Welcome to the Phillips Philes, a modern day cornucopia. Please view and enjoy. 
JPMorgan Chase - "Mom's First Date" (Helen Slater at end)
Good Saturday morning to you, as it is around the 1:00 AM hour, Eastern Standard time. I was racking my brain, in regards to the title of this blog entry. At first, I was thinking of a couple song titles. I was considering the last U.S. number one song by The Beatles and a hit by Roger Whittaker that was later covered by Elvis Presley in 1976; however, I kept it simple with "21 Days".
On Monday, January 22, 2018, I was notified by the client that they are going with a different guard service in thirty days. That is the life of working for a guard service (even though I have worked for only one). This is not the first time I have gone through this. Nearly four years ago, I went through a similar transition of my position being outsourced to the guard I have worked for. It was seamless, especially after I obtained my SORA license. That credential is upcoming for renewal, and I do plan on renewing it, since it means that I can obtain practically any security job in New Jersey. With that in mind, I do have options available. I am going to weigh what is out there before making up my mind. I have an idea as to which direction I may be heading, but will not say until there is a firm agreement.
As the sunset date of February 17th approaches, I can look back and reflect on my tenure and experience with the guard service. Within a one year period of time, I was promoted from Officer, to Sergeant, and finally Lieutenant, the position I have had for the past eighteen months. Besides covering a post, I did scheduling, handling payroll, and helping new hires obtain their SORA license. Some would say that the pay wasn't the greatest, but I did the best I could for what I was getting paid for. In a way, they are probably glad that they won't be paying me overtime (LOL). That is the life of being in management, no matter what profession. Maybe I will be fortunate enough, in that I will have "guaranteed" days off. As for somebody that is approaching their mid-forties like me, is it about job security or money? Stay tuned, as the decision will be finalized within twenty-one days.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Bill
Source: http://people.com/music/neil-diamond-thanks-fans-donating-ticket-refunds-parkinsons/
January 23, 2018
After announcing his Parkinson’s diagnosis, Neil Diamond and his wife Katie are overwhelmed by the fan support.
The music legend, responsible for hits like “Sweet Caroline,” “America” and “Cracklin’ Rosie,” shared a statement on his website Monday evening revealing that he canceled concert dates in Australia and New Zealand based on doctor’s advice.
“Wow, I’ve received a bunch of messages from people in Aus & NZ who are donating their ticket refunds to good causes: Parkinson’s research, animal rescue groups, fire victim funds, etc,” Katie, 46, tweeted on Tuesday.
“My heart is so full of joy to see this silver lining. Faith in humanity = restored. Thank you!” she added.
Neil also shared his gratitude and appreciation to his fan base with a tweet of his own.
“This makes me smile. Thank you. Thank you to everyone for your outpouring of love and support. It makes a difference,” he tweeted, responding to his wife’s message.
Wow, I’ve received a bunch of messages from people in Aus & NZ who are donating their ticket refunds to good causes: Parkinson’s research, animal rescue groups, fire victim funds, etc. My heart is so full of joy to see this silver lining. Faith in humanity = restored. Thank you!
— Katie Diamond (@KatieMcDiamond) January 23, 2018
Due to the onset of the Parkinson’s disease, it has become “difficult to travel and perform on a large scale basis” but has yet to affect “his writing, recording and development of new projects,” according to the statement.
“I plan to remain active in writing, recording and other projects for a long time to come. My thanks goes out to my loyal and devoted audiences around the world,” Diamond said. “You will always have my appreciation for your support and encouragement. This ride has been ‘so good, so good, so good’ thanks to you.”
RELATED: Neil Diamond Leads Massive ‘Sweet Caroline’ Sing-Along in Times Square for New Year’s Eve
Fans from around the world, including his celebrity friends, shared their well wishes. Micky Dolenz of the Monkees and songwriting icon Neil Sedaka paid tribute to Diamond in statements to PEOPLE.
“Needless to say, I am dismayed at the news that one of the greatest songwriter/performers of my generation is having to curtail his activities due to illness,” Dolenz told PEOPLE in a statement. “Through his music, Neil brought untold joy to countless fans and to the world in general. I wish you all the best, Neil, and a remain a ‘Believer’ in everything you do.”
Meanwhile, Sedaka shared a memory from their childhood growing up together.
“Along with everyone else, I was shocked to hear this news,” he said to PEOPLE. “We lived across the street from each other in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. He is the most talented of the singer/songwriters/performers that I watched hone their craft at the Brill Building. His recordings and his writings are just superb. He’s an all-around great guy. For all the joy he has brought to the world, I know it will come back to him tenfold. Sending all my love to him and his family.”
Fellow singer Barry Manilow immediately tweeted follow Diamond’s announcement: “#Neil Diamond So,so sorry to hear about the great Neil Diamond’s illness. I’m rooting for you Neil! Fight on from another Brooklyn boy!:
Reba McEntire, Josh Groban, Nancy Sinatra, Brian Wilson, and many others also expressed their admiration for the music titan.
The Recording Academy will honor Diamond with its prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award during the Grammy Awards on Jan. 28, airing on CBS at 7:30 p.m. EST.
Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/21/nikki_haley_threatens_un_with_defunding_over_resolution_condemning_us_jerusalem_decision.html
December 21, 2017
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley weighs in on the General Assembly's debate about whether or not to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In a major diplomatic blow to Israel and U.S. President Donald Trump, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution rejecting the American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with 128 member states voting in favor of the resolution and a mere nine voting against it.
NIKKI HALEY: The United States is by far, the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
We do this in part to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world... We hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.
But I will be honest with you, when we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected.
When a nation is singled out for an attack in this organization, that nation is disresepected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the privilege of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege.
Unlike some U.N, member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people, as such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment, and if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
'The US will remember this day, in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation'
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley spoke to the UN General Assembly ahead of its vote on the status of Jerusalem, December 21, 2017:
Thank you, Mr. President.
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.
I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it’s important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.
But we’ll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it’s position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
Thank you.
Voted "No" to the resolution: 9
Abstained: 35
Voted "Yes" to the resolution: 128
Israel is in talks with more than 10 countries — including some in Europe — about potentially moving their respective embassies to Jerusalem, according to officials.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely on Monday said the nations were interested in following President Trump’s footsteps and declaring the Israeli city the new capital in the wake of Guatemala’s recent decision to do so.
While she refused to name the countries, Hotovely told Israel Radio that they were from every continent on earth.
Honduras is reportedly the next in line to take Trump’s lead.
“We are in contact with at least ten countries, some of them in Europe,” Hotovely said, according to i24NEWS.
Honduras, like Guatemala, was one of the nine nations that voted in support of the US in the UN General Assembly’s resolution to oppose Trump’s Jerusalem decision.
Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales announced Sunday that he would be moving his country’s embassy to Jerusalem, despite the UN vote.
Hotovely told local media that the discussions going on with the other nations were still in the early stages. She said they were taking place “with more than 10 countries, but not many more.”
Maybe it's time to wave the white flag. The age of super-sensitivity is crushing me.
I started to feel like a beaten man while reading a list of words that I shouldn't use because they might offend someone.
The bad-word dictionary was put together by a panel of news people on something called the Multicultural Management Program at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.
The introduction to their bad-word dictionary says:
"As newspapers move into the 1990s, there will be more emphasis on including minorities in daily stories-accurately, succinctly and in good taste. Language usage that has been acceptable in the past may no longer be acceptable.
"The following is a checklist of words, many objectionable, that reporters and editors must be aware of in order to avoid offending and perpetuating stereotypes."
Some of the words on the list are obviously offensive: nigger, chink, faggot. So you don`t see them in newspapers.
But "Dutch treat?" "Airhead?" And how about such shockers as barracuda, burly, buxom, dear, dingbat, ditz, dizzy, fried chicken, gorgeous, gyp, housewife, illegal alien, Ivan, jock, johns, lazy, pert, petite, rubbing noses, shiftless, stunning, sweetie, and ugh.
That's right, "ugh." The dictionary says: "A gutteral word used to mimic American Indian speech. Highly offensive."
Why not "Dutch treat?" They say: "To share the cost, as in a date. Implies that Dutch people are cheap."
Shall I go on? It depresses me, but why not?
I've changed my mind. I refuse to knuckle down to the dizzy new-age journalistic airheads in this ditzy Multicultural Management Program.
These dingbats appear to be bigots themselves. They list dozens of words- including fried chicken-that they say offend blacks, gays or women.
But they don`t include "honky," which many blacks call whites, or dago, wop, heeb, kike, mick, herring-choker, frog, kraut, bohunk or polack. Ain't us honkies got feelings too?
Whether or not they like it, Ivan Boesky is a Wall Street barracuda. William Perry, who used to be a fat slob, is now merely burly. My wife is petite and a gorgeous sweetie.
If some geezer unzips in a schoolyard, I reserve my constitutional right to call him a dirty old man.
The damn Rooskies have aimed missiles at me for 40 years, so maybe I'll refer to a Soviet as an Ivan. I've been called worse.
I'll continue to go have Dutch-treat lunches with my friends and check the bill to make sure the waiter didn't gyp me.
Why not "illegal alien?" It`s specific. It means an alien who is here in violation of our immigration laws. But what's an "undocumented worker?"
If I come to work without my wallet, I don't have any documents with me, so I`m an undocumented worker. Will I be deported?
If I decide to say "I hit the john," instead of "I visited the room where one disposes of bodily wastes," I'll do so.
When I put together a softball team, I'll recruit real jocks, not a bunch of wimps, nerds, dweebs or weenies.
And little kids have been rubbing noses and calling it an "Eskimo kiss" as long as I can remember. And that's a long time, since I border on being a geezer, a coot or a codger.
Fried chicken, fried chicken, fried chicken. I said it and I'm glad. Sue me.
In conclusion, your dictionary is a stunning example of lazy, shiftless thinking.
Ugh.
AS hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid bumbling my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly enlightened.
And it seems to be getting worse all the time. Before noon today, I heard from four members of four groups who bawled me out for insulting them in recent columns.
It began with Erin Gallob, of Crawford, Colo., who didn't like something I wrote about politically correct choices of Halloween costumes for children.
She says: "You ask why should we be sensitive to the feelings of witches?
"My reply: Witchcraft or Wicce is a legitimate, nature-based religion practiced by many people both in America and abroad, and should be accorded the same respect as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
"The witch portrayed today at Halloween is the Goddess in her crone aspect. She signifies the dying year and the wisdom that comes with age.
"It was only after the onset of Christianity that the Pagan Wisewoman became a figure of fear and hatred.
"So there is, as you can see, a very good reason to be sensitive to the feelings of witches like myself."
OK, from now on I will be sensitive to the feelings of Ms. Gallob and other witches.
But not vampires. Terrible drinkers. Don't like 'em, don't trust 'em; never have, never will, and I don't want them living next door to me. And I will continue to speak out against them. Werewolves, too. Keep you awake all night with their damn howling.
Next, I managed to anger Edward L. Koven, of Highland Park, Ill., by recounting anecdotes about John Kruk, the wise-cracking Philadelphia baseball player.
One was when a female fan saw Kruk smoking and berated him, saying that an athlete should not use tobacco. Kruk responded, "Lady, I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player."
This prompted Mr. Koven to say that my "concept of a hero, John Kruk, is quite warped."
"Since tobacco is a drug containing at least 43 carcinogens and toxins, it should be added to the list of other drugs banned in baseball. Tobacco kills. Kruk and other ballplayers should spread that message - not poisonous tobacco smoke.
"Perhaps you could find other heroes, such as the physicians, nurses and family members who care for and treat the millions of victims of tobacco smoke."
OK, I vow to never again be so warped as to write favorably about Kruk, that despicable spewer of carcinogens and toxins. And to think I cheered for him and his team in the World Series. I am so ashamed.
The third rebuke came from Frank De Avila, of Chicago, who was offended by a column I wrote about Mexico's refusal to extradite Mexicans who commit crimes in the United States, then flee back to their homeland.
De Avila said that I am a known racist and have "single-handedly managed to humiliate millions of honest and law-abiding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans," and that I "implied that they are child abusers, rapists, murderers and drug smugglers."
Well, the last thing I want to do is insult "millions" of law-abiding people. And it was insensitive of me not to realize that when I wrote about specific fugitives, such as the man who raped and almost murdered a 5-year-old girl, millions of law-abiding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans would assume that I was accusing them of being rapists.
Nor will I ever write about any criminals of Polish, Scandinavian, Italian, Greek, German or Asian ancestry, or those who are Catholic or Protestant, and those who are bald, tall, short, medium-height, nearsighted or red-haired, because I wouldn't want to insult the hundreds of millions, or even billions of people who make up those groups.
Besides my being insensitive, our switchboard and mail room couldn't handle all the cries of anguish.
So I apologize to anyone who is of the same ethnic background as serial killer John Gacy, whatever it is. When I said Gacy is a creep, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
Finally, there is a Mrs. Johnson, who said she lives in the University of Chicago neighborhood, but did not tell me her first name. However, she did say that I am a hopeless white bigot because I disagreed with the jury's rather mild verdict in the Reginald Denny case.
"What does a racist like you know about what those two boys have been through?" she shouted into the phone. "What do you know about how they grew up being deprived and being disrespected? All you know about is that stupid videotape. What do you know about the social conditions and the economics that forced these boys to do what they did? If you weren't so racist and ignorant, you'd know about those things and you wouldn't write the way you did."
She made a compelling argument. Yes, it is true that social and economic conditions contribute to crime. And they surely were a factor in the attack on truck driver Reginald Denny.
So I must concede that if Damian Williams had been born in a wealthy and privileged environment, he would not have picked up that brick and bashed Reginald Denny in the head.
Maybe he would have used a polo mallet.
(Copyright, 1993, The Chicago Tribune)
Mike Royko's column appears Friday on editorial pages of The Times.
Source: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/29/trish-regan-americans-rebelled-against-policies-carried-interest-loophole
Dec 29, 2017
Trish Regan has been a vocal critic of the carried interest loophole, which President Trump railed against on the campaign trail, but was not repealed in the tax reform legislation he just signed.
Regan explained that the loophole allows hedge fund managers to pay a lower percentage of tax on a portion of their income than a cop or a fireman. She argued that the loophole's existence all comes down to private equity firms donating large sums to both parties.
Regan asked economist Ben Stein for his view on whether Wall Street is essentially buying the loophole with the large contributions and lobbying.
"This is what Americans rebelled against, right?" Regan asked.
"I found it very refreshing on the campaign trail when [Trump] kept saying he wanted to close this carried interest loophole," she said, adding she was "shocked" to see the loophole remain in effect.
Stein agreed that lawmakers in Washington, D.C. want Americans to forget about the issue or simply ignore it because it seems too complicated.
"It’s insane what you can buy in politics in terms of the tax code. The idea people don’t understand it and therefore we can do it, that’s just a disgraceful excuse," he said.
Regan said she's heard from a lot of her viewers who do care about the loophole and see it as unfair. And she added that President Trump has the power to fix it on his own, potentially saving taxpayers an estimated $180 billion.
.@POTUS can STILL close the #carriedinterestloophole! All he needs to do is pick up the phone, call @stevenmnuchin1 and tell him to REDEFINE what a PE guy actually does. The best part, he can do this WITHOUT Congress -- @nedryun pic.twitter.com/gOqZffK2b5
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) December 27, 2017
Trump vowed to close the loophole on the campaign trail, alleging that Wall Street and special interests were supporting Hillary Clinton over him for that reason.
The private equity industry claims the loophole allows them to create jobs through increased investment.
Watch the segment from Fox Business above and don't miss Trish Regan each day at 2:00pm ET!
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fcc-can-save-the-open-internet-1511281099 and http://archive.is/9DGoB
Nov. 21, 2017
Photo: istock/Getty Images
As millions flocked to the web for the first time in the 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress decided “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.” In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government called for an internet “unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history.
Encouraged by light-touch regulation, private companies invested over $1.5 trillion in nearly two decades to build out American communications networks. Without having to ask anyone’s permission, innovators everywhere used the internet’s open platform to start companies that have transformed how billions of people live and work.
But that changed in 2014. Just days after a poor midterm election result, President Obama publicly pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reject the longstanding consensus on a market-based approach to the internet. He instead urged the agency to impose upon internet service providers a creaky regulatory framework called “Title II,” which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. A few months later, the FCC followed President Obama’s instructions on a party-line vote. I voted “no,” but the agency’s majority chose micromanagement over markets.
This burdensome regulation has failed consumers and businesses alike. In the two years after the FCC’s decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. If the current rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband.
The effect has been particularly serious for smaller internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money or lawyers to cut through a thicket of complex rules. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that generally operate in rural America, found that more than 80% of its members “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” They aren’t alone. Other small companies have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail upgrades to their fiber networks.
The uncertainty surrounding the FCC’s onerous rules has also slowed the introduction of new services. One major company reported that it put on hold a project to build out its out-of-home Wi-Fi network partly because it wasn’t sure if the FCC would approve of its business model. Nineteen municipal internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—told the this past May that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”
This is why I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Instead of being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.
The FCC will vote on this proposal on Dec. 14. If it passes, Washington will return to the bipartisan approach that made the internet what it is today. Consumers will benefit from greater investment in digital infrastructure, which will create jobs, increase competition, and lead to better, faster, and cheaper internet access—especially in rural America.
In the next few weeks, anti-market ideologues are going to try to scare the American people. They’ll argue that government control is the only way to assure a free and open internet. They’ll assert that repealing utility-style regulation will destroy the internet as we know it and harm innovation. They’ll allege that free speech online is at risk. Don’t fall for the fearmongering.
We have proof that markets work: For almost two decades, the U.S. had a free and open internet without these heavy-handed rules. There was no market failure before 2015. Americans weren’t living in a digital dystopia before the FCC seized power. To the contrary, millions enjoyed an online economy that was the envy of the world. They experienced the most powerful platform ever seen for permission-less innovation and expression. Next month, I hope the FCC will choose to return to the common-sense policies that helped the online world transform the physical one.
Mr. Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159
December 21, 2017
With the passage of the GOP tax bill this week, the Trump administration has scored 81 major achievements in its first year, making good on campaign promises to provide significant tax cuts, boost U.S. energy production, and restore respect to the United States, according to the White House.
And along the way, President Trump even outdid his own expectations and slashed at least 11 major legacy items of former President Barack Obama, including cracking down on the open border, slowing recognition of communist Cuba and effectively killing Obamacare by ending the mandate that everyone have health insurance or face a tax.
According to the White House, the 81 accomplishments are in 12 major categories and include well over 100 other minor achievements.
The unofficial list helps to counter the impression in the mainstream media and among congressional Democrats that outside the approval of Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch and passage of the tax reform bill little was done.
Administrations typically tout their achievements broadly at the end of each year, but Trump plans to list jobs added, regulations killed, foreign policy victories won, and moves to help veterans and even drug addicts.
And in a sign of support for conservatives, the White House also is highlighting achievements for the pro-life community.
Below are the 12 categories and 81 wins cited by the White House.
Jobs and the economy
Killing job-stifling regulations
Fair trade
Boosting U.S. energy dominance
Protecting the U.S. homeland
Protecting communities
Accountability
Combatting opioids
Protecting life
Helping veterans
Promoting peace through strength
Restoring confidence in and respect for America
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com
Linda N. Denz
July 27, 1947 ~ December 10, 2017 (age 70)
Linda Denz of Delran, NJ, returned to her heavenly home on Sunday, December 10, 2017 at the age of 70.
Linda was born to the late Stewart and Mabel Saul on July 27, 1947. She graduated from Pennsauken High School in 1965. She married her best friend and high school sweetheart on September 21, 1968. They were happily married for 49 years.
Linda was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. She enjoyed traveling and spending time with her family including her maltese dogs. She loved working as secretary at St. Peter's School in Merchantville for 12 years. She later worked as a legal secretary for 8 years. Her favorite pastime was making things perfect for her family and spoiling her 7 grandchildren.
Linda is survived by her husband, Elwood "Skip" Denz; her children, Shawn and Jennifer Denz, Danielle and David Morgan, Adam and Kristen Denz; her grandchildren, Ronan Denz, Leah Denz, Brady Morgan, Brenna Morgan, Taylor Denz, AJ Denz, and MacKenzie Denz.
A visitation will be held Monday evening, Dec. 18th from 7 to 9 pm at the Gaskill-Brown Funeral Home, 33 West Maple Avenue, Merchantville. Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated 10 am Tuesday, Dec. 19th at St. Peter RC Church, 43 West Maple Avenue, Merchantville. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made in her memory to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (www.cff.org). For more information and condolences, please visit www.gaskillbrown.com
