Deborah's World

Today Will Determine Our Tomorrow

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:30:00 -0600

This is it, it's Election Day. It's been a long, long journey. I've written a number of posts about politics and a few about the election, and while I had so much more to say, a part of me felt that it was probably best left unsaid. Why? Because although I still believe in the political process, it just seems to me like this political season has been like no other in recent history. There's a bad candidate that's been protected and propped up to be anything but what she is...someone that should not be in the running for president of the United States. And then there's Donald Trump, a candidate whose biggest fault is his mouth, which really shouldn't be a disqualifier, considering that the totality of his comments was just a bunch of insults.

But in this totally corrupt system, spearheaded by a politically-motivated information network commonly known as the mainstream media, the real danger of electing a corrupt individual as president was overlooked. So, we've been whipped into a frenzy about Trump's insults and penchant for late-night tweeting, while simultaneously being asked to ignore Hillary's devastatingly "bad judgment", particularly as demonstrated through the Clinton Foundation. Interestingly, until recently, the highly respected Charity Navigator couldn't even rate the Clinton Foundation, due to a "lack of transparency". They've obviously cleaned things up a bit since then.

It's completely amazing to me how she was able to get a pass on orchestrating the sale of a fifth of the US's uranium deposits to a Russian company, Uranium One (closely tied to Putin) while scoring millions for the Clinton Foundation. Bill also earned a cool half million dollars for giving a speech to a Kremlin-connected bank while the uranium deal was being made.

Her humanitarian effort in Haiti via her foundation left lots of Haitians wondering when will we receive the promised aid? For the record, most are still waiting. In the meantime, her brother Tony Rodham scored a rare gold exploration permit, to extract the precious natural resource from the country and several large contributors to the foundation struck lucrative deals with the Haitian government.

Even the tax returns for the foundation have been refiled numerous times over a period of years (maybe this is why Charity Navigator couldn't rate them).

She (the foundation) has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars from countries that are nothing less than sponsors of terrorism and have horrific human rights records.

When you add her pledge to bring in more refugees (that cannot be vetted), her punitive tax proposals and highly questionable position on gun rights, there's no question for me about the choice for president.

We can survive insulting comments, but what about unfettered corruption? I think not.

Trump's At It Again...Now It's Accusations of Election Rigging

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:15:00 -0500

Immediately after the third presidential debate concluded, I said to my husband, "The lead story will be that Trump won't accept the election results if he loses". Sure enough, as Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith wrapped up the network's coverage of the debate, he said just that. But I'm not going to get bogged down with that nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether Trump accepts the election results or not. If he loses and decides not to accept the results, then okay, he won't accept them. Nothing changes. Hillary will still be the President-elect. There will still be a transference of power. That's the beauty of the American system of government.

The media know this full-well. But if you Google "Trump won't accept the election results" you'll get over 50,000,000 results, which suggests to me that lots of people actually think that if Trump declares "I don't accept the results" after the election, the American political system will grind to a screeching halt. It won't. It didn't when Al Gore refused to accept the results of his loss (he actually retracted his concession speech). It didn't in 2004 when Sen. John Kerry pledged to send lawyers around the country
to fight fraud. Even a month after the election, Kerry still had lawyers at work (despite claims to the contrary, it doesn't seem that he really accepted the outcome).

So I find it rather peculiar that there's so much fanfare regarding Trump's decision to "look at it at the time" (which is actually what he said). What's peculiar is that earlier that day some truly disturbing news surfaced about well-connected, highly placed democratic operatives who arrogantly discussed on video the work they were doing to steal votes, alter the election, incite violence at Trump rallies (on behalf of the democratic party) and avoid prosecution. In other words, they were talking about
rigging the election.

Yet, if you Google "rampant election fraud" you will yield only about a half-million results, and many of those results from so-called unbiased fact-checkers and media outlets assert that Trump is lying about election fraud. I know better than to hold my breath waiting for the media to do any degree of investigative reporting to inform the public about this and many, many other acts of corruption being waged by democrat operatives to help elect Hillary Clinton.

Immediately after the videos were released Scott Fogal (the guy in the glasses in the video) was fired from People for the American Way. I had to laugh at that because part of the job description for guys like this is to be the fall guy when plans go off the rail, so his firing is not a big deal, at all. He'll simply move on to one of the many organizations that are doing similar work. Robert Creamer, the older guy in the video, whom Fogal describes as "diabolical" quickly resigned from Americans United for Change. Again, not a big deal. Creamer was without question the middleman between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and since there is a web of these subversive, well-funded and politically connected groups, make no mistake about it, Creamer will continue his work to rig this election. It should be noted that Robert Creamer, a convicted felon, and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), has visited the White House 342 times since 2009 and has met with President Obama 47 times according to White House records. (According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Creamer only made 340 visits to the White House.) In addition to committing financial crimes and political skulduggery, Creamer is also the author of a book that outlines various schemes, to win elections for democrats.

Over the past few months, I've read about political organizers registering illegals to vote. Usually, these stories are found on blogs or on the rare occasion, mentioned in mainstream media. But the latest dump of Clinton-related emails from Wikileaks reveals an apparent desire (if not strategy) from the highest levels of the Clinton campaign to get illegals to vote.

For years, I've known and occasionally discussed, the ruse that has been used to get illegals to vote, which mostly involves convincing the public that republicans are attempting to disenfranchise blacks of their voting rights by requiring a state ID. Quite naturally anyone would be outraged by this, except the problem is, the Dems know this isn't true, but once again, they use minorities to do their dirty work, The voter ID issue is principally about creating a path for illegals to vote...period.

What's equally troubling is that partisanship is becoming more important than guarding our rights as Americans and our political process. As a nation, we must send a clear message that manipulating our political system is not only unacceptable, but will not be tolerated.

I'm going to wrap this post up because I've spent too much time talking about actual efforts to rig the election, instead of Donald Trump's selfish and insidious plot to destroy the American system of government by virtue of his possible refusal to accept the results (should he lose).

Latest Trump Video is a Blockbuster, But Wait, There's More

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sat, 8 Oct 2016 00:59:00 -0500

Donald Trump's vulgar comments of eleven years ago have grabbed the attention of practically every media outlet on the face of the plant. Released today by the Washington Post (CNN actually had the tape first since it was downloaded from their server by an unnamed producer), Trump's lewd comments have triggered a firestorm from members of the media who apparently aren't aware that men sometimes say off-color, and yes, disgusting things to one another when women are not present. The same can be said of women too, but that's a given.

I don't like what he said. It reminds me of what happens sometimes when guys are in a locker room or at a poker game or on a fishing trip or a road trip when it's just the guys. Their conversations can be coarse and certainly unfitting for mixed company. That's exactly what was happening on that bus. Trump, Billy Bush, and a few other guys were talking about guy stuff--getting women and "getting" women. For reasons that I certainly can't explain, joking about their sexual conquests or near conquests is what some guys do in private. It is what it is.

From the clip, it's not possible to tell whether there were any women on the bus, but I doubt it because "guy talk" is usually conducted when there are only guys present. Notice how Trump and Bush present themselves when they get off the bus. They're totally different because they were then in the company of a woman and others outside their circle. On the bus, Trump says he needs to pop a Tic Tac because when he sees a beautiful woman he just kisses her automatically, like a magnet (and Bush is cracking up because Trump is clearly joking). Despite whooping it up on the bus about Arianne Zucker's good looks, and popping a Tic Tac, when Trump actually greets her, he's a gentleman.

We're in the midst of a hotly contested presidential race, which is why this decade-old video with Trump trash-talking to a bunch of buddies is being treated as though he said things such as:

"If everybody's watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need a public and a private position."

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders. We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”

“If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care. [but] They do impose things like waiting times, you know.”

"I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the middle class..."

"Really, reform for the [financial] industry has to come from [Wall Street] the industry itself."

"...But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary."

No, Donald Trump didn't say any of those things, but they were said...by Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, her statements can be found in a series of emails that were also released today by Wikileaks. Her comments were made before several groups, including many Wall Street firms that have paid her tens of millions of dollars.

The media circus will continue its lopsided reporting, there's no getting around it. As I said earlier, I don't like what he said, but still, it's ridiculous how the media have gone ballistic over this tape and are practically mute on the emails. There's just no denying the media bias against Donald Trump. Kind of makes you wonder what's being said about Trump in off-air, private conversations at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC...

Deborah's World Housekeeping

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:51:00 -0500

Here I go again....

Okay, I was looking at the stats on my blog yesterday and I saw what I see each and every day--a moderate, but very steady increase in viewers, more views from other countries (of course the US represents about 90+% of all views, very few comments, zero followers, and one subscriber. That's right, zero followers and one subscriber. In seeing this, I simply said to myself, that's okay, they'll eventually follow and subscribe.

I check my blog regularly, but for some reason, yesterday I noticed something I hadn't before, there's no "follow" button, which makes it awfully difficult to follow Deborah's World. Something similar happened a few months back when I finally noticed that I didn't have a Facebook "Like" button...duh! Wait a minute (seriously), I removed it some time ago because I didn't like the way the words were bleeding outside the design....I tried fixing it but couldn't....blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I forgot to put it back up....okay, I just put it back up.

Do me a favor, if you happen to notice something that I need to add or adjust on this blog, let me know about it. Thanks.

Also, I really want you to use the buttons; "like", "follow", "share", "G+" to share Deborah's World with others...and leave a few comments. We don't have to agree, but I can tell you this, I appreciate differing points of view. When I was a talk show host, getting a caller with another perspective on a subject, added so much to the show. I never saw the point in beating someone up because they had a different opinion. And so it is with my blog--different ideas make the world go round...especially Deborah's World!

In Scott Shooting, What Did Eyewitnesses Really See?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:00:00 -0500

It goes without saying that everyone should wait until the facts about what actually happened in the shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott are clear. We can only hope that the eyewitnesses, particularly Taheshia Williams, who appears to be the only person claiming to have seen everything that transpired. is giving us the facts, and only the facts. Ms. Williams says that Scott got out of his truck and immediately raised his hands asking "What's the problem, what did I do? What did I do?" And that Scott's book fell to the ground and he stepped over it while walking to the rear of his truck. She says that it was not a black officer that shot Scott, but a white, bald officer. She also claims that Scott died on the scene, not in transit to or at the hospital. She also says that a black police officer administered CPR to Scott, not paramedics.

Ms. Williams' account is so radically different from that of the police that if what she has said is truthful, then the trust level in American law enforcement will sink to incredible lows, across the board, including across racial lines. If on the other hand, she is not telling the truth, the way Michael Brown's friend in Ferguson was not telling the truth when he told a boldfaced lie that Brown complied with the officer by raising his hands and pleaded "Hands up, don't shoot", then she should be arrested for giving a false account to police and for inciting a riot and any other charges that can be levied against her. If it's found that the police account is untrue, then mechanisms are in place to deal with them including loss of job, loss of freedom and civil penalties.

But we've seen before an entire city nearly destroyed based on an eyewitness's account that was never challenged. Lest anyone forgets, there were five black women in Ferguson, who said from the very beginning that they saw Michael Brown attack the officer. Yet, the only witness that the media paid any attention to was Brown's friend and cohort. Chief Putney has stated that there were eyewitnesses that saw the incident, just as Ms. Williams claims to have done. But Putney says these witnesses have given the same account as have the officers. Time will tell.

So to re-cap...

The fatal shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott has sparked angry protests and looting. At this point, there are conflicting reports regarding the chain of events that led to Scott's death. According to two members of Scott's family and one eyewitness who claims to have seen the incident unfold from the balcony of her apartment, Scott was sitting in his vehicle reading a book while waiting for his son's school bus when police approached him and "said something to him", before firing four shots and fatally wounding Scott. Scott's family insists that he did not own a gun and could not have been holding one. They say that Scott was an avid reader and was instead holding a book.

The police tell a very different story. According to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney, four officers went to the apartment complex, where Scott was parked in the lot, to serve a warrant to another man. Chief Putney says as officers were approaching the complex, they saw Scott get out of his car holding a handgun, he then got back into his car. Putney says the officers approached Scott's car and gave "loud, clear, verbal commands which were heard by several witnesses". According to Chief Putney, Scott again exited his vehicle, still holding his gun. The officers allegedly continued to yell orders for Scott to drop his weapon. With Scott refusing to comply with the repeated orders, the officers believed that he was a threat. Officer Brentley Vinson, then fired his weapon, hitting Scott. Vinson was in plain clothes, but wearing a badge. According to Chief Putney and several eyewitnesses, the officers immediately called paramedics and began administering CPR. Putney says that detectives arrived to investigate the scene and recovered a weapon in "very close proximity to the subject". Scott died of his injuries while being transported to the hospital. Officer Vinson has been placed on administrative duties.

Relatives say that Scott was a married, father of seven, who was severely injured in a motorcycle accident last year that left him with two broken hips, requiring him to use a cane. For most of the last year, Scott worked as a security guard at a nearby mall. Neighbors say Scott had recently moved his family into the complex to stay with relatives and they had "gotten to know him quickly". One neighbor said he "walked through the neighborhood daily with a cane and a book in his hand". Scott's niece, Nayshondra Mercer told a reporter that her uncle did not have a problem with police, and in fact had a working relationship with them. In the video, Mercer also says that she cannot condone the violence happening in Charlotte, but understands.

As for Officer Vinson, the 26-year-old has been on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police force for two years. According to published reports, a review of court records did not turn up any infractions against Officer Vinson. Several friends of Vinson's and his high school football coach said that Vinson had wanted to become a police officer since he was a young child. His father Alex retired from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police force. According to an article published in the Charlotte Observer, Vinson played a prep season at Fork Union Military College and was awarded a scholarship to Liberty University where he majored in criminal justice and became a team captain at defensive back.

In other published reports, Vinson is described by several friends and former coaches as a "standup guy" and "someone that's always willing to help". According to Adam Hastings, Vinson's former high school coach, "he's a natural leader who always puts the best interests of others first. We need more Brett Vinsons, that type of person in our community", said Hastings.

I'm not going to waste much time or energy talking about the so-called protestors in Charlotte. There are some legitimate protestors out there for sure, but they leave early, choosing not to stay around for the mob action. They are people engaging in their right to protest peacefully and wait patiently for all of the facts. But the group that's out late, rioting, looting and attacking police is comprised of 1) hoodlums - those looking to freely engage in criminal actively 2) empty-headed followers - those who don't have a mind of their own, but follow anyone that appeals to them emotionally 3) the wannabe leaders - those who are so desirous of name recognition and power they're willing to brave all manner of tear gas, bottles, chairs, etc., just to have an opportunity to get on television to make thoughtless demands and empty promises and 4) the paid agitators - these are the professionals anarchists, they are paid to agitate and encourage destruction of property. They work hard to give the appearance that they are fighting for social justice, when in truth, they're fighting for social disorder and society's breakdown. Interestingly, out of all the coverage I've watched, I've only heard one person ask about the paid agitators. Which is a shame because whether it's Baltimore, Ferguson or Chicago, they'll be there to stoke the flames of violence and to continue to drive a wedge between police and citizens, blacks and whites, or any way they can.

Thankfully, the majority of citizens, even if they're unable to reserve judgment until all the facts are known, don't see violence and looting as a legitimate form of protest.

You Have to Give It to President Obama...He's Consistent

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:00:00 -0500

If I had to use just one word to describe President Obama, it would be consistent. You have to hand it to President Obama, he has consistently enjoyed incredible support from black voters without promising anything. To look at it on the bright side, he also hasn't broken any promises to this constituency. As I detailed in an earlier post, practically every other voting bloc has been brought to the table and have been able to make significant gains for their particular agenda, the exception being black voters.

Let me stop you right now if you're one of those people that insist, "They blocked Obama's agenda so he couldn't help us". No, they didn't. The fact is democrats controlled both houses during Obama's first two years in office, at one point they even had a filibuster-proof majority. And even after the republicans regained control of the Senate, they really didn't mount much opposition to his agenda. President Obama has been quite successful in getting what he wanted. He sometimes went through congress (Obamacare, repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), he sometimes relied on the Supreme Court (gay marriage), and other times he used Executive Orders and Executive Memorandum to get a tsunami of things (immigration, climate change commitments and workplace regulations for starters), though the courts have at times put the breaks on some items.

Yes, President Obama has been very consistent. On the issue of gun violence, the president rarely misses an opportunity to speak out (or cry) in the wake of a mass shooting. Interestingly, the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four of more people are victims of gun violence. So technically, there have been a lot of mass shootings in Chicago over the past eight years, such as the mass shooting in the Back of the Yards neighborhood in 20013 which left 13 people shot including a three-year-old that was shot in the face. Generally speaking, whenever a mass shooting occurs, President Obama is all over it, unless it happens in Chicago. When it happens in Chicago, he has consistently remained silent. Please don't confuse his televised town hall on guns held in Virginia back in January with tackling Chicago's problems. That was just another in a long series of speeches on gun control.

I just find it amazing how President Obama has absolutely no problem scolding blacks or demanding blind support for his policies, yet he's offered nothing regarding the crisis in Chicago. Politics is about quid pro quo. It's a give and take, not a take and take. If you're thinking there's really nothing that he can do, actually there is. President Obama, more than any other president, could have (had) a significant impact when it comes to addressing the root cause of the culture of violence that has beset Chicago. (Here's the root cause) The president has at his disposal any and every tool necessary to address this issue. But, he hasn't made an effort and he probably won't. That's consistency.

If we were talking about any other president turning a deaf ear to the horrifyingly high number of murders in a major American city, especially his hometown, the public's outrage would be seismic. Time magazine reported yesterday that Chicago alone is responsible for half of the nation's increase in murders. Given that Obama has adopted Chicago as his hometown, and he owns a home on the south side, and that the vast majority of the victims of the city's violence are blacks, you'd think he'd feel compelled to make Chicago's near-genocidal murder rate a priority, a cornerstone of his legacy.

Well, President Obama may have missed the opportunity to lead the way in addressing the epidemic of violence plaguing Chicago, but he sure didn't miss an opportunity to once again demand that blacks do what he wants. Oh, well, at least he's consistent.

(meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus 2016)

(meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus 2011)

Music's Rockin' Women II

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:00:00 -0500

This girl from Akron, Ohio grew up to be one of the most influential women in both rock and punk music. Her distinctive look, to this day, screams badass rocker chick. Which is why it came as no surprise when she said, "Everything I loved about music, it seems like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has destroyed" (and yes, she's in there). She is among an elite group of women fronting an all-male band. Actually, to describe her as a frontwoman doesn't adequately describe her significance. She put the band together, gave them their name (after a hit song by the Platters), and their success is due in no small part to the great songs that she has penned or co-written. She really doesn't have an exceptional voice, but it's precisely the right voice for her music--it can be edgy, yet it's lilting and cool. And then there's the look. The super heavy eyeliner and long bangs are unmistakably the signature look of one of rock music's most enduring performers, the iconic Chrissie Hynde.

From her early years in Akron, Chrissie Hynde was an outsider. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, she described being in high school as something she just "wasn't too interested in". And for good reason, Hynde says she was never asked out on a date, to a dance or to go steady. But Hynde's heart was elsewhere. She hung out in Cleveland, the hotspot for live music, and the place where she had many boyfriends. They were of course members of the bands that she'd flock to hear, though never actually meet. She remained in Ohio for another three years or so, attending Kent State before her interest in the British music scene compelled her to move to London.

The paths that she took on her journey to musical stardom brought her up close and personal to life-altering events (the Kent State shootings) and an array of colorful and talented people in Europe. Who else but Chrissie Hynde can lay claim to proposing marriage to Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious? In fact, the list of people that she either played with, recorded with or auditioned with before forming The Pretenders is very impressive and too extensive to even list. Not to mention that the father of her oldest daughter is Ray Davies of the Kinks and the father of her youngest daughter is Jim Kerr of Simple Minds.

Hynde is one of those rare people that knew their purpose in life from a very early age. She worked hard, took risks and rolled with the punches to fulfill that purpose. It's been nearly 40 years and The Pretenders are still going strong, maintaining an impressive tour schedule (they'll be at the United Center on December 3rd, along with Stevie Nicks--OMG!!!). Chrissie Hynde has also done some solo touring over the past couple of years and written her memoir.

The Pretenders have made a lot of really good music..they've also done some great covers too. I'm sure you have your favorites, the following are a few of mine.

The middle of the road is trying to find me
I'm standing in the middle of life with my plans behind me
Well I got a smile for everyone I meet
As long as you don't try dragging my bay
Or dropping the bomb on my street...

I found a picture of you, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
What hijacked my world that night
We.ve been cast out of, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Now we're back in the fight
We're back on the train
Oh, back on the chain gang...

I went back to Ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown...
South Howard had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, oh, way to go Ohio

(This performance is from her solo tour. She was 63 in this video...amazing. By the way, My City Was Gone has been used by Rush Limbaugh for over 30 years. He briefly had to stop using it due to legal issues brought on by EMI. The drama surrounding this minor incident was hyped up because Rush is a conservative and Chrissie's a liberal. The cease and desist order was lifted after Rush paid for usage rights. Hynde later commented that she never minded Limbaugh using the song because her parents were huge fans and loyal listeners of his show.)

It's a thin line between love and hate
It's a thin line between love and hate

It's five o'clock in the morning
And you're just getting in
You knock on the front door
And a voice sweet and low says
Who is it?...

Footnote: Chrissie Hynde will always be an outsider, no matter the fame and fortune. She's really part of a dying breed of rockers. For many, part of the attraction to rock, punk and to a lesser degree new wave music has always been to celebrate the outsider. Today, rockers, like most other entertainers are concerned most with popularity and sales, and they're usually very careful to do the things necessary to promote both. But Hynde is her own woman who speaks her mind, even when what's on her mind is not popular or politically correct. Last year's blowback from her comments during an interview on NPR on being sexually assaulted as a young woman is a prime example. I'm sure she didn't mean to cause the outrage that followed, but I have a feeling, it didn't really matter much to her.

Remember

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:34:00 -0500

For our fellow Americans that lost their lives on September 11, 2001, we must never forget that the enemy came to us. We must be ever-vigilant in never allowing it to happen again. America's future will be guided by our willingness to protect our nation and our sovereignty.

Trump's Outreach to Blacks Won't Be Futile

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:00:00 -0500

Donald Trump delivered a much-anticipate speech last Saturday at Great Faith Ministries International in Detroit, Michigan. This was Trump's first widely-publicized appearance at a church with a predominantly black congregation. I watched the video of his speech and it was pretty clear to me that those in attendance seemed genuinely pleased to have Trump in attendance. The congregants were not only gracious to their guest (the pastor gifted Trump with a prayer shawl from Israel and a personalized study bible with the scripture Mark 9:23 highlighted to encouragement Trump when he feels that the odds are against him. (I have an issue with politicians speaking from a church's pulpit during worship service, but I'll leave this alone for another time.)

While Trump was inside the church, outside was a crowd of very vocal protesters, organized by union groups. Some of the protestors tried to break through the barriers that police had set up to get inside the church but were stopped by police. The protestors carried placards emblazoned with an array of anti-Trump messages such as No Hate in the White House, Donald Trump is a sexist, and Trump is a racist. Most of the signs were likely made by the same shop since they were designed exactly the same. Among the protesters were people shouting the same things that were on the placards, along with some rather peculiar things such as "Donald Trump doesn't like men" (I don't know what the heck that was a reference to), "Donald Trump is a misogynist", "Dump Trump" and "Donald Trump hates black people." One irate woman in speaking to a reporter asked, "What has he done for black people? There was also a couple of people with megaphones giving impromptu lectures on why the black community must reject Donald Trump.

To compare what was going on inside the church with what was happening outside the church is like comparing people in a spa, where they are relaxing and being rejuvenated, to people that are trapped in a cage with feral cats--it's an atmosphere filled with fear, confusion, and desperation.

As for Trump's speech, I thought that he was initially cautious, but he soon relaxed. That's understandable. Trump is well aware of how he's perceived by many, if not most blacks. He was also aware of what was happening just outside the church. But he rose to the occasion. He was humble, appreciative and clearly wanted to build a bridge. And for this, his critics have repeatedly said that his appearance and outreach to blacks is disingenuous, unwelcomed, shameful and won't amount to anything.

Trump is a big boy, so he certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but I must say, he is a rare bird. We really don't see men like Donald Trump much these days, certainly not those seeking high public office, nevermind the highest office in the land. He is defying the critics and conventional wisdom by reaching out to black voters, and he's doing so despite strong resistance. Typically republican candidates make only the slightest overtures to blacks. The rationale behind their lackluster courting of black voters has been that it's a waste of valuable resources because democrats have the black vote locked up. That's true. But Trump is ignoring conventional wisdom and is making a strong appeal to black voters. Perhaps it's because Trump is not a politician and has had to rely heavily on his instincts and be willing to take risks (In an earlier post I said that Trump has uncanny instincts and is definitely a risk-taker), that he truly senses that he can win a meaningful percentage of black voters.

The pundits are in near agreement that Trump will not move the needle when it comes to winning over black voters. I disagree. I think he can and will. If Trump continues to talk about issues that resonate with black voters, while relentlessly detailing how democrats and their policies have failed large urban communities, he can defy the odds and win 15-20% of the black vote (Yes, I honestly believe this). What Trump has in his favor is his opponent's assumption that it will be business as usual with black voters and her expectation of receiving at least 90% of the black vote without having to do nothing more than stoke fear of the republican. Thankfully, this isn't a typical election and her opponent isn't a typical republican.

Bill Clinton's Urban Revitalization Plan Revealed

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Thu, 1 Sep 2016 02:06:00 -0500

Today has been a very long one for me, so I'm going to make this post short and sweet.

The video below highlights a conversation between former President Bill Clinton and Hamdi Ulukaya, founder and CEO of Chobani, reportedly the world's leading all-natural yogurt. The video begins with Ulukaya recounting his rags to riches story, and how he not only employs refugees but provides assistance to help them integrate into American society. The conversation is primarily about the plight of refugees, with Ulukaya doing most of the talking--how incredibly special America is, how he hires refugees, how his company assists them in integrating into American society, why others should follow his lead in hiring refugees, and towards the end he makes an appeal for 100 CEOs and entrepreneurs to help create opportunities for refugees in Turkey.

The Clinton/Ulukaya conversation happened in February and has largely gone unnoticed. But what has caused the internet to heat up over the past few days is what Bill Clinton had to say. He spoke specifically about Syrian refugees coming to the United States. Clinton said this is an enormous opportunity for Americans. (10:35) "Detroit is just coming out of bankruptcy and having 10,000 empty, structurally-sound houses, and a lot of jobs could be had repairing housing, and the mayor is trying to do some sort of innovative urban homesteading project...it gives you an example of what could be done. Any of us that have had any experience with Syrian Americans or Syrian refugees...I think it's a pretty good deal." He then asks Ulukaya how many should we take and how many could we take. Ulukaya's round about answer seems to be 90,000.

Like I said, short and sweet...Has it occurred to Bill Clinton that unemployed Americans might like to have those jobs? Has he even considered that Detroit natives, people who have lived through the good, bad and ugly might like to be a part of the revitalization of a once great city? And while I completely understand Mr.Ulukaya's passion for people of the Middle East and Eurasia, I mean come on now, he was able to buy the shuttered Kraft factory in no small manner because of taxpayer dollars, American taxpayer dollars and has utilized other local, state and federal government resources in building his business. So it would be nice to see him appeal to his peers to make a commitment to failing American communities (urban and rural). Sure, he can do his global refugee humanitarian work (of course he can do whatever he pleases), but making a greater investment in this land of opportunity would be wonderful . To be fair, from what I've read, Ulukaya is a good employer, paying his factory workers above minimum wage, offering full health benefits and a 401k plan. As for his personal wealth, he has pledged to donate his $1.4 billion fortune to help refugees around the world

Ulukaya is obviously a major donor to the Clinton Foundation (come on now, you don't really think that anyone with an idea and a cup of yogurt gets to sit and chat one-on-one with Bill for free do you?). If November proves to be a great month for Hillary, I think it's pretty safe to say that we'll be seeing a significant number of Syrian refugees settling in the Motor City. Of course, they won't be vetted, but at least they'll have jobs waiting and newly constructed homes to move right into. As for those long-suffering Detroit natives? Well, I'm sure that Hillary will thank them for helping her make history and for sparing the country from having to endure that crazy isolationist from New York.

US Government Insiders Agree...Americans Are Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:25:00 -0500

I don't know exactly what it is about Iran, but it's pretty clear to me that President Obama has a soft spot for this country.

Rewind: Early on, the Obama Administration promised to further cripple Iran with continued economic sanctions if they continued their quest for nuclear arms. Some crippling, instead of a kick in the shin, Obama quickly lifted the sanctions on Iran as required by the terms of his super-wacky nuclear deal with Iran. As far as deals go, this one will definitely go down in history as one of the worst ever for the US. Not only were the sanctions lifted, but Obama quickly released $150 billion dollars that was being held by the US for previous bad behavior by Iran. But what was most alarming was the revelation that the agreement was not legally binding because Iran didn't sign it, they refused to. And when you read the details it becomes even more bizarre considering that the agreement essentially allows Iran to monitor itself and requires outside inspectors to notify them days before they come to inspect. Here's what I wrote about the deal when it was first "negotiated".

Nearly a year after the nuclear deal, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications for President Obama and an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran admitted that the administration misled the American public about the deal (well, well,
well). And just how did they do it? According to Rhodes, the Obama Administration uses friendly reporters and nonprofits to do their dirty work. He said they function as "public relations tools". He said that the Obama Administration can do this at will because "these tools are ignorant, will believe what they're told, will essentially take dictation and are happy to be used just to get the information necessary for a tweet or two." Well, at least give the guy credit for being so candid. An in-depth and disturbing look at how the Obama Administration duped Americans on the deal can be found here.

Side note: Rhodes' comments reminds me of those by Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), who said that the Obama Administration intentionally crafted the legislation to be complicated because with a lack of transparency and American stupidity, they knew they'd get it passed. Gruber has gleefully stated many times that American stupidity allowed the bill to pass. Of course, the White House quickly tried to smooth things out by distancing itself from Gruber, but when you pay a guy $6 million dollars, I'd say you're pretty darn close.

And then there was the $400 million payment (ransom) made to Iran in exchange for the release of four American hostages. President Obama insisted that the money was nothing more than payment for a long held dispute and that it was merely coincidental that Iran decided to release the four Americans that they were holding captive once they received the money. Thankfully the Wall Street Journal didn't buy that story the way other media outlets did. However, despite the revelation that Iran would not release the Americans until the money arrived--small dominations in foreign currency, stacked in piles on pallets--the President stuck with his story and earnestly tried convincing us dummies that he had told us about this months ago. He also explained why the $400 million was sent in cash instead of a check or by wire. He explains why the money had to be in cash at the end of the video (06:05) below...which ties-in nicely with the next part of this post. By the way, in what is clearly a pattern, the White House now admits that the $400 million dollars was a ransom. Okay, I'll admit, they didn't use the word ransom, instead they admitted that the payment to Iran was "delayed for several hours to retain maximum leverage to ensure that the prisoners were released." Just a fancy way of saying it was ransom so us dummies don't go getting any ideas.

And the money keeps right on flowing. Earlier this week, it was revealed that just two days after paying the $400 million dollar ransom, the Obama Administration paid Iran another $1.3 billion dollars. This time, the administration made thirteen separate payments of $99,999,999.99. There was also an additional payment of $10,390,236.28. The president has said that the money was interest owed for a decades-old dispute over a weapons deal gone bad. No explanation was given for the additional $10+ million dollar payment. In the above video, President Obama passionately explains why the $400 million dollars had to be in cash. Yet, it's a little curious that the $1.3 billion dollars was broken down into several payments of $99,999,999.99, especially when you consider that the Federal Reserve's check processing equipment no longer accepts checks of $100,000,000.00 or more, something that impacts other agencies including the Treasury Department. But it will have to remain a curiosity until such time that the administration decides to reveal exactly what method was used to pay the money. So far, they have refused to do so.

Lastly, despite President Obama's apparent soft spot for Iran (giving them all of that good 'ol American cold cash), and his rather naive hope that they will straighten up and fly right, Iran has not only taken more Americans hostage, but their compliance with the nuclear agreement is highly suspect. But then again what difference does it make, we're just a bunch of dummies anyway.

Music's Rockin' Women

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:08:00 -0500

As you know, I'm a music lover...I don't just like music, I LOVE music. Sometimes I wonder has there ever been anyone that didn't like music? I enjoy listening to a variety of genres but my favorites are Classic R&B (the 60s, 70s & some 80s), Classic Rock (the 60s, 70s, and some 80s), disco, contemporary jazz (but pre-smooth jazz), Adult Contemporary (primarily the 60s and 70s), MOR (primarily the 60s and 70s) and early rap music (mostly east coast). I also have an appreciation for classic jazz music, especially Jimmy Smith, a killer on the Hammond electric organ (as a child, I was fascinated with the cover of his Crazy Baby album, my father's favorite) and Brother Jack McDuff.

I also like listening to a lot of other music such as house, dub (some), new wave, punk, grunge and some reggae. Needless to say, I prefer music from a certain era. In fact, I don't know if this has to do with age or not, but I have a really hard time understanding the lyrics in a lot of today's music. It almost sounds like they're just making crazy sounds. When my kids are around and if we're in the car, and they want to hear their music, I secretly wish they wouldn't ask. I really wouldn't mind listening to their stations (ok, yes I would), but barely understanding what they're saying in the song can be rather frustrating. So I usually make a deal--you can listen to your station on the way, and we'll listen to mine on the way back--or something on that order. But if I'm in a less than generous mood, I'll say "the driver gets to choose the station" or "no, I don't want to hear that". But truthfully it's really never a big deal because they actually enjoy old school music.

Today will be the first of a few posts where I will highlight some of my favorite female rockers. When I hear these songs, which I do quite frequently, I'm always transported back to high school. My best friend Sandrus and I loved our music and we would just sing and sing and sing, with San always adding harmony even if the song didn't include it. And now, the first profile is of one of our favorite groups.

First up:

Heart
The Wilson sisters were (are) simply awesome. When I first heard Magic Man and Crazy on You, I was hooked. They had the kind of energy that you'd rarely get from female musicians--strong and powerful, yet sweet and so melodic. Ann's voice was beautiful and boy did it soar. As for Nancy (who is also a very good vocalist and flutist), frankly, I think she's so underrated. I know I'm not the first to say this, but listening to her play was like listening to Led Zeppelin. She also reminded me of Tom Petty.

It's kind of funny, but the name of their band was really quite appropriate. The Wilsons were from San Francisco but the family relocated to Seattle after their dad retired from the Marines. A local band called The Army changed its name first to White Heart and then to Hocus Pocus in the early 70s after Ann joined. Soon after she began dating one of the band members, Mike Fisher. According to Wikipedia, Mike's brother Roger wanted to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War and fled to Canada. Mike, Ann, and Nancy later followed him there. Eventually, the Wilson sisters and the Fisher brothers were not only dating but formed a band, naming it Heart.

The first video is from a fairly recent performance (2012) of Straight On. This song is so funky, I really want to stop writing right now and go get my guitar (which I'm horrible at) and pretend to outplay Nancy.

Quite some time, I been sittin' it out
Didn't take no chances, I was a prisoner of doubt
I knocked down the wailin' wall, it ain't no sin
I, got, the feel of fortune, deal me in

And then there's the beautiful power ballad, These Dreams. This song still moves me. This video was produced for the song. If memory serves me correctly, the age of video was not kind to Heart primarily because Ann began to pick up weight and critics were not kind. It's too bad that great musicianship took a back seat to lip-synching, costumes. fancy sets and editing.

Spare a little candle
Save some light for me
Figures up ahead
Moving in the trees
White skin in linen
Perfume on my wrist
And the full moon that hangs over
These dreams in the midst

BONUS

I just had to add their performance of Barracuda at the 2013 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony. These girls are just BAD!

Another "Great" Socialist Society Crumbles

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:58:00 -0500

You probably have heard about the massive economic failure in Venezuela. It's heartbreaking to know that the poor people are scrounging around in garbage cans looking for food, while those who have resources are spending hours waiting in line at grocery stores only to find that the shortage of food means they aren't able to buy enough food to feed a family for the entire day. Many have taken to robbing trucks that transport edibles. These trucks are being stopped by crowds of people and pillaged. Things are so bad in the country that many people are roaming the streets in search of cats, dogs, pigeons and rats to make a meal. Other essentials like medicine, toiletries and tissue are also in extreme shortage. Speaking of the animals, zoos are also in a crisis, as zookeepers have had to modify the animals' diets, feeding them plants and fruit in order to prevent them from starving. The only way to describe Venezuela today is to say that the country is in the grips of monumental despair.

The economic conditions in Venezuela have forced people to take extreme measures in order to survive, which has, in turn, led to a significant escalation in crime. The murder rate is at an epidemic level, surpassing 2014 and 2015 rates which already had the country ranked as number two in the world for murders. Despite the 2012 ban on private gun ownership in the country and the current state of emergency, there is no semblance of security and none expected anytime soon.

But not everyone in the country is suffering. The elites are dining on gourmet meals and sipping champagne. Nothing has changed for them because they are not dependent on the government. They are indeed socialists, but they are not of the masses. Centrally planned economies like Venezuela's lead to economic collapse because the economies are fully controlled by a handful of elites and private ownership is heavily penalized. It should be noted that the wealthiest person in Venezuela is former dictator Hugo Chavez's daughter, Maria Gabriela Chavez. Clearly, wealth is only good for a select few, and not for the masses.

I really wonder what the elites in our own country have to say now. I'm speaking specifically of those that traveled to Venezuela when Chavez was in power and championed the benefits of socialism, and how wonderful this dictator was. Where's Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Kevin Spacey, Cornell West and the rest of the socialist-loving crowd? Oh, excuse me...make that democratic socialism...my bad.

Deborah's World Updates

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:00 -0500

The latest Deborah's World on the Radio is available. Just click over to the On the Radio page to listen to it. I was filling-in for Chris and was joined by a wonderful co-host, my husband James. We covered lots of things including the riots in Milwaukee, the Olympics (kinda, sorta), Election 2016--that is to say Trump and Hillary and more.

Well, I just discovered a couple of things yesterday while tooling around on my blog and the Deborah's World Facebook page. I couldn't believe it, but all this time, my On the Radio Page was hidden from public view...I never noticed that...wow! Only the Radio Archive page was visible and only one show was posted there. I've corrected that. I also realized that the "sharing" feature on my Deborah's World Facebook was set to "friends only". I've now changed that to "public" so when you share something, the recipient can actually see it (embarrassing).

I also spoke with a friend on yesterday who told me that he'd seen my blog and that he really likes it. He asked how many views did my blog have and I told him over 5,800 (which is true). He was surprised and I asked him why was he surprised? He said that he noticed that I didn't have many likes or shares. He offered to recommend my blog on his site (which he says gets about 20,000 views a month). Cool.

To date, I really haven't focused on growing my audience, but I think the time has come. So I would really appreciate your help in this area. If you haven't "liked" my blog (if you do), please do so. Also, please share posts that you like and subscribe to this blog. If I didn't have the ability to see how many people come to my blog I would still write, but it's really nice knowing that people support what you're doing.

On my end, I'm a work in progress in terms of posting with more frequency, but I am trying to do better. Also, I'm looking at some content enhancements that I think you'll really like....but that will take a little time to make happen. By the way, if you look on the right panel of the blog, you will see a "Featured Post". This is a previous post that I selected to be highlighted.

Thanks so much for being here and supporting Deborah's World, and don't forget to head over to the On the Radio page and give a listen to the show!

Deb

Bill Clinton's At It Again

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:00:00 -0500

Note: This post was written shortly after the Clinton-Lynch story broke. I kept it in draft form and then as time passed I decided not to post it. But I've changed my mind. Enjoy.

I can only imagine what Attorney General Loretta Lynch was thinking and feeling when Bill Clinton boarded her plane to have a "social" conversation smack dab in the middle of a federal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for transmitting email that contained classified information.

I know that many, if not most people think that the encounter was part of a scheme to make Hillary's legal troubles go away. I listened to countless discussions that basically summed it up this way; the Clinton's offered Lynch a sweet deal, that if she determined the FBI's findings favorable for Hillary, then she (Lynch) would be rewarded with a high-profile appointment in the Clinton administration (should she become president).

Lynch says that her conversation with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport didn't include discussions about Benghazi or the State Department emails. She said they discussed the current news of the day such as Brexit, former Attorney General Janet Reno, their travels and a great deal about his grandchildren. I believe her.

I don't know a whole lot about Lynch, but I seriously doubt that a promise of an appointment (or reappointment), if Hillary wins, was enough for Lynch to jeopardize her reputation and career. What if Clinton loses? Some say she was returning a favor to Bill for nominating her to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York back in 1999. That's doubtful. As far as appointments go, at this point (well certainly before this scandal) Lynch sits in the catbird's seat and has opportunities galore. She was even considered the top candidate to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court but asked that her name be withdrawn from consideration.

In reading as much as I could find on Lynch's background, she appears to have a solid reputation prosecuting criminal cases involving both democrats and republicans, police misconduct cases, including the high-profile Abner Louima case, terrorism cases and various civil and corruption cases involving corporations. However, she is not without controversy, most notably her vigorous use of civil forfeiture and her apparent kid glove treatment of HSBC during a mega money laundering case.

Still, is it possible that Lynch struck a deal with the Clintons? Of course, anything's possible. But I think what's more likely is that Bill Clinton decided to do what he's alleged to have done many times before, he imposed himself on a woman to get his way. There's a track record if you believe the accusers.

Juanita Broderick claimed that as a volunteer for Clinton's campaign in the late 70's, she agreed to meet with him at her hotel for coffee. She says that Clinton asked to go to her room to avoid reporters. Once there, according to Broderick, Clinton raped her and bit hit on her lip.
Kathleen Wiley claimed that while alone with Clinton in the Oval Office in 1993 he groped her.
Paula Jones claimed that Clinton had her escorted to his room in a Little Rock, Arkansas hotel where he propositioned her and exposed himself. (This incident eventually resulted in Clinton's impeachment, a monetary settlement with Jones and the suspension of his law license.).
Eileen Wellstone claimed that Clinton raped her in 1969 after she met him at a pub near Oxford University. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholarship student at the time.
And a litany of women that claim to have had sexual affairs with him including Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle, Sally Perdue and former Miss Arkansas, Lencola Sullivan.

What's the point of bringing up these old stories? Because they demonstrate a pattern. The meeting with Lynch was not sexual in nature, but the process was the same--isolate the woman and go after what you want. According to reports, Bill Clinton was preparing to leave Phoenix (he was there for one of Hillary's political events). His plane was on the tarmac waiting for him to arrive. Lynch's plane (with her onboard) was 75 yards away (she was in town for a law enforcement event) . As the FBI and Secret Service patiently waited to complete the logistical coordination with their planes and motorcades, things began to go off schedule. According to published reports (citing unnamed Secret Service and FBI personnel...which is why I'm not linking it), Clinton's motorcade arrived very late which meant that Lynch's plane could not be received since the procedure is to clear space for one motorcade before advancing the next. In other words, Clinton's delay (intended?) literally trapped Lynch in her plane. He then walked onto her plane. "Surprise, it's me"!

Your eyes may be glossing over, but mine lit up because it all fits perfectly into my theory: Clinton corners women and has his way with them. this was no different. Bill wanted to cast doubt on the integrity of the investigation. Why? I think he's fairly certain that Hillary has done a good enough job parsing her words not to get trapped by questions and avoiding lying to the FBI, which is a death knell. But fairly is just not good enough. So, as a bit of insurance, create the impression of impropriety that way if all else fails, the process will look tainted and there will be calls for a special prosecutor who will need time to prepare...probably a couple months at least. By then the convention will be over and they will have bought more time to hatch more schemes.

Of course, Lynch isn't exactly a political neophyte. Unlike many of Clinton's other alleged victims, she was able to fight back. And did so by quickly agreeing to go along with whatever decision the FBI made regarding the investigation in Hillary's email. Touche!

It's just my theory, but think about it....what's his nickname? Not Bubba, the other one. I'll give you a hint: Two words. First word sounds like trick....

So, Where Have You Been?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:11:00 -0500

Of course, I'm not asking you that question...it's the question that's been asked of me. I've been away from the blog for a few reasons, mostly because this blog is supposed to be about the things that I find interesting. Unfortunately, lately things in the news have been weighing me down. The other things are time and money...both of which I need more of.

Despite not posting, I did write a couple of blogs, but after the mass police shooting, I was not only stunned but became a bit depressed. I'm still going to upload my post about Bill Clinton meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch...be forewarned, my take on it is a bit unconventional.

In the meantime, I've posted the last show that I did with Chris (last Monday). In this video I share my perspective on what this election is REALLY about and why Donald Trump is not the ideal candidate....but Hillary Clinton is absolutely unacceptable. Plus, what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says is the next email bombshell that will drop, which if true, will have a major impact on the campaign.

Finally, thank you to everyone that regularly checks my blog to see if I've posted anything new. I appreciate that so much. Subscribe to my blog...not only will you get my latest post first, but I'm going to do a couple of things in the near future for subscribers only.

Have a great day and enjoy the video!

Deb

What's Really at the Root of the Anti-Trump Sentiment?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:16:00 -0500

(Before reading this, I want you to know that I am neither a Trump hater nor a rah-rah Trump fan. However, as I said in an earlier post, if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him.)

I have been involved with both the media and politics for a very long time, but I have never, ever, seen anything like this before. First things first, the candidacy of Donald Trump. He is without question the most unconventional presidential candidate in modern times, if not ever. Actually, there

may have been others, but they were fringe candidates. Trump is the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, something that no one would have even remotely considered at the start of the primary season. But for a variety of reasons, Trump finished the primaries not only besting all of his competitors, but he won more votes than any other Republican primary candidate in history.

That in itself was no small feat for a guy who not only broke every political rule and principle but turned the elite world of political consultancy on its head. Practically every political pundit, analyst, and expert said that Trump didn't stand a chance. Drawing from their infinite wisdom, they pronounced that without political experience or a political organization, Trump's candidacy would amount to nothing more than a novelty act, and when it fizzled out, we could get back to the business at hand.

But what was not apparent then was that voters wanted something different, anything other than a traditional politician. And Trump is no traditional politician. He eschewed the retail brand of campaigning. There were no pie-eating contests or drinking beer with blue collar guys at a local tap. He didn't start speaking with a southern drawl, or affecting an ethnic dialect to make his audience believe that he was one of them. He didn't spin hokey yarns, or dine with a family that "looks like America". Those are things politicians do. Trump slugged his way to victory by simply being Donald Trump.

But being Donald Trump means that you are going to say things that are impolite and impolitic, and sometimes just downright silly and rude, like when he exclaimed "Look at that face" when speaking of then opponent Carly Fiorina. But more than saying things that have offended, he has said some things that must never be spoken by anyone that seriously wants to become the president, certainly not in this transformative era (more on this shortly).

Trump has been able to withstand what no other candidate from either party could, a full-scale rebuke from his party's elite; incredibly one-sided reporting from the mainstream media and an assemblage of activists on the warpath to destroy his campaign. Some activists, such as DeportRacism2016 used children in a pretty shameful way to make the point that Trump is a racist because of his comments about some Mexican illegals and his promises of deportation and constructing a wall.

But again, he's been able to withstand it all because he's not a politician, he's unscripted. Trump punches back when he's hit. He boldly calls out his adversaries, something a traditional politician would never do. Professional politicians are trained to rise above it, choosing instead to stay on message with carefully measured words in the hopes of avoiding controversy.

Donald Trump has also been able to withstand the fire because he's a really rich guy, making it a lot harder to control him. Which is why threats from the party to abandon him or withhold money during the primary didn't hold much weight because Trump didn't have to jump through hoops for their money--he could well afford to go it alone. And for the most part, that's exactly what he did. According to campaign reports, Trump spent nearly $56 million dollars, most of it from his own pocket (he loaned his campaign over $50 million dollars, and kept a pledge to not repay himself, forgiving the loan). In the world of national politics, that's not a kingly sum, especially when compared to Hillary Clinton, who spent $179 million through April, but then again, Trump didn't need much in the way of paid media or campaign staffing because he displayed complete mastery at getting free media.

So what is it that about Trump that has made many people effectively designate him persona non grata, a political pariah, a virulent racist, a xenophobe, an idiot, a sexist and any other thing that could seriously hurt his chances of winning the presidency? Some might say there's too much to choose from. I've taken into account many of the things that Trump has said or tweeted, and yes, some of them have been real doozies. I'm not going to list them all (a herculean task no doubt) because you can use the search terms "Trump's outrageous comments" in Google and get 615,000 results in just 0.32 seconds and judge for yourself. But what I've concluded, and it took me a while to figure this out, is that of the many things that Trump has said during the campaign, there are really just three things that have triggered the strongest opposition to his campaign. Actually, the three things can be grouped under one general theme. Everything else that he's said pretty much generates a reaction, meaning people either want to support him, reject him, ignore him or laugh at him.

So what is it that Trump has said that must never be spoken, certainly not in this transformative era, by anyone that seriously wants to become the president,? It's stopping illegal immigration, building a wall between the US and Mexico and banning refugees from Muslim nations (until they can be properly vetted). And Trump keeps repeating it, underscoring his commitment. These issues, along with the economy are the centerpiece of his campaign and his supporters love it. You're probably saying, "Come on Deborah, you can do better than that...have you forgotten that he said..."? No, I haven't. But have you asked yourself why it is that so many Republicans are hellbent on stopping Trump from getting the nomination? Why the Never Trump "movement" includes many prominent Republicans? I can understand it when rank and filers, everyday citizens say they won't for Trump because they don't like or trust him, okay, I get that. But when so many of the party's movers and shakers prefer losing the election to voting for a historic vote-getter or threaten to vote for Hillary Clinton, something's wrong.

You may not realize it (I know I didn't), but enormous amounts of money, time and other resources have been spent over the years by very powerful people to see to it that the borders become even more porous, that a wall is never built, that immigration (legal or not) is greatly expanded and that the U.S. becomes home to many times more refugees (properly vetted or not). There are certainly regular Joes that feel this way too, but regular Joes lack the money and influence that it takes to derail a campaign.

Many of the powerful people that are aggressively advocating for open borders (though they typically use the more digestible term "immigration reform") include several individuals on Forbes 400 List (the so-called Billionaires for Open Borders) such as Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Steve Ballmer, Rupert Murdock, Bill Marriott, Douglas Baker, Jr., Bill Gates, Sean Parker and Mark Zuckerberg, who even put up $40 million dollars of his own money to launch Fwd.us, a "pro-immigration" lobbying group. In fact, in 2013, a bevy of fat cats, joined Soros' National Immigration Forum and the US Chamber of Commerce to lobby for amnesty. There's also no shortage of political figures on both sides of the aisle that would like to see the US relax its border restrictions. In fact, support for "immigration reform" is far broader than I realized and is supported by a broad range of groups. Even Pope Francis has attacked Trump, suggesting that Trump is not a Christian for wanting to deport illegals and build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Clearly, efforts to relax the borders have been going on for a long time, but they have accelerated in recent years. This may explain why the National Border Patrol Council, the people on the front line have endorsed Trump, marking the first time in the union's history that it has made a presidential endorsement.

The new reality is that a fundamental transformation of the country is underway. The political class and their financial backers no longer share the same vision for America as most of the nation's citizens. In fact, the same thing is happening around the world. Leaders are championing open borders but many citizens aren't willing to go along with this idea. This phenomenon was on full display yesterday with the BREXIT vote. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron (soon to be former PM since he's announced plans to resign) wanted the country to remain in the European Union (which has never seen a border it likes), but the voters rejected that idea by a narrow majority. Ironically, it was just a few months back when Cameron called Donald Trump a "hate preacher" for wanting a temporary ban on Muslims. He also said Trump's ideas for building a wall and deporting illegals (and having them come back the right way) were divisive, stupid and wrong. I wonder if Trump will be tweeting any thoughts about Cameron today?

Yes, times are changing, and so are many of our leaders. It was just eight short years ago when Hillary Clinton, sounding much like Donald Trump today, said that Mexico was indeed sending their people here and advocated for a physical barrier (a wall) to stop illegal immigration.

Today she says that we don't need to build walls (though she's voted numerous times in the past for building a wall). That's a pretty remarkable shift. And then there's Secretary of State John Kerry who once advocated increasing prosecutions of American businesses that hire illegals. Today, Kerry believes something very different. Last month, Kerry delivered the commencement address at Northeastern University in Boston. Among other things, he talked about climate change and took a few shots at Trump. But it's what he told the grads to prepare for that's quite interesting.

So I stand by my assessment of the anti-Trump effort's root cause. When it's all said and done, a Trump presidency would be very problematic for lots of special interests and very powerful people. Having Donald Trump as president would slow, if not bring to a complete halt, plans for cheaper labor, newly-minted non-American voters, highly skilled foreign techies that wouldn't need H1B visas, greater government dependency, and other globalist ideals. Trump's a businessman too, but he's been crystal clear that he's committed to doing everything that he can to strengthen our nation's borders, economy and ultimately our sovereignty.

I'm not much for conspiracies, but when you consider that many of the people supporting open borders own radio, television, print and social media empires, it begs the question is the onslaught of negative stories about Trump the result of objective journalism or something far less noble? While there is data that suggest that during the primary, there was more negative Clinton coverage than Trump, what the data (at least not in any of the stories that I read) doesn't reveal is the variety or mix of stories. My guess is that most Clinton stories were about her private server, the emails, and her testimony. Negative stories about Trump were wide-ranging and often had little if anything to do with politics. There were stories about ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-employees, his hair, his dentist and his teeth (I learned that Trump insists on the whitest shade for his veneers). Yet, despite Trump traveling across the country meeting with the media to discuss his initiatives including his urban agenda, when asked, most people didn't even know he had one. Hmmm, I wonder why?

The Orlando Massacre and Fighting the Enemy

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:08:00 -0500

With a heavy heart and condolences for the victims of the massacre in Orlando, I can only hope that this atrocity puts a fire under authorities to reconsider the rules concerning investigations of people that are suspected of having terrorist ties. I understand that America is a free and open society, one that protects civil liberties and the rights of its citizens. But at what point will we say that there needs to be some exceptions to these principals?

According to James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., Omar Mateen, the Orlando killer, had been on the bureau's watchlist from 2013 to 2014. The F.B.I. knew about his trips to Saudi Arabia. They were aware that he openly spoke of supporting terrorist groups to his co-workers. Yet, within six months of each investigation, the books were closed and Mateen was allowed to go about his business without being under the watchful eye of federal authorities.

It's almost exactly what happened with the Tsarnaev brothers. In fact, as early as 2011, the FBI was made aware of the eldest brother's terrorists leanings by Russian authorities. But in October of 2011, the C.I.A. cleared Tsarnaev of having ties to any terrorist groups. The agency did, however, request that Tsarnaev's name be added to the watchlist of the National Counterterrorism Center, from which point other agencies were alerted. But again, it was in that same year, that the F.B.I. determined that despite Tsarnaev's travels and the warning from Russia, there was not enough there, and the case was closed.

I'm not blaming the F.B.I. (I wanted to be an agent), but I am saying that the time has come to revise the criteria for dealing with persons suspected of having ties to terrorists.

As a nation, we must continue to be vigilant when it comes to protecting our rights as granted by the constitution. But we have to stop kidding ourselves about the nature of the threat and that threat is radical Islam. We have to accept the fact that supporters of radical Islam are people living among us and are willing to die in their quest to destroy us.

There are changes that should be done to shore up the homeland:

If a naturalized American citizen from the Middle East comes on the F.B.I.'s radar, keep the case open for ten years. Restrict travel to Middle East countries for persons on the list.
Naturalized Americans from the Middle East should not be allowed to offer financial support to terrorist-related groups (not even humanitarian contributions). It's been widely reported that Mateen's dad was a huge supporter of the Taliban--as are many people in Afghanistan...but this ain't Afghanistan.
If a natural born American citizen comes on the F.B.I. radar, the case should remain open for 10 years and travel to Middle East countries would be restricted and highly scrutinized. In both cases, one-way travel should be offered...if you go to a terrorist state, stay there.
Mosques that preach hatred towards the United States or death to Americans should be closed. This is a touchy one, which is why there should be solid evidence before action is taken. Both Mateen and Moner Abu-Salha, the American-born suicide bomber in Syria attended the same Mosque in Florida. It could be a coincidence that two terrorists, that both traveled to the Middle East and soon after became radicalized, attended the same place of worship. But if anti-American hatred is not being taught there, it would remain open. This idea is not as radical as you may be thinking. It's exactly what former British Prime Minister Tony Blair moved to do after one of Britain's most deadliest terror attacts. Blair moved to shut mosques that were teaching hatered and expel the clerics from his country. Things had gotten so bad in England that the hate-filled clerics would actually place loudspeakers outside of their mosques so that everyone in the area could hear their hateful diatribes.
U.S.-based clerics that post hate-filled, anti-American videos should have to remove them. In fact, any site that posts such videos from anywhere in the world should be blocked. American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki made numerous videos that helped influence many of the people that have committed acts of terrorism on U.S. soil including Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, Umar Farouk Abulmutallab, who tried to blow up a jetliner over Detroit, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, who killed several people at two military installations in Chattanooga (the F.B.I. found al-Awlaki videos on his computer), the two shooters at the Garland, Texas art contest were al-Awlaki fans, according to police, one gave his mother CDs of al-Awlaki, even the Tsarnaev brothers boasted of having learned bomb-making techniques from al-Awlaki videos and Dzhokhar, the younger brother tweeted a few weeks before the bombing in Boston, "you will gain an unbelievable amount of knowledge." speaking of al-Awlaki's videos. As for al-Awlaki, he won't be making any more videos since the U.S. took him offline in a drone attack in 2011.

Family members and friends that have knowledge of plans for a terror attack and don't report it should face criminal action or deportation, or both. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to collect insurance benefits after a loved one commits an act of terror if evidence shows they may have had knowledge before hand. There's a lawsuit now to prevent Rafia Farook, the mother of the San Bernadino terrorists from collecting on his life insurance.

Would American Muslims be open to such changes? I definitely think they would because they are Americans and they want to be safe. Not much is said about what American Muslims have to say--not the political groups, but just everyday people. However, polling data shows that most American Muslims oppose radical Islam (well, duh).

This is a fight that we can win, but we have to do the things that will really make a difference, the correct things, not the politically correct things. But if we choose to play politics and continue to treat the enemy with kid gloves, the problem of radical Islam will only get bigger right here in the U.S.

The Truth About Truth and Why Society is Unraveling

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Tue, 24 May 2016 07:00:00 -0500

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that increasingly, a significant portion of our society seems to be in a state of confusion. It's as though the culture is unraveling, spiraling out of control. I was watching television this evening and the guest essentially told the host that there are many truths, he had his truth on the matter, she has hers and there are other truths. That struck me because I believe that the root of all this confusion can be found with two things: the quest for an acceptable truth and the rejection of the real truth.

As a follower of Jesus, I believe there is only one truth, which comes from God, and can only be found in His word. I already know that by saying this, lots of people will immediately be offended. But don't be. There's nothing to be offended by. The evidence proves that any "truth" other than God's is deceptive and leads to confusion and ultimately destruction.

Those of us that know the truth, but choose to ignore it just to get alone or avoid criticism, we are really adding to the confusion because we know better. However, for those that don't, I imagine it must be very challenging trying to figure out what's right and wanting to do what's right, but having an innate sense that says what's being presented as truth just doesn't seem right. Still, many will continue to reject the truth, God's truth, preferring instead to follow any path that offers a semblance of the truth. Although these paths may appear to be easier, more accepting and quite frankly better, they're what's leading to the confusion, despair and society's unraveling.

Here are a few examples of the paths to "acceptable truth."

relativism - truth, morality, knowledge, even facts existing in relationship to culture, society, even historical context. The truth is always changing, it's never absolute.

subjectivism - what we think is the only unquestionable fact. Knowledge is merely subjective so there is no external or objective truth. In other words, you have your truth and I have my truth.

existentialism - your experience creates your truth, or the truth is what you make it.

rationalism - truth is merely logic or syllogistic. The "truth" is derived from hypotheses and "logical" deductions (which of course is not the truth at all, but only theory passing as truth).

pantheism - everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god, In other words, we're all little gods, so no truth is greater than the other.

pragmatism - truth is that which works best, whatever is most practical.

Can you see how deceptively appealing these paths or philosophies are? They inform us that basically everything is right, no matter how harmful, immoral or ridiculous. They tell us if we don't want to do it or believe it or support it, then don't, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Is there any wonder why so many people are confused about almost everything, unable to say what's right or wrong?

But God, who is Truth, knows what's best for mankind. After all, He created us, so it stands to reason that He knows what's best for us. If you doubt that this is true, it doesn't matter, He still wants what's best for you because He loves you. That's why He's given us something to point us in the right direction. It's our conscience, that innate sense I mentioned earlier. In times like this, you can't afford to ignore it. But if you want more than a sense of right and wrong in these times of blurred values, if you want peace in the midst of all the madness, you can actually have a personal relationship with God, and it begins the moment you accept of His son Jesus as your savior.

John 3:16

News Round Up: Smooth Sailing for Democratics, Transgender Bathrooms, Former Trans Has Regrets

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Thu, 19 May 2016 13:43:00 -0500

Some thoughts on recent stories that grabbed my (our) attention:

So much for smooth sailing to the Democratic convention

When the 2016 presidential campaign began, many political prognosticators predicted that democrats would have smooth sailing on their way to the convention while republican candidates would still be scratching and clawing right up to the convention. With 17 republican candidates, the pundits giddily told us that the entire republican process would be mired in utter chaos, and at best they could only hope to hold the party together. In stark contrast, they predicted that democrats (they had a field of six candidates) would politely step aside to make way for Hillary to graciously accept the nomination.

Although republicans have certainly had a rough and tumble time, there is only one remaining candidate. And as the convention approaches, it increasingly appears that republicans will coalesce around Trump. As for the smooth sailing that the democrats are enjoying, well...take a look at what happend Saturday in Las Vegas at the state convention.

Transgender Bathrooms

First things first, how did this even become a national issue, let alone one involving the United States Department of Justice and every public school in the country? It was the handiwork of President Obama who has a knack for making straw man arguments, which of course are logical fallacies (they make no sense). In fact, he's a master at it. With the help of the Justice Department, here's how he did it: He said that transgender students should be afforded the same protections as everyone else and should be allowed to use the bathroom that serves the sex they choose to be. The Justice Department, Attorney General Loretta Lynch in particular, likened refusal to allow transgendered students to use the washroom of their choosing, to Jim Crow laws. Those statements effectively position anyone that disagrees with transgender students being able to use the bathroom of their choosing, as hateful and in support of Jim Crow-like laws. Those opposing the issue are then forced to defend themselves instead of explaining their position on the issue. This is why we keep hearing a stream of people saying things like "I don't hate anyone" "I'm not transphobic" "I don't believe in bigotry". The opponents are now on the defensive. Their arguments are suppressed because now, they've been sucked into a debate on who supports fairness and who doesn't. And in the public arena, they will ultimately lose because no one likes a bigot. It's classic.

But I'm not going to chew on Obama's straw man arugment. The president's solution and indeed threats, since he's also promising to withhold much needed federal funding from schools that don't comply with his directive, is simply bizarre. According to every source that I can find, trangender people make up 0.3 percent of the US population, or roughly 956,700 people. When it comes to hard data for the number of transgender children, it's nearly impossible to find. But according to several polls, their numbers appear to be around 2%, so we're talking about roughly 15,135 children in the nation that identify as transgender. My question is where do so-called trans students currently use the restroom during school hours? My guess is that they either go to the teacher's lounge or to another restroom identified by school officials for their use, some. Which is the most rational approach to this matter.

By the way, President Obama also has ordered the schools to not ask for a doctor's statement or a birth certificate from the transgender students. So you can see where this is going can't you? Here we go again, President Obama upends another traditional norm. Boy, he wasn't lying when he said that he was going to transform America.

The Transgenders You Won't Hear About

I'm sure you're aware that not everyone that decides to become transgendered is happy with that decision. Of course, if you only rely on the news and entertainment media you might think that was the case. But check out Walter Heyer's blog, Sex Change Regret, it offers another perspective from someone that was once transgender (and the stories of others). He's also written a piece on Obama's transgender bathroom directive.

Dennis Hastert, A Powerful, Privileged Child Molester

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Wed, 11 May 2016 13:50:00 -0500

I've decided to finish this post, but I must tell you, the Hastert case made me sick. Just looking at this pedophile being rolled around in his wheelchair wanting sympathy, angered me. I was hoping the judge would announce that he'd just discovered a little-used law and would use it to sentence Hastert to life in prison. Unfortunately, Hastert escaped his due punishment for violating those young men and damaging their lives, and will only pay for his financial crime. Shame. But here's what I wrote on the day he was sentenced.

I'm too disgusted to write at length about former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's case, but I have to put on paper how nauseated I am just watching this pervert on television. Judge Thomas M. Durkin has just sentenced Hastert to 15 months in prison for illegally structuring bank transactions to cover up his dastardly deeds with a former member of the high school wrestling team he coached years ago.

I can only imagine how they must have felt when their coach would pretend to be a humble servant, selflessly committed to guiding the young men on his team when parents and school officials would sing his praise. His victims knew the truth. They knew that he was a twisted, evil man that saw them as sexual prey. They knew that he was a deceiver, but more importantly, they knew the shame of being a teenage boy, an athlete no less, that was being sexually abused. And they also knew what the consequences would be for telling anyone about the beloved Hastert's dirty secrets.

It all seems so unfair. Hastert went on to enjoy many years of power, privilege, and prestige in politics, while his victims suffered greatly, mostly in silence. Can you imagine what they were thinking when Hastert, then a member of the Illinois House spearheaded legislation to combat child abuse? It certainly had to be crushing to watch Hastert's meteoric ascent to power, and his basking in the limelight while enjoying the respect of millions of Americans, knowing that he should have been in jail.

It's all hindsight now, but parents, teachers and others have an obligation to watch for signs that a child molester is in their midst. I pay special attention to any adult that makes themselves available to spending time alone with a child or teen. If that person is in a position of authority or trust, I watch them even closer. Yes I know, that most people that offer to help a child, be it tutoring, coaching, mentoring or what have you, don't have ulterior motives, but the stakes are too high to give anyone a pass.

Curt Schilling and Andrew Shaw...A Terrible Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:06:00 -0500

I guess I'll call it Terrible Tuesday since it was a couple of days ago when a comment and a social media post by two high-profile sports figures resulted in a $5000 fine, mandatory sensitivity training and the issuance of a public apology from one and the loss of a dream job for the other. For lots of people, these incidents are further proof of rampant homophobia in the world of sports. I don't see it that way. Granted, there may very well be rampant so-called homophobia (so-called because increasingly it seems that if you don't agree with or support the lifestyle, you're a hater and that's just ridiculous) in the world of sports, but neither of these incidents qualifies as proof.

Incident 1:

Chicago Blackhawk forward Andrew Shaw upset over a call during Tuesday's game against the Blues (the Hawks lost), flipped double birds at officials. Then while cooling in the penalty box, began a profanity-laced rant that included the double "f" slur. Players often lose their cool on the ice, but it's the fact that Shaw's use of the f-word (not that one, the other one) was captured on video that set things in motion. Does anyone really believe that Shaw, angry about being penalized, decided to seize the opportunity to express hatred for homosexuals? Or is it more likely that he was ticked-off about the call and was ranting? Of course, it was the latter. Having said that, I understand the NHL's position. If they have rules regarding this kind of behavior, then so be it, he must pay the price for his actions. Personally, I think that professional athletes should be more cognizant of their actions in general since so many youngsters are in their fanbase. But the idea that he was fostering an anti-gay atmosphere is just silly.

Incident 2:

ESPN baseball analyst, Curt Schilling was fired on Wednesday for posting a comment about a meme that someone else had posted regarding the big social issue of the day--transsexuals having the right to use the restroom of their choice. This is the meme that was posted by Facebook user Autumn Williams II:

And this is what Schilling posted:

"A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don't care what they are, who they sleep with, men's room was designed for the penis, women's not so much. Now you need laws to tell us differently? Pathetic."

And for this Schilling is being called homophobic? He's entitled to his opinion, and frankly, I agree with him. I was reading several stories about this incident and a number of writers pointed to a tweet made by Schilling several months ago where he compared extremist Muslims to Nazis and included a picture of Hitler. That's right, he said extremist, not Muslims in general, and for this, he's been labeled a racist. I guess all mass murders being carried out in the Middle East, and the terrorist activity (including murder) being committed across the globe in the name of Islam should be described as acts of disgruntlement...maybe people would feel more comfortable with that description.

Schilling has made himself an easy target because he proudly identifies as pro-life, pro-second amendment, Christian, and proud American. Clearly, we as a society are losing our moral compass, along with our minds and inevitably we will pay a heavy price for being fearful of speaking the truth and for defending the indefensible.

Lastly, if these students represent our future, we're in serious trouble.

Random Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:00 -0500

A few thought on items I came across recently...

FBI Hires Hackers to Crack San Bernadino Terrorist's iPhone

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why the feds didn't do this in the first place. It's not a novel idea. Banks have been doing this for years, and businesses in other industries have too. In fact, Uber recently promoted a "contest" for hackers to find flaws in the company's computer and communications systems.

So when the feds (and the courts) kept pressuring Apple to create backdoor access to the iPhone 5C, I was hoping that the company would stand its' ground. Don't get me wrong, I definitely want the
government to access Syed Farook's phone, but it just didn't sit well with me that the government wanted Apple to create a new software tool that would eliminate specific security tools that the company built into its software to protect the personal data of their customers. Besides, today, cyber-terrorism is a major issue, even the FBI's director's email has been hacked. So it seems to me that it's high time the government puts together its own team of highly-skilled hackers to deal specifically with terrorist activity. Of course, the utmost scrutiny would be required in selecting the hackers, but I'm quite certain the FBI is up to the job.

Taxpayers pay $200,000 for therapy for "Affluenza Teen"

Now let me get this straight...In 2013, Ethan Couch killed four people and injured several others while driving drunk when he was 16-years old. His attorney argued that Couch's wealthy parents had coddled him so much that he didn't understand the consequences of his actions, that he was basically raised to be irresponsible ("affluenza") and therefore he shouldn't go to prison. The judge apparently found merit in that argument and sentenced Couch in juvenile court to 10 years probation and time in a treatment facility. Of course serving time in a treatment facility would have amounted to Couch being held responsible for his actions (at least a little bit) so quite naturally he fled the country.

This story is still unfolding, the legal portion that is, but the thing that gets me is that Couch's defense is that he was too wealthy to know better than to drink and drive, yet his parents are too poor to pay for his stint at rehab. I was raised that you don't count other people's money, but come on now. According to published reports, the father owns Cleburne Metal Works, which does large-scale metal roofing, with estimated annual sales of $9.59 million (according to Hoovers). The company has 40 employees, business costs, taxes, insurances, and so forth, so who knows how much the make in profit. But whatever it is, it shouldn't matter. Couch's parents could teach him an important lesson by paying for their son's treatment even if it hurts financially instead of burdening the taxpayers with the $200,000 tab. Showing their son what responsibility looks like now may seem a little late, but hey, better late than never.

More Fun on the Radio

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Mon, 4 Apr 2016 23:42:00 -0500

I'll be filling-in this week on WIND alongside Bruce Wolf, while the regular hosts Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson are away in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Today was a lot of fun, and I expect tomorrow to be even better. Please join us.

You can listen to the show in the Chicago area on 560 AM, from 5am-9am (CST) or online at http://www.560theanswer.com/.

Random Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah’s World) — Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:12:00 -0600

Here are my thoughts on a few things in the news...

Chicago State University
Budgetary issues may force the closing of CSU. It's not the only public institution of higher education in the state that is dealing with budget issues, but CSU's situation is by far the worse. This is mainly due to the school's higher reliance on state funding. The political side of this story is the impasse between Gov. Bruce Rauner and House Speaker Michael Madigan. Eventually, the budget issue will be resolved. When that will be, who can say? But the other side of this story concerns academics. I have read numerous articles about the sad state of affairs at CSU, including the unacceptably high dropout rate. A search on the internet for student reviews of the school returns a mix of lackluster comments about the CSU experience.

Once this budget problem is fixed, the next big task will be to fix the academic standards and operations of this school. I realize that even suggesting that CSU needs lots of improvement is offensive to some because a good many people feel that since the school is located on the south side of Chicago and has a predominately black student body, we should just be happy that it exists. My question is, why can't CSU have the same (or better) standards than the rest of the public colleges and universities in Illinois? To do nothing about CSU means that the students will continue to face the low standards and low expectations that many endured in Chicago's public elementary and high schools.

Bernie Implies That All Blacks Are Poor
If I had to describe Sen. Bernie Sanders in two words or less, it would be "typical liberal." I can't count the number of times that a "well-meaning" liberal has said the most condescending thing imaginable. A former co-worker and big-time, well-known lib passionately argued that it's understandable why young black people are criminals (huh?). He said it's because the system is stacked against them so they can't get jobs, but need to feed their children. He said that as far as he's concerned they have every right to steal. I wish, that I was making this up, but I promise you that I'm not.

Another time I was at a business meeting when one of the two men that was looking to hire me for some public relations work, said that we need to keep affirmative action in place, otherwise blacks couldn't go to college (huh?).

These are but two examples, but when you consider the policies and rhetoric of liberals (I'm speaking specifically of white liberals), it's is crystal clear that they are very paternalistic and see blacks as inferior, if not child-like.

I almost forgot about Vice President Joe Biden's (then presidential candidate) giving a complimentary description of then-Senator Barack Obama. Biden said, "I mean, you got the first, sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook man." And this was a compliment! The thing is, Biden didn't see anything wrong with what he said because it wasn't until later (after he talked with his advisors I'm sure) that he began soft-peddling his comments. Can you imagine what would have happened if a republican had said that?

So it really didn't surprise me when presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, in responding to a question about the racial blind spot during a debate on CNN, said, "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto, you don't know what it's like to be poor." The implication being that all blacks are poor, or the only poor people are black. Either way, Sanders, like so many other libs (or socialists), don't see the diversity of black people (ironic, I know). They really believe that these pitiful, poor people (blacks) need a smart, big-hearted white person to protect them, feed them, guide them and do all of the other things a good parent does.

Man Steals $196k....In Quarters!

Here's the story. I guess he had lots of laundry to do.