U.S. European Command missile defense exercise with the Israel Defense Forces that will take place March 4 to March 15, Army Col. Rob Manning said.

The exercise is the ninth in a series of biennial Juniper Cobra exercises conducted in Israel between Eucom and the IDF since 2001, he said.

Manning said the exercise is part of a routine training cycle designed to improve the interoperability of U.S. and Israeli defense systems. More than 2,500 US personnel ashore and afloat will participate in the exercise, he added.

“JC18 represents another step in the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel and contributes to regional stability," he said.

In a news release on the exercise, Eucom officials described the exercise as a welcome opportunity for Eucom and the IDF to exercise together and learn from each other.

"The United States and Israel enjoy a strong and enduring military-to-military partnership built on a trust that has been developed over decades of cooperation," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Richard M. Clark, the commander of 3rd Air Force at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, who is the commander for the deploying Joint Task Force Israel.

"The Juniper Cobra exercises continue to strengthen this relationship, providing us with the opportunity to bolster interoperability and develop seamless integration with our Israeli partners," Clark said in the release.

Lisa Ferdinando

Published in National


Some 5,800 U.S. service members, working in Thailand alongside forces from 29 partner nations, have wrapped up one of the largest security cooperation exercises in the Indo-Pacific region.

Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Rob Manning told reporters today that Cobra Gold 18, which ended Feb. 23, sought to improve participants’ capability to plan and conduct combined and joint operations, to build relationships among participating nations across the region, and to improve interoperability over a range of activities, including enhancing maritime security and responding to large-scale natural disasters.

Three Phases to Success

Exercise events included a command post operations event, six vertical construction projects as part of an engineer civic actions project, and a field training exercise consisting of nonlive and live-fire operations.

The command post exercise featured coordination among participating nations in noncombatant evacuations, forcible entry tactics and United Nations peacekeeping operations to increase interoperability in a complex scenario and to identify and eliminate procedural differences.

In addition to U.S. forces, representatives from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and South Korea synchronized efforts to overcome the challenges of the exercise.

Humanitarian civic actions also played a large role in the overall exercise operations. Combined task force engineers conducted six school-improvement projects at various locations throughout Thailand. In addition to improving relationships, the projects aimed to provide quality sustainment training for those involved, to build multipurpose facilities in underserved areas, and to promote security interests of the nations involved. The engineering efforts placed 124 pillars, more than 15,000 concrete blocks and poured more than 8,000 square feet of concrete.

The field training exercise included a massive combination of forces in air, ground and maritime operations. In an effort to maintain readiness and sustainment training requirements while emphasizing security cooperation between partner nations, participants launched operations responding to a simulated large-scale natural disaster in a foreign country, and they completed processes and procedures to evacuate affected civilians.

Acquiring Specialized Skills

South Korean and U.S. reconnaissance Marines learned basic skills necessary to survive and thrive in a hot, dangerous environment from Royal Thai Marines, even learning to capture and kill a snake to drink its blood for hydration. They also learned how to identify local edible and inedible vegetation, how to locate water sources and techniques for building a fire with bamboo and trapping wild game.

U.S. military units participating in the exercise included the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Marine Division; the Army’s 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division; and Navy task forces 72, 75 and 76, along with a P-3C Orion detachment and the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard. The Air Force provided six F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 13th Air Expeditionary Group.

“This exercise was an integral part of the U.S. commitment to strengthen engagement in the region,” Manning said.

AF Tech. Sgt. Chuck Broadway

Published in National

More detailed observations will improve marine, aviation forecasts and wildfire detection

NOAA is launching GOES-S, its newest geostationary weather satellite March 1st, it will begin providing faster, more accurate data to track storm systems, lightning, wildfires, dense fog, and other hazards that threaten the western U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska.











Published in Environment
Thursday, 01 March 2018 14:00


The Second Amendment is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment—often referred to as the right to bear arms—have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.



The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rightsadapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776.

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.



But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.

However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.

So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madisonproposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.



Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.

The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.

Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War.

On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.

Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.

Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill, in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.



Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.

This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court, which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual’s ownership or use of guns.

But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.

Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.



Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”



The Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.

In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”



Since that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.

To take just two recent examples, the Sandy Hook shooting of 18 children and two adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.

And in 2017, the mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history) inspired calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster. And now the Parkland School shooting adds more voices to the argument, this time it’s students!

On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.

Published in National
Thursday, 01 March 2018 13:56

The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men's hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3.

But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem.

One recalls the scene in "Casablanca," where French patrons of Rick's saloon stood and loudly sang the "La Marseillaise" to drown out the "Die Wacht am Rhein" being sung by a table of German officers.

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team.

America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity.

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain's Nigel Farage and France's Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front party that won 35 percent of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be "Let France be France!" The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?

In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists?

Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries?

The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world.

When Smith was forced to yield power, "Comrade Bob" Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians, and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to "majority rule," are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone.


Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade and global custody of mankind's destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution.

Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on earth.

Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India.


Here, today, it is "America First" nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush's crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit's Children's Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published in National

Dear Doctor: I've been hearing about adenovirus, which is often mistaken as the flu. How can you tell the difference? And is it as serious as the flu?

Dear Reader: Your question is a great reminder, especially during flu season, of how complex and ubiquitous viruses are. They cause a host of illnesses, with the common cold alone blamed on more than 200 identified subtypes of virus and many more that are still unidentified. One main group of viruses is adenovirus.

Adenovirus got its name because it was first isolated in the adenoids, although this isn't the only place it's found. More than 60 types of adenovirus exist, with some causing much different symptoms than others. Serotypes 3, 5, 7, 14 and 21, for example, have been associated with more severe disease.

Adenoviruses most commonly cause upper respiratory symptoms. These include inflammation of the throat, leading to a sore throat, and swelling of the membranes in the nose, leading to runny nose and nasal congestion. Such symptoms are often accompanied by headache, fever, fatigue, muscle pain and stomach pain.

But adenovirus can also lead to conjunctivitis, laryngitis, bronchitis and even pneumonia. Adenovirus-caused pneumonia more often affects those younger than 5 years old, accounting for 15 percent of pneumonias in this age group. Young children can also be affected by subtypes of adenovirus that lead to diarrhea, which can last up to eight to 12 days.

In rare cases, the virus can affect the brain, causing meningitis or encephalitis, or lead to inflammation of the liver and the heart muscle. In people with a compromised immune system or those who have had an organ transplant, adenovirus can lead to more severe disease and possible death.

Adenovirus is a resilient virus. It can survive for long periods on environmental surfaces and -- though bleach, formaldehyde and heat can inactivate it -- the virus is resistant to many disinfectants. It can be transmitted through respiratory droplets spread by sneezing, coughing or contact with secretions. Adenovirus is also shed in the stool for many weeks after an acute infection. Without proper handwashing by all parties, the virus can then be taken in orally by another individual.

Because adenovirus is easily transmissible, it's associated with outbreaks of infection in day care settings and among military recruits. In fact, military recruits are now vaccinated against adenovirus, which has decreased their rate of infection.

Adenovirus is diagnosed by either viral culture or by tests producing more rapid results. The treatment is similar to those for other cold viruses -- fluid intake, rest, acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, ibuprofen) for headache and medications for diarrhea. For people who are taking drugs to suppress the immune system, the antiviral medication cidofovir can improve survival.

Yes, many of the symptoms are similar to influenza, especially in young children. The fever in those under 5 with adenovirus averages 102.6 degrees. This is similar to influenza. However, influenza is a much deadlier virus, especially among older individuals, causing thousands of deaths per year. Although adenovirus can cause significant illness, it doesn't usually lead to the intensity of sickness and the death rates seen with flu.

Rapid flu tests can help distinguish whether a specific illness is due to influenza or another virus, such as adenovirus, but the point remains: If a person becomes dehydrated or if his or her mental state changes, seek emergency help. Neither illness should be taken lightly.

Robert Ashley, M.D.

Published in National
Thursday, 01 March 2018 13:44

Exploiting Teenager Rage

The school shooting in Parkland, Florida, shows how quickly our media elites move horrors from tragedy to political opportunity. They amplified the loudest voices of the shooting aftermath: teenage survivors who demanded gun control "solutions" like banning all semi-automatic assault weapons. These teenagers might accomplish in one week what the anti-Second Amendment crowd, led by these same media elites, has failed to do for decades.

Survivors of failed abortions (like Gianna Jessen or Melissa Ohden) have never held their attention for five seconds. That conflicts with the narrative.

Liberal journalists have openly discussed how these teenage advocates could be a crucial factor in defeating the gun-rights lobby. They could become the key to the kind of turnout necessary for putting Democrats in the majority in Congress. So they gave them every opportunity to push for liberal victory without any need to be civil.

David Hogg, the most prominent student survivor, went on CNN and proclaimed politicians shouldn't take money from the National Rifle Association because they are "child murderers." CNN morning anchor Alisyn Camerota didn't correct him -- or condemn his statement, regardless of the fact that he'd just stained the reputations of millions of NRA members by labeling them killers. She said nothing. She was satisfied -- pleased, in fact. happily posted the clip with the headline "Shooting Survivor Calls NRA 'Child Murderers.'"

CNN's motto is "Facts First."

CNN hosted a "town hall" full of leftist rage against anyone who believes in Second Amendment rights. Their agenda was obvious from the program's title: "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action." They used the hashtag #StudentsStandUp to promote it. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were verbally slashed by the students without mercy.

Survivor Cameron Kasky stood a few feet from Rubio and smeared him on national television: "it's hard to look at you and not look down the barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz, but the point is you're here, and there are some people who are not." Kasky also said he wished he could have questioned "the NRA lady" (Loesch), since he "would ask her how she can look in the mirror, considering the fact she has children, but, you know, maybe she avoids those."

In the next hour, when Loesch was on, people in the audience shouted "murderer," and "burn her," and student survivor Emma Gonzalez lectured her that she would be a better mother: "Dana Loesch, I want you to know that we will support your two children in the way that ... you will not."

Moderator Jake Tapper allowed the audience to be as immoderate as it wanted. He tweeted afterward: "People freestyled a bit" -- a bit? -- "and I wasn't inclined to reprimand a school shooting survivor or parent who lost a child for expressing him or herself in a question -- even if aggressively."

But this is the most amazing part. In the aftermath, no one in television "news" replayed the students' rudeness as a storyline worthy of condemnation, or even comment. It matched their own political agenda and emotional temperature. When Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" at then-President Obama in 2009, these networks all angrily replayed it ad infinitum as a national disgrace. They called it "infamous." CNN's headline on the video clip read "The Heckling Heard 'Round the World."

Even Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head at the 2010 State of the Union was projected as inappropriate.

Remember these student hecklers when CNN and their colleagues decry how President Donald Trump has single-handedly ruined civil discourse. Trump mocking CNN as "fake news" caused far more media outrage than Hogg calling the NRA "child murderers."

It will happen again and again. They are hell-bent on ridding this country of the Second Amendment, one tragedy at a time.


L. Brent Bozell III
and Tim Graham

Published in National
Page 1 of 2

Sunbay News Archive

Archive Date Search

« March 2018 »
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