Those Lying Journalists

  

 By Florida Bill

             At a recent rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., the always pugilistic Donald Trump leveled an upper cut at reporters characterizing them as "lying, disgusting journalists." Trump added that Russian President Putin has been accused of killing them, but "I would never kill them." (Just in case anybody was worried.) He then singled out two New York Times reporters and NBC's Chuck Todd, as prevaricators.

                    Members of the media, by and large those on the more liberal side,  screamed foul.  How dare he accuse reporters of lying?  Like scurrilous attacks on Mexican illegal immigrants; it's just more wild and outrageous comments by a  carnival barker.  People will not stand for that kind of talk.  He is the liar, not the newsmen.   

                     Of course it is not always the news person to blame for less than perfect truths during these elections months. During political races, there is no question that candidates exaggerate and advance theories, conclusions and solutions to America's problems which are pretty far south of the truth.  Examples of that are easy to find. Trump told of seeing "thousands"of New Jersey Muslims celebrating as the Twin towers went down. Not altogether false, but perhaps quite a bit of an exaggeration as to the number. Remember  Hillary Clinton's emotional recounting of how she ducked bullets when, as First Lady, she landed in Bosnia for a visit. That was complete baloney, and she later admitted as such.                            But do the media's talking heads and reporters covering these events actually lie?  Trump says they do. 

                     The question is, as Bill Clinton might observe, "Just what is a lie?"

                      A genuine lie, I believe, is premeditated; a statement with knowledge and intent.  So for the most part, with some exceptions, reporters do not really lie. What they do, and it is done all the time, is color their reports and make their stories more appealing both to the gullible public, but perhaps most of all to their bosses and editors.  Good stories can mean greater recognition for the reporter and a higher pay grade.   When called out for a "lie," they can argue that what they said was what they believed the accurate truth to be. Sometimes when they deliver a report wide of the  mark, they plead that it was accidental, although most of the time reporters who fudge on the truth are never put into a position to explain the deviation. 

                       In one-on-one interviews, reporters make notes and then return to their office to compose a story, and using their poetic license, make direct quotes more lively or more emotional; maybe even more accusatory of a government official. When a point is not completely clear, and their scribbled notes are lacking, they often become creative and simply fill in the blanks.  If the story appears and generates a complaint as to an inaccuracy, the reporter and his editors simply "stand by the story" and that is the end of the matter. When a tape recorder is available to show there is an error on the part of the reporter, a "clarification" or "correction" is usually published . Recording devices are much more prevalent today than in years past.  The situation seems similar to police officers wearing cameras when making arrests or using force in the arrests. A little bit of a technological backup to make sure the truth bubbles to the surface.    
                   Enhancing quotes might take the form of injecting tear-jerking pathos.  Just yesterday, in a story of an accidental shooting of a grandmother in Chicago by a policeman, it was reported that a cousin told a Tribune reporter in an interview: "I want this investigation to be thorough.  I want answers. Her blood is crying out from the grave saying, Evelyn, avenge me."  I am sure that the editor liked that quote.  Do you believe that quote was fabricated?  I sure do, but so what?

                     Public officials are for the most part "fair game" and by now should be used to putting up with some "misquotes" here and there.  Defamation and libel laws are all but impossible to litigate when the person allegedly defamed is a public official.  To succeed in a case of libel against a newsman, the libeled official must be able to demonstrate that the news person published false facts and that it was done with malice, in that he knew or should have known the facts were false; an almost impossible burden. 

                      The fact is that newscasters and reporters have a lot of leeway in what they can say about any candidate without worrying about landing in court. But then candidates can rant and rave over anything and promise to make things better and exaggerate and denounce with almost complete impunity as well.  Anybody who expects to see 100 percent truth and accuracy in political reporting is a bit of an optimist.

                       Years ago in Chicago--and my reporters friends will certainly remember this-- the Chicago Daily News and then the Chicago Tribune broke ground in the early 1970's by announcing new efforts to promote accuracy and fairness in news stories.  In the Daily News, as I recall, it was designated the paper's "Bureau of Fairness and Accuracy" and readers were invited to contact the paper with their complaints of errors.

                    The Tribune called it "Clarifications and Corrections."   The Chicago's American and the Chicago Sun Times, also dailies, created similar departments.

                        The complaints and gripes and demands for corrections, etc., came fast and furious.  The papers had to assign full time editors to supervise the "rollbacks" as they were called.  Were the inaccuracies  "outright prevarications," or just screw-ups, misunderstandings or even examples of lazy reporting?

                       Soon it became clear that newspapers got their faces pushed into the fact that mistakes and inaccuracies and misquotes were rampant in their pages, but to the dedicated reader of the corrections columns, it should have been clear that the errors were almost always just an unfortunate part of publishing daily newspapers and presenting the news electronically.

                          I remember one of the Daily News' first corrections and I guess it made the point that the paper wanted to be perfectly accurate, but for the most part, it was sort of silly.  That one read:   "In its Oct. 23 editions, The Daily News incorrectly identified as limestone, a section of facing on the building at 23 W. Madison that fell and killed a woman walking on the sidewalk.  The material was terra-cotta."   In another in that paper,  a story referred to Iran as one of a number of "Arab Oil Countries."  The paper then pointed out that it was mistaken and that "Iranians are not Arabs."

                        The very conservative Chicago Tribune, where I was a reporter and an editor for 25 years, was the city's biggest seller and of course got hit with plenty of requests for corrections.   In one story  the paper reported that a Stanton Friedman of California, and his wife, had claimed to have been aboard an alien spacecraft.  Friedman , a nuclear physicist, space scientist and lecturer on UFOS, was livid and demanded clarification.  The Trib admitted its faux pas and said in its correction that Mr. Friedman and his wife advise that they have never been in or have ever seen a flying saucer. "The Tribune regrets the error" was the paper's sign off. That was kind of a doozie, but it is hard to believe any reporter would have risked his reputation to intentionally lie about something so easily refuted.  
                         And politicians jumped on the "Corrections and Clarifications" trend, since as public figures they had no where else to turn for clarifications.  It could be embarrassing,  as it was to Donald Rumsfeld, chief of staff to President Ford.  In a profile written by Washington correspondent Aldo Beckman, Rumsfeld was quoted as saying that his six years as a congressman had been a "big bore." Rumsfeld denied ever panning work as a congressman and explained in a clarification that he has always had a great respect for Congress and took pride in the privilege of serving there. 

                         Of course, there have been incidents of reporters from major papers caught fabricating stories, and some of the stories actually won the authors huge acclaim and awards, before they were uncovered as liars and fired.  Recently a Rolling Stones reporter told the story of a campus rape victim which turned out to be fiction.  These out-and-out fabrications are lies, but they really are the exception. Newspapers and television stations do not look kindly on such behavior.   Plagiarism is another journalistic sin that shows up every so often among columnists and other writers.  When discovered, those scriveners are usually fired as well. 

                          Yes, there is fudging and shading of the truth and more than a little exaggerating and even honest misunderstandings that go into creating "accidental" untruths. And of course, sometimes the interviewed person finds his or her  accurate quotes embarrassing in the cold hard light of day, or when they provoke an unanticipated public reaction. It is always easier to call the media liars than explain what you really meant to say.                       In America there is a Constitution and a First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press and that sometimes means taking the good along with the corrections and clarifications. 

                               

                                          xxx

                      

Reverend Al

     By Florida Bill

          Here in South Florida, in this land of sunshine and tropical storms, it is not unusual to run into a serpent here or there. The most frequent of these encounters is typically with a common black snake, which can startle most people with its size and quickness.  Though these nasty looking reptiles are essentially harmless, backyard encounters are usually unwelcome and almost always unnerving. Nobody likes to come face to face with any critter with its body coiled in anger and its tongue darting.

           The bothersome presence of these Florida reptiles remind me of that New York hisser, Al Sharpton.  However, over the years, Sharpton has come to be more like the rapacious python  that is ravaging the Everglades than the harmless garter snake popping up in backyards. Like the invasive Florida snake, Sharpton moves stealthily about with his jaw unhinged, threatening to squeeze the reputation out of anyone who gets in his way. And like his counterpart in the Florida landscape, Sharpton is amazingly hard to get rid of. And, like other snakes in the grass, he typically leaves fear, anxiety and bedlam in his wake.  

            Sharpton, who likes to be known as “the reverend” maintains that he is a Baptist or evangelical minister who was ordained when he was just 4-years-old by a trusted Bishop Washington, who he apparently met on the sidewalks of New York.   Sharpton maintains that he preached his first sermon during his kindergarten years, and that he has been passing out his advice and counsel ever since, primarily to those men and women who claim abuse and discrimination against them by Caucasians, who are usually policemen.  But occasionally,  he provides his wisdom and counsel to President Obama  in the plush setting of the White House.   

              During his real heyday, Mr. Sharpton weighed in at more than 300 pounds, though nowadays he hits the scales at about 140.  Sharpton used to be seen often in an African garb as he waved a fist in one hand and a bull horn in the other. Nowadays you will find him, shriveled looking in a neat business suit, sometimes on a television screen, but still screaming about racial discrimination, which he finds under almost any rock or anywhere an angry crowd is assembled.

            Sharpton has been especially visible as a promoter of the “Black Lives Matter”  movement. Of course, he is generally silent when policemen are gunned down, but was right in there as one of the lead rabble rousers in Ferguson, Mo,. when a white police officer shot a black criminal who had attacked him. In every subsequent conflict between police and African Americans, Sharpton has quickly arrived on the scene to make sure there is abundant news coverage and community outrage.

       “Do I think Al Sharpton is a legitimate civil rights activist? Are you out of your mind?” said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. “Are you living on Mars? If you can’t figure out Al Sharpton is a con man, you’re not a reporter. 

“Al Sharpton stands for something,” he went on.  “He is involved in every racial or quasi-racial issue that has involved any police officer … always on the side of whoever is against the police. Some of them have been legitimate, many of them have been illegitimate. We’re talking about a man with a record that is astoundingly outrageous, a man who was a tax cheat, a liar … who has made allegations against police officers constantly.”

Sharpton got his start in the l980s in New York when he, along with two lawyers, accused a policeman and a prosecutor of  the rape and abduction of a 15-year-old African American girl, Tawana Brawley.  After six months of an intense grand jury investigation, the story was proven to be a hoax and subsequently defamation lawsuits were filed against  Sharpton, the alleged victim and two other lawyers, by the police officer and significant awards  were entered against the defendants.   But nonetheless, Sharpton’s reputation as a police-hating activist became nationally known and his presence was a given at protests in which police or others were accused of racial animus.

             With his antics and activist personna, Sharpton’s wealth has grown and he is said to be worth many millions of dollars. Through the years he has been sued many times, and reportedly numerous judgments and liens have been filed against him.

He says that claims he is in debt to the IRS to the tune of nearly $4 million are exaggerated, and that he has already worked out a repayment plan with the government for whatever amount it is that he has failed to pay.  

Though sometimes characterized as a race hustler and a tax cheat, Sharpton appears to have become a close advisor and friend of President Obama.  Records indicate that he has visited the White House some 80 times since Obama’s election in 2009.  Giuliani has said he believes the anti-police sentiment sweeping much of the African American community has been given legitimacy by the portrayal of Sharpton as a confidant of President Obama on the issue of race relations. Perhaps this close association with the chief executive has also contributed to giving the nation’s top race activist a Teflon coating of protection and an air of importance.

  Several years ago, the snake was uncoiled on NBC television and given his own talk show, reportedly earning him millions, which allowed him to hiss about his theories of police discrimination and expound on the doctrines of Obama.   

When Obama ran for president, he promised the American people that he would be a uniter, not a divider; that he would bring harmony to the enmity that exists between many whites and African Americans.

 Yet racial tensions are higher today than at any time in the recent past. Perhaps the President of the United States should reconsider his friendship and admiration for the man who is so anxious to slither onto center stage at every racial confrontation in America today.

This Is Hillary

  By Florida Bill

         I find it amazing that Hillary Clinton, who has accumulated enough baggage to fill an ocean liner after 40 years of deceiving the public--and apparently the media--is still able to get away with it.  

          As First Lady of Arkansas and in Washington, she busied herself trying to keep track of her husband's bimbo eruptions, and in her free time dabbled in Whitewater real estate in Arkansas and investing in the commodities market.  In the latter 1970's, she invested $1,000 in "cattle futures" and in ten months saw a  return of $100,000.  There was much speculation about Clinton's windfall, but never any official investigation.  

         There was nothing of note of her activities as a  New York senator, other than walking in as an anointed  Democrat with little opposition.  As Secretary of State under President Obama, Mrs. Clinton contributed to America's downgrading in the eyes of other nations, and she was out front supporting her boss as he ordered the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq allowing ISIS to take top spot as an entity of terror.  

          From her early days as a graduate of Yale law school, she has distinguished herself for being less than honest in many of her dealings.
         In 1973, as a 27-year-old staff attorney on a Watergate committee, she was castigated and fired by the chief counsel Jerry Zeifman, for dishonesty and lying in the preparation of a legal brief.   In an interview, Zeifman, a Democrat, said that Clinton "was a liar..an unethical, dishonest lawyer. " She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of committee and the rules of confidentiality," he said.
        As First Lady in the Bill Clinton White House, she gained a reputation for fudging answers  when investigations arose.  There was Travelgate,Whitewater real estate and the Vince Foster Investigations and there was always speculation that she was not telling the complete truth as to what and when she knew of the Monica Lewinski dalliances with her husband.  In 1995, while speaking at a breakfast, she told of a 1975 attempt to enlist in the Marines, but was turned away because she was too old for the military.  That story has left fact checkers with scepticism, wondering about her compulsion to enhance her special credentials. The late New York Times columnist William Safire once branded her as a "congenital liar."             

           In boasting of her travel and demeanor as First Lady, she once claimed that in 1996 she and her daughter, Chelsea, were set upon with sniper fire after landing in Bosnia. With humility while a candidate for President in 2008, she told of escaping without injury as she recounted the story of her bravery during an interview.  However, films later surfaced showing that she and Chelsea arrived in Bosnia amid smiles hugs and handshakes, and no gunfire.  Clinton acknowledged that the story was a lie, characterizing the episode as a "mistake." (Brian Williams paid a much higher price for his "mistaken" helicopter attack.)
              She also told the story of how Chelsea was jogging in the vicinity of the twin towers on that fateful day of the 9/11 attack.  She was shaken but escaped injury, said a thankful Clinton.  Later it was determined that Chelsea was in her apartment at home watching TV when the attack occurred. And in another little fib, Clinton told of how she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the New Zealand mountaineer who was the first to climb Mt Everest.  She later acknowledged this was a  mistake since Sir Edmund climbed the mountain six years after her birth.  
               Now, in her second run for the world's most powerful office, she is trying to double-talk her way clear of criticism about how she handled her email accounts as Secretary of State.  Her stories keep changing.  She should have followed her mother's long ago admonition that "if you tell the truth you won't need a good memory."  Even her faithful boot-licking members of the media are finding it difficult to maintain the spin of what a great lady she is.
            The Benghazi attack has again found Clinton jiggling explanations about what she did both before and subsequent to the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya.  Clinton acknowledges that the security at the compound was grossly inadequate, but she says she delegated security matters to experts under her and the slain ambassador's repeated requests, in emails, for more security, were never brought to her attention.
            After the attack, Clinton told associates and leaders of other nations and her daughter in a communication that the compound had been hit by Al Qaeda terrorists.  Nevertheless, for more than a week, she made public statements that  the attack and slaying of four Americans, including the ambassador who she described as her "friend," was a spontaneous crowd reaction to an internet video criticizing the Prophet Mohammad.  She told this same untruth to members of the families of the Americans killed on the compound.   She lied about the episode in order to assist Barack Obama's re-election claims that his leadership had brought terrorists to their knees, and that Al Qaeda was on the run.  Her dishonesty and double talk were abundantly clear in her testimony before the House committee investigating the attack on the embassy. 

            According to polls, Clinton leads by a large margin in the campaign to become her party's standard bearer in the 2016 election.  Nevertheless, surveys report that some 65 percent of Americans question her truthfulness and integrity, yet the Main Street media continues to treat her as the female Messiah destined to succeed another master liar, Barack Obama.  (Remember his assurances about Obamacare:  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.")
            It has become alarmingly apparent that Clinton will lie whenever she feels the necessity to do so.  She has been telling whoppers throughout her life and has always gotten away with it.  She wears a smug look and appears confident that she has earned the right to become America's 45th President. Will her track record of double talk and lies eventually do her in?

                                             xxx        

The Curious Case of Bowe Bergdahl

                    By Florida Bill

                                 He wanted to be a soldier and to serve his country, so he enlisted in the U.S. Army and was deployed to the Middle East.  But he grew discontent, and then, in June, 2009, he walked away from an outpost in the mountains of Afghanistan and landed, either by surrender or capture, in the custody of the Taliban, sworn enemies of the United States. 
                                 The  soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, left his camp and his buddies in the still of night and his exit marked the beginning of a controversy which seeks a final resolution through a general court-martial, the army equivalency of a felony trial. He is accused of desertion and of misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place. 
                                 The Taliban allowed Bergdahl to return to U.S forces in exchange for America releasing five high command  terrorists held in Guantanamo prison  in Cuba.  The exchange, approved by President Obama without input from Congress, came five years after Bergdahl's disappearance from his outpost, and President Obama was joined by the soldier's parents in celebrating his release in a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House.  
                                  In the ceremony,  Bergdahl's heavily-bearded father, spoke in Arabic praising Allah and asking for his blessing. President Obama reacted by laying his hand in silent approval on his shoulder. Shortly thereafter, Obama's  National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, appeared on network television and lauded Sgt. Bergdahl by telling Americans the fiction that the non- commissioned officer had served his country "with distinction." This, of course, was a bold-faced lie.
                                 Soldiers who had served with Bergdahl in the outpost in Afghanistan reacted in anger not only to the swapping of terrorists for Bergdahl, without involving Congress, in violation of federal law, but also to Obama's public praise of an apparent deserter. They denounced the fiction being propagated.  One soldier interviewed said that he actually liked Bergdahl, but his friend deserted and must be held accountable. 
                               After an unusually long investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's leaving his post during war, and despite the positive public relations spin promulgated by the President, it was announced in December, 2015, that Sgt. Bergdahl would be tried in a general court-martial pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  If adjudged guilty of desertion, he would face a penalty of five years in prison.  If guilty of misbehavior before the enemy, he could be sentenced to life in prison.  Sgt. Bergdahl was arraigned on Dec. 22 and the presiding officer, a general, scheduled the trial to begin next year.  
                               Adding to the controversy was the revelation that President Obama had been advised way back in 2009, when Bergdahl walked off his post, that it had all the markings of a case of desertion.  Nevertheless, he promoted the Rose Garden spin session and gave his imprimatur to Rice's TV fantasy.
                                Bergdahl's father, John, said that like his son he has been studying the pashto arabic language and during the ceremony he quoted special language from the Quran praising Allah the most wonderful.  He said later that Bowe had learned Arabic during his five years held by the Taliban and that his son was having difficulty speaking his native English.  
                 Sgt. Bergdahl's court marshal will be held before a military judge, or a jury, as requested by the defendant, at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.  Evidence appears to be heavily against Bergdahl, but his defense and explanation for abandoning his post and his behavior during five years with the Islamic radical Taliban, have not yet been told.  Unlike conditions under the Taliban, in accord with Sharia law, the soldier is presumed innocent and is given the opportunity to offer his defense with witnesses.   Meanwhile, awaiting next year's trial, Bergdahl is assigned to an army base in Texas. 
                 President Obama has said that he "makes no apologies" for bringing the soldier home. We agree with the President that this is America's duty, despite the conditions and circumstances of how he was captured by the enemy. However, the deal negotiated by Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was a bad one and has been severely criticized by critics who say that Obama simply caved into terrorists during controversial negotiations with America's sworn enemy. 
                 There also is the contention that the President disregarded a statute which he himself signed into law in 2013 which obligated the President to notify Congress 30 days in advance of releasing anyone from Guantanamo. There are threats by Republican congressmen to seek impeachment of the President because of his disregard of this law.  Administration supporters argue, however that the President as Commander-in-Chief needed to act quickly and he had the authority to do as he did.  It is unlikely that impeachment legislation will ever go beyond non-stop threats over this and other similar Obama acts which fire up  political opposition. 
               Obama has pledged that he would close the prison in Cuba because he believes that it inspires hate against the United States and helps in the enemy's recruitment efforts. The Bergdahl exchange appears to be a step in line with the President's goal, which was a promise he made during his first campaign for President. But aside from the Bergdahl exchange deal, detainee releases have generated significant recidivism.  The president has glossed over the recidivist rate, terming it "just a handful."  But Obama has been less than honest in this matter as has been pointed out by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.  A review by the magazine has revealed that of some 605 detainees released, nearly 200 have resumed their place as active terrorists, hell-bent on killing Americans. 
                Records show that the army has prosecuted about 1,900 cases of desertion since 2001.  More than half of the defendants pleaded guilty.  Seventy-eight were tried and convicted. 
               But only one accused deserter, Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal, has the distinction of being honored at a White House ceremony upon his return to his homeland.
                                                         

Trump's Solution

                   
         By Florida Bill
                 

                                      The San Bernadino slayings by a radicalized Muslim couple has mired America in a dilemma: of what to do about the threat posed by Islamic extremists walking the streets of America, and of those attempting to enter.   Sympathy and prayers for the victims of Muslim savagery are a necessity, of course.  But more is needed, and the fiery Donald Trump is offering his take with an extra ingredient.

                    To the consternation of  the liberal media, along with Democrats and even some Republicans, the 69-year-old billionaire Republican candidate is calling for a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States as a way to stop potential Islamic-inspired violence.  And, while not all Muslims endorse a violent jihad, says Trump, there are enough of them around to necessitate more than the ho-hum attitude of President Obama and and his Democratic lackeys.  

                     Just as when Trump aimed his guns at illegal immigrants, his solution for Muslim extremism is generating a firestorm, and he is being labeled "anti- American" and "anti-religious."  He has been called an Islamophobe, a racist and, well, you name it--he has been called that too. A Saudi Arabian Muslim Prince said Trump was a "disgrace" and should withdraw.   "Bluster and bigotry," charged Hillary Clinton. Other Republican presidential candidates are piling on, seeing his comments as their chance to denigrate him and to step forward in popularity with potential voters.   His position is "abhorrent," said former Florida governor Jeb Bush.  "Tell him to go to hell," said Sen. Lindsey Graham. 

                     President Obama got into the fray also as his press secretary, Josh Earnest,  castigated Trump for his anti-religious views and pronounced him "unfit to be in the Oval office."  Of Obama, Trump responded, "I just don’t think he knows what he’s doing. I think it’s gotten to a point where it’s embarrassing. He’s over there talking about global warming as our biggest problem. They want to blow up our country. They want to blow up our cities. They want to knock down our buildings, and he’s worried about global warming."  Trump's assessment of Obama has been endorsed by conservative analyst  Glenn Beck, who seldom holds back. Obama is either "delusional, or the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet," he said. 
                      The controversy over Muslims was ignited in early December when Syed Rizwan Farook, an American citizen, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, burst into a San Bernardino holiday party and and began firing assault rifles into a group of  county co-workers. They killed 14 persons and wounded 22 others. Their assault came shortly after they used social media to pledge allegiance to ISIS, the most radical Islamic terrorists in the world.  Farook and Malik were killed  by police as they attempted to escape, and in follow-up investigations, rifles, handguns, ammunition and pipe bombs were found in both their auto and in their home, which they shared with Farook's mother and father. 
                       The FBI said that the pair had been radicalized for several years and apparently were plotting further attacks and bombings, and were in contact with other radicals who shared their Islamic beliefs that infidels must convert to Islam or die.  A global caliphate is the goal which they believed was set forth for them in the Quran.  The FBI has said that the San Bernardino carnage constituted the worst act of terrorism inside the United States since the 9-11 attack in New York in which nearly 3,000 Americans were killed.                

                        The California shooting drew national and international attention and the President spoke on television and suggested that "gun control" might be something which could be done to stave off violence. But he offered no strategy to defeat terrorists, or to excise any Muslim extremism believed to be followed by an undetermined number of Muslims in the United States.  One commentator characterized Obama in his televised speech from the White House as a "pussy," ignoring Islamic threats; and another woman commentator said that Obama acted as though he did not give a s--- about what was happening.  Fox News disciplined both analysts for their inappropriate language.
                         To many Americans,  President Obama has been weak in in his aggression toward ISIS, a group which has decapitated Americans on television and boasted of its deeds.   Obama's response to homegrown terrorism and to that  in Syria, is too little and too late, and he has antagonized conservatives and others by endorsing easy admission for thousands of refugees onto American land without serious vetting and examination.   Millions of Americans reject Obama's loose rules for admission of the refugees, 99 per cent of whom are Muslims.   Governors of a good many states have said refugees lacking background checks are not welcome to their state.
                 In reference to Muslim admission, Trump said there are fanatical Muslims inside an otherwise peaceful religion, and that is a problem.  In announcing his plan to shut the door on all incoming Muslims until the problem can be understood and "until we know what is going on," he pointed to a recent Pew poll which reported that there are approximately 2,750,000 Muslims residing in the USA.  Of that number, researchers found that 25 per cent agree that violence against America is justifiable as necessary in a global jihad; and that 51 per cent of Muslims living in America believe that Muslims have the right to decide if they wish to answer to Sharia law, rather than American law. Another 29 per cent of those asked asserted that violence is acceptable against anyone who insults the Prophet Mohammad.
                  President Obama has been consistent in his refusal to recognize that there is a part of Islam which has become radical in its pursuit of a global caliphate, killing anyone who does not follow the teachings of the Quran.  The president argues that there is a "minuscule" number of individuals who have perverted the religion, and he refuses to recognize or say the term,"radical Islam," as it is offensive to peaceful Muslims, and is a recruiting tool for ISIS.  His comments avoid the basic facts that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and that if the "minuscule" number of extremists is 2 per cent, that would mean that there are more than 20 million terrorists wielding assault rifles and bombs with the singular intention of destroying all infidels.  There are nearly 3 million Muslims living in the United States and applying this "minuscule" percentage, there are thousands and thousands of terrorists in the USA eager to kill infidels.
                   Sixty per cent of Republicans are said to support the Trump plan.  And Trump has said that he is committed to destroy the terrorists and members of their families who support and aid them. Voter preference polls continue to place Trump as the most popular Republican seeking his party's nomination as standard bearer.  In a rather unanticipated observation of Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a recent news conference that candidate Trump is a "very outstanding person....talented, without any doubt."  But of course, Putin will not be voting and it is questionable how many votes his ringing endorsement will win over.
                   The more Trump is attacked for being a hater of religion and a racist, the more he stands firm.  Democrats and Muslim members of Obama's administration, and some Republicans, are charging that Trump's plan to shut out Muslims is un-American and even more importantly, unconstitutional.  But to the surprise of his critics,  legal experts have opined that the Trump proposal will pass legal muster.
                   Referencing "legal scholars," the The Miami Herald newspaper wrote that "federal law and the courts have long given Congress and the President nearly unchecked power to bar foreigners from entering the country. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any alien or class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period  as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens of any class of aliens" according to federal Immigration law.
                     So with all the stir and firestorm which Trump has generated with his Muslim exclusion plan, which has no relevance to Muslims living in America, his position in the polls remains high.  In fact, his standing in some polls has actually gone up with his position to close the gates temporarily on Muslims seeking entry to the United States.  "It has nothing to do with religion;  it is a security problem" explains Trump, who has pointed out that 99 per cent of all refugees in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq happen to be practicing Muslims, and temporarily closing the door to refugees closes the door to Muslims.
                      In reviewing the candidacy and actions and statements of Donald Trump, some legal scholars have characterized him as "Sui Generis."  The Latin term means "only one of a kind."  It is certainly apt.
                         

                                                                          


     

For Pete's Sake

                       By Florida Bill

                  

                          The verdict is in, and Pete Rose stays out. That was the decision of Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred, who has determined that the 74-year-old Rose has not yet learned his lesson. He lacks a "mature understanding of his wrongful conduct.... and has not yet accepted full responsibility for it," Manfred said in a statement.
                          Did Commissioner Manfred make the right decision? Was Rose's behavior so bad that it overrides the possibility of removing the iron wall which restricts Rose's association with a baseball team and shuts down his entry into the Hall of Fame? Manfred's further observations about Rose having caused "damage" to the game and the need to preserve the integrity of baseball--America's "Grand 'ol Game"-- is just too wide of the mark, and it suggests a one-on-one dislike of the cocky, aggressive Rose.

                          I have a friend, Charlie Morris of the Chicago area, an excellent college ballplayer and retired naval commander, who believes that the commissioner did the right thing in keeping Rose away from the game he betrayed and out of the prestigious Hall of Fame. It's a question of preserving the integrity of the game, said Morris. Who is next, Shoeless Joe Jackson of the Black Sox era; or Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds who loaded themselves with steroids to produce performances which they may not have achieved absent the muscle-making drugs? No, Rose wrote his ticket and must live with it, said Morris.
                         What exactly did Rose do to merit a life-time punishment with no chance of redemption? He never robbed or stole, and he never assaulted or injured anyone. He is the all-time major league hit leader with 4,256, more than even Ty Cobb, who is real proof that the Hall of Fame of which he is a member, is not only for the very pure. Rose also holds the records for his 14,053 at bats, was MVP of both the National League and a World Series, and he appeared in 17 all-star games. He remains to this day a hero in Cincinnati, and the Legislature in the state of Ohio has passed resolutions endorsing Rose for entry into the Hall of Fame. Energetic and brash, Rose was a major league player and manager during 26 years in baseball, most of those years with the Cincinnati Reds.
                        In 1989, it was determined that Rose had been betting on baseball games, including Cincinnati Reds games, as a player and later as a player-manager. The betting was in violation of MLB rule 21 and proof of his gambling was irrefutable, but Rose chose to lie about his gambling, claiming it just wasn't true. In 1991, he was barred from baseball and designated as permanently ineligible for entry into the Hall of Fame.
                        In 2004, he finally acknowledged his gambling in an autobiography and since then he has continued to ask baseball commissioners to forgive his indiscretions. At one point, in a public discussion of his activities, and of his closeness with his teammates, he said "I am a competitive guy and I like these guys. They're like my sons, and I bet on them. I shouldn't have done it. But I did it and it's history and there is nothing I can do to change it."
                        Commissioner Manfred replaced Bud Selig in January, 2015, and he promised he would take a fresh look at the Rose petition asking for a pardon and for permission to return to the game and for renewal of eligibility for his entrance into the Hall of Fame. But Manfred reported after his scrutiny of his petition that it was clear to him that Rose did not have a "grasp of the scope of the violation of rule 21." Rose had advised Manfred that he continues to gamble because of his competitive nature and that he enjoys it, but the Commissioner was bothered by the continued out-of-control gambling addiction of the aging celebrity. His continued betting on horse racing and sports events brings into question whether he has adopted a "reconfigured life," said Manfred, adding that while such behavior is not illegal, such betting would not be permissible if made "by a player subject to rule 21." Of course, Rose is no longer subject to rule 21, so what's the point here?    

                                Somehow, to me, Rose's present enjoyment of gambling is irrelevant to the issue, but Manfred views it differently.
It appears pretty clear that based on a one-on-one meeting between Rose and Manfred that the commissioner did not see the groveling and repentance he deemed necessary for Rose's reinstatement. In fact, the loud, blustering Rose told the commissioner that he continues to bet on baseball games and on other sporting events because of the huge enjoyment which he derives from gambling.
                        Manfred speaks about "damage to the game," perpetrated by Rose, but that seems a bit of a stretch now, some 25 years after revelation of Rose's betting that his Cincinnati team would win a game, and at a time when many consider Major League Baseball and other major sports to be too closely tied to the billion dollar sports fantasy industry. Suggesting that Rose's behavior of a quarter of a century ago impacts the integrity of baseball, a sport deeply tarnished by steroid use, is just plain not accurate. 
                        The fact is that Pete Rose was an extraordinary talent and his profile should be in the Hall of Fame, alongside greats such as Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth whose very presence underscores the fact that the Cooperstown Hall of Fame will never make it as a Hall of Saints.
                        To a great many observers and sports writers and sundry interested fans, it is the final chapter for Rose, consigning him for all times to the history book of statistics, but without the recognition which he has surely earned. He violated a baseball rule, yes. But that was yesterday and he has admitted his misdeeds and apologized, and regrets his poor judgment. If he could change history, he says he would gladly do so; but since he can't, he simply asks that the slate be erased.
                        But for sure, Pete Rose isn't going away. Predictably, his lawyers are examining case law, statutes and anything else they can find to support another petition for reinstatement. As one fan put it, Charlie Hustle will be back, and will be restored as a part of baseball. "You can make book on it," he smiled.

                                         xxx








xxx

Lawyers for Terrorists

  By Florida Bill

                           There is real competition for the most outrageous comments in the investigation of the San Bernadino killings.  Without a doubt, however, the four-star winners are the family lawyers whose inane mouthings defy all sense of reason.              

                            At first, it seemed like  President Obama was right up there in the running, when he looked at the unmistakable evidence of terrorism and opined that no motive was yet known. His first suggestion was "workplace violence." But didn't he use that same lame excuse for the Ft. Hood killings?  But then that is what you might expect from Obama, who consistently shows a cool hand when it comes to describing the atrocities perpetrated by radical Islam.  

                  Conservative commentator Glenn Beck heard Obama and came unglued.  Either the President is “delusional” or is the “dumbest-son-of-a-bitch on the planet,” he ranted. So maybe Beck was a bit over-the-top, but there are those of us who don't see him as very far off base. 

                                        Another contender for empty-headed statements came from Attorney General Loretta Lynch with her stern warning that she would prosecute anyone who makes "anti Muslim speech that edges toward violence." (Hmmm, is edging towards violence the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater? It seems like the freedoms guaranteed by our First Amendment might get in the way of calling out Muslim fanatics for the carnage they create.  Her words definitely suggested that America is not at war with Islam, only extremists, so she gets points for backing up Obama.
              And then there was press secretary Josh Earnest, who lived up to his name when he spoke of "tightening gun control." But then he had to spoil it all by acknowledging that new gun laws would not have prevented this mass shooting.  

              Then the curtain went up on the main act: a pair of attorneys hired to represent the family of the shooters. It seems like the "right to an attorney" covers press conferences as well as courtroom arguments these days.
              Their incredible performance came in the face of overwhelming evidence that the storm trooper type slayings of 14 persons and the wounding of 21 others by Syed Rizwan Farook and his betrothed, Tashfeen Malik, who was in America on a visa  from Pakistan, was unabridged terrorism. 

                 Investigators spelled it all out and confirmation came from the FBI.  Farook and his wife were dressed in black, tactical style vests and masks when they stormed into a holiday gathering firing assault weapons--just a small part of the arsenal later discovered at their house.  It was there that investigators found a half dozen pipe bombs and another 13 empty pipes ready to be fashioned for future use; 5,000 rounds of ammunition, handguns, assault rifles and tools for the fashioning of explosive devices.  Also in their car, authorities recovered another 1,400 assault rifle rounds and even more handgun bullets.

                 Although Farook's wife, Tashfeen, had posted her allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on Facebook, the lawyers continued to urge reporters not to "rush to judgment." They still felt that it was too early to abandon the ever-popular possibility of "workplace violence." Maybe Farook was annoyed because a coworker had teased him about the beard he was growing.  They also questioned the accuracy of events as had been disclosed by the FBI.  

                 Their comments about the San Bernardino incident are absurd enough, but then they went so far as to suggest that the 2012 shooting of elementary school children in Sandy Hook, Ct., were questionable. That alone makes Attorneys Mohammad Abuershaid and David Chesley the first place  winners for the most outrageous performance. They also expressed frustration at media attention to the religious aspects of the slayings.  "This is not a Muslim act," insisted Chesley.

                 Chesley, who said he was a "criminal defense" lawyer and the bearded Abuershaid, his associate, held forth in a televised news conference for the better part of an hour.   They said that they had been retained to represent the interests of the family of Farook.

                  Expanding on the beauty and peacefulness of the religion of Islam, Chesley said that proof of terrorism is not there. There is no evidence" that Farook was involved with radical elements," Abuershaid insisted.  In fact, the "only thing remarkable about Farook was how normal he appeared." 

               Please, no jumping to conclusions, said Chesley.   The lawyers floated the possibility that Farook reacted in anger at co-workers who were teasing him because of a Islamic-style beard he was growing. The fact that he just happened to have military gear, assault weapons, and a copious supply of bombs and ammo on hand never entered into their equation.

             Farook's wife was a tiny woman, a "caring" and "typical" housewife; a soft-spoken mother of a six-month old infant, who was assimilating into American life. Chesley just couldn't believe that this petite woman would be involved in this sort of crazy Bonnie and Clyde scenario, even with all those weapons laying around the house.

            She was conservative and as a devout Muslim, always wore her burqa. Farook's brother had never seen her face. "She was just Syed's wife," one attorney said.   

            Newsmen watching the conference reacted with disbelief at the lawyers' horse and pony show.  

            The attorneys indicated that they would be available to respond to further questions about Farook and his wife. No need. Their gold medals are already in the mail. 

                                               xxx

               

No Welfare for Druggies

  By Florida Bill

                Despite all of the ridiculous liberal attitudes that fill the airwaves today, I have been  treated to some refreshing news. Of course, the road  to common sense continues to face some rocky opposition, but in this case the outlook is good and that should make the taxpayers happy.

                The reason for the exultation is that 13 states have enacted laws which are designed to deny welfare money to addicts and others using illegal drugs.  This wasn't always the case.  Usually, it was a matter of stepping up to the government counter, asking for financial aid and wham, here's your check.  The new laws are constructed in such a way that needy families will certainly receive financial aid, but the high flying on government wings will end.  As I see it, the law is fair to recipients, and, uncharacteristically, fair to the taxpayers who pay the bills. 

                 Another encouraging sign is that 17 other states are considering such legislation, but as yet have not pulled the plug on applicants who are handed money every month based only upon a signature that their families are in need of assistance.   

                  The concept of drug testing welfare applicants was first kicked around by state officials back in 1996. It was just talk for the most part until  Florida candidate for governor Rick Scott promised that if elected he would cut the budget and included in his plans was the program to make applicants for public aid submit to a drug test before receiving money. Scott was elected in 2010 and the state legislature drafted a bill calling for drug testing of applicants which Scott signed in 2011.   

                  Liberal newspapers in Florida blasted Scott for his cruelty for pushing the legislation.  You name it--that's what he was called by the Sun Sentinel and the Miami Herald.  And piling on were TV anchors and sundry pundits and columnists from all over who added their liberal, bone-headed  assessments.  And then the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) got into the act.  But even with all that negative liberalism, Scott got re-elected to a second term. 

                        Florida's law was the flagship of such legislation and it required immediate testing of applicants for welfare assistance.  After a series of legal proceedings, federal judges held the law to be unconstitutional, but in finding that the sunshine state  failed to comply with requirements under the fourth amendment, guidelines were established which have allowed other states to establish testing procedures consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
                        In the early days of the Florida law, before its demise, data was developed which gave justification for the programs designed to block the free flow of public funds to societal leeches.  That data reported that in a study of  6,000 applicants for welfare checks, 2,000 quickly withdrew when faced with having to undergo a drug test.  Of the 4,000 that were tested, 335 were positive for drugs and departed empty handed.  The 3,665 deemed clean of any drug were approved as recipients.   Liberals argued that the one third of the applicants who withdrew rather than take the test, did so because of the embarrassment of having to urinate in a cup, or that there was resentment for having to pay a $10 fee to cover costs of the chemical analysis.  The liberal arguments are clearly ridiculous.
                        While Florida legislators currently are reported to be considering a redo of the drug testing procedures, Wisconsin has become the latest state to put drug testing for welfare applicants into effect.  That law was signed and strongly supported by Gov. Scott Walker who has been a foe of liberal programs which call for "free stuff" and cash to virtually anyone who can sign his name to an application.  It began on November 9, 2015, and requires that individuals applying for both welfare and food stamps be screened.  Despite the left wing opposition in this red state,  Gov. Walker has  prevailed explaining that recipients must demonstrate that they are worthy of assistance, rather than just demanding it.  No more free fixes, compliments of the rich uncle known as government.
                           The Wisconsin law calls for potential recipients to fill out a written application.  If in this pre-screening, there appears a "reasonable suspicion" that the applicant is a drug user, he will be required to submit a urine specimen for chemical analysis.  Where an applicant tests positive for drug use or dependence, he may still receive financial aid so long as he agrees to participate in a drug treatment program.  If he declines treatment, he will be denied a welfare check.  Fair to recipients and, again, fair to taxpayers.
                           The Florida welfare-drug testing law, which was drawing kudos from conservative circles and tax paying citizens annoyed at the liberal spending, was declared unconstitutional because of the requirement that the applicants for welfare submit to a chemical test to prove that they were not using illegal drugs. The challenge to the 2011 law in the sunshine state was brought by the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU), and the federal court agreed that the test constituted a search under the fourth amendment of the Constitution and was being conducted without probable cause.
                           Based upon a report of last July from the Congressional Research Service (CRS),  the states which have enacted these laws are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.  Other states considering such laws are Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia.   There is some variation in the implementation of the tests where they are in effect and where they are being considered.  Basically, all of them call for tests, but only after there is reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a user.  If there is suspicion and the suspicion is reasonable, a drug test will be required. Some states require an applicant who tests positive to drugs to enroll in a drug treatment program with the costs of the program deducted from the welfare stipend.  If an applicant declines to got into treatment program he will be deemed ineligible from applying for six months.
                            The funds which are at issue in the drug programs are made available from grants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), via a program created in 1996 by Congress.  Under the program there was fixed funding of $16.5 billion set aside each year to provide financial aid to families with children.  Department of Children and Family Services within the states are distributors of the aid.  The TANF program is available in all 50 states, and payments range in amounts based upon family need and number of children and other factors, from about $250 to $950, CRS reported.
                            Liberal organizations and newspapers are continuing to attack the drug testing as cruel, unnecessary; without merit and a violation of a person's privacy.  Its cost-effectiveness is questionable and needy individuals and families are being deprived of aid, it is charged.
                          Florida Governor Scott has said that the public aid must never be used to allow a user to continue his addiction. The brief surrender of privacy is in exchange for money to assist a needy person and family.  The money is a gift and the screening acts as protection for taxpayers that the gift will not be used to support a cocaine habit.  It is just common sense.  In America, the most generous and compassionate country in the world, there is a safety net for those in genuine need.  Conversely, needle users, smokers and sniffers should no longer be able to rely on a feckless government for their fixes.

                        

                                                                         

                             

     
         

 

                         

                            T

   

Where's That Pill

 By Florida Bill

            About 25 years ago, the hushed-up problem of male inadequacy burst from the closet and exploded onto the airways. The problem has probably been around since caveman days, but talk of impotency never qualified as a topic for casual chit chat at dinner parties and other social gatherings.
            Now that performance problems have practically become a part of pop culture, crude expressions for a man's lack of staying power are taking a back seat to the gentlemanly appellation "Erectile Dysfunction," or by its more popular nickname, ED.
            Inadequacy in the bedroom is a serious matter and I do not make light of it. But does the condition belong in TV commercials played during events like the World Series or popular made-for-TV special shows. Many parents, and men and women of a less effusive sexual temperament, have a problem with the nonstop hawking of drugs and treatments designed to counter ED and restore joy and satisfaction to marriages, and those "special times" between a guy and his gal on a heavy date.
           Recently, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, Adam Wainwright, complained in a tweet about the never ending ED commercials broadcast during major league baseball games. "Kids are watching....and I shouldn't have to turn channels because of these ads," he said. Others with children have complained of having to try and explain the "four-hour problem" which might require someone to seek immediate medical care. Other parents wanted the commercials removed when, in one case, their 9-year-old son began singing the "Viagra jingle."
           Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia persists in trying to force the manufacturers of ED medication to "tone down" the hawking of their product, particularly during times when youngsters are watching. He believes strongly in pushing legislation which he has entitled "Families for Erectile Dysfunction Advertising Decency" but so far has been unsuccessful.
           It seems to me that the ED craze got going in the 1990s when Pfizer Drug company developed Viagra and retained former Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole as its spokesman. Dole had been a member of Congress more than 30 years and had a disabled arm from his service in the military in World War II.
Dole was 75 when he began speaking on television and at functions in favor of "the great drug" and freely acknowledged that he himself was plagued by ED. 
           His wife, Elizabeth who was then a United States senator from North Carolina, and 13 years his junior, fortunately had the good taste to play no public role in his promotion of the drug. It was never disclosed how much Dole was compensated by Pfizer, but it was believed to be in the millions.
           After the popular Dole made his debut, the ED market really took off. Along with Viagra came Cialis and Lavitra and others less known, all guaranteeing a man greater performance in the bedroom. And with them came more of the commercials with assurances that these miracle drugs could do the impossible and make ED vanish. Viewers were treated to happy couples lounging on the beach and gazing at each other longingly. There were recommendations that certain drugs should be used on a daily basis "so that you can be ready any time that the moment is right."
           Competition remains fierce and the ads seem to be getting more and more direct. One recommends, "get back in the saddle again." In another, there is a smiling couple playing touch football and apparently having a good time. But lest all that happiness leads to naught, the narrator suggests asking your doctor if Cialis is right for you.
           And the latest TV spots, as well as large ads in newspapers, add a brand new touch of eroticism on behalf of the ED drugs. Now we have advertising which often features only a very attractive and sensuous young woman, wearing a smile and a scanty clothing, and apparently waiting for something to happen.
           Like all companies marketing pharmaceuticals on television, the makers of ED drugs are required to include references to all possible side effects--and that scary list ought to put a damper on anybody's fun, but probably doesn't. And of course there is that notorious expression of concern urging immediate medical attention if four hours of readiness is exceeded.
           If cigarette smoking can be restricted on TV, then surely there can be a way to aim the ED commercials at a more adult audience, especially since they are the only ones that actually need to worry about ED.

Obama and the Clock Boy

  

                         By Florida Bill 

                            Things just keep getting more and more tense--and ridiculous.  Now we have a 14-year-old Texas boy threatening to sue if he is not awarded $15 million dollars as a result of alleged discrimination against him at his high school because of his race and Muslim religion. 

                                 And there on the sidelines, contributing to the boy's celebrated status, and wounded psyche, is President Obama who continues to show that he is anything but a unifier in this country which is being torn apart by religious and racial strife. If you would look to the President for healing words, look elsewhere.  He never saw a race or religious problem involving Muslims where he did not rev up the discrimination.  Always critical of police, count on him to make matters a little bit worse.                     

                                 The "clock-boy" teenager is Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman in the MacArthur school in Irving, Texas.  The controversial episode began on a September morn when Ahmed came to school carrying a weird looking homemade clock tucked into a pencil box with wires exposed. Two faculty members jumped when they saw the contraption which looked to them an awful lot like a bomb. Ahmed said it was a clock which he had made at home, but the teachers had their doubts.  Ahmed had brought other gizmos to school in the past, and had acquired a reputation as the "kid who  makes crazy contraptions."  

                                 Preferring to be safe rather than sorry, faculty members initiated sort of a code red alert, summoning security and police. The boy was taken into custody and his creation was isolated and examined. Police thought it looked like a bomb too, but further scrutiny showed that it was not.
                             Ahmed was taken away in handcuffs because of a suspected "hoax bomb" violation, a crime under the criminal statutes in Texas which forbids producing a gizmo which looks like a bomb but isn't, but can cause fear and commotion.   He was suspended for three days, but that hoax bomb investigation led nowhere, and Ahmed was absolved of wrongdoing and issued an apology.                            

                               The school did what it had to do, school officials said.  Faculty members suspected that the clock was a ticking bomb and they acted out of concerns for safety.  To have ignored the warning signs and simply hoped that it was a clock and not a bomb was not an option in these days of heightened security and caution at schools.   Safety is our prime concern and "we are never going to take chances..." said Lesley Weaver, a school spokeswomen.   "Think of it," said  Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne, in an interview with Glenn Beck. "If your child was in that school and you saw something like that gadget come in, you would want to make sure it is our priority to make our children safe in school, period."                      

                                Stories of the clock boy moved throughout the country with the media stoking the flames of prejudice by emphasizing the family's allegations that the boy had been targeted for punishment because he was a Muslim.  Liberal organizations and electronic journalists piled on asserting that Islamophobia was the force at work. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that the incident stemmed from apparent discrimination against Muslims.  

                              Ahmed's celebrity took off and he was hailed as some sort of a scientific genius and inventor. There were thousands of tweets.  Ahmed met with New York Mayor DeBlasio and members of the city council, and with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who was in New York. According to Ahmed's father, the teenager was invited to meet with officials of the United Nations in New York. He also was a guest on Good Morning America and he chatted with Dr. Oz on his TV  health show.  

                            The ice cream on Ahmed's cake was his meeting with President Obama who gave him a hug and complimented him for his scientific prowess.  He brought Ahmed and his father to the White House and at an assembly on the south law, attended by scientists and astronauts, extolled the boy for his scientific endeavors and observed that "we should not suppress them, not squelch them." His comment highlighted his customary stance against the police and other authorities in racial and religious controversies. 

                           Even as Ahmed's celebrity grew, the clock creation was pooh poohed by some policemen and engineers who examined the device as being far from the creative  work of a young genius. According to one critic, who labeled the boy a "fraud,"  the gimmick was simply the guts of an old digital clock removed and crammed into a pencil case with a mess of wires protruding. Basically, he never built anything, it was charged.  Nevertheless, his receipt of kudos continued and his father, Mohamed Ellhassen Mohamed announced that the family would be moving to Qatar in the Middle East and that his son had been awarded a scholarship by the Qatar Foundation for Education which would encourage and further his inventiveness and pursuit of science. 

                          Along with announcing that his family was moving to Qatar, the senior Mohamed announced the demand for $10 million from the city of Irving and $5 million from the school district as compensation for the "severe psychological trauma" inflicted upon his son as a result of the outrageous discrimination against him as a Muslim of Sudanese origin.   A civil suit for damages will be pursued if the demand is ignored, the  senior Mohamed said.   

                             School officials have said that there is another side of this incident; a side which suggests that Ahmed knew that his contraption was suspicious looking and knew that some might think of it as a bomb, which qualifies as a violation of the hoax bomb law.
                              So is the school a notorious discriminator against Muslims?  There is no question  that the contraption which Clock-Boy brought to school looked like a bomb. Police, as well as faculty members said so. In  this day and age of school violence and shootings, safety, and not Ahmed's feelings, were of foremost concern, and the response by the teachers was completely reasonable and appropriate.
                            Consider also: the 2015 MacArthur valedictorian, Amena Jamali, is a Muslim, and reportedly sent an email to the school principal in an effort to correct news stories which denigrated the school for its bigoted policies.  In the correspondence, she praised the school for "accommodating Muslim needs," adding that the school was a place which changed her life, and where she felt "respected as a Muslim."            
                            The senior Muhamed has given the school and the city of Irving 60 days to pay up.  The appropriate answer to to him:  "See ya in Court."