Spare the Murders; kill the innocent

                   

“When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” —  Matthew 2:16

To historians, King Herod the Great of Judea is best known for his large-scale building projects throughout Judea. To most Christians, he is remembered only for his “massacre of the innocents” in Bethlehem, as described in Matthew’s gospel. For most Christians, Herod represents the epitome of evil — a man responsible for selfish murder of two-year-old children to preserve his throne. Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is commemorated annually on the church’s calendar on December 28.

On December 23, 2024, President Joe Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 out of 40 murderers on Federal death row. In his official statement, Biden writes

"These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed [2021on federal executions, in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.

 "Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss.

 "But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level. In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new [Trump] administration resume executions that I halted."

But if these acts of these murderers were “despicable,” and if the victims’ families “have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” why did he do it? Were they not presumed innocent at trial? Didn’t the juries find the guilt of these murderers beyond a reasonable doubt? Didn’t they have competent lawyers at every stage of their criminal proceedings? Didn’t they have a written charge specifying what crimes they had committed? Were they not allowed to confront their accusers and cross-examine them? Were they not allowed to compel the attendance of their own witnesses? Were they not tried in open court? Were their convictions not affirmed on their appeals? If they are indeed guilty of “despicable,” and if the victims’ families “have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” why did he do it?

Now, which of any of these rights did Biden’s 37 murderers afford their victims? Did they provide they with free attorneys? Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Etc.?

Biden claims to have been “guided by his conscience.” But he also states he did it to thwart the incoming administration: “I cannot stand back and let a new [Trump] administration resume executions that I halted."

But if the death penalty is “immoral” or it was indeed a matter of “conscience,” why did Biden not commute the death sentences of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter, the Charleston, S.C. church shooter, or the Boston Marathon bomber? Is Biden claiming that their murders were somehow more “despicable,” and/or that the victims’ families “have suffered more unimaginable and irreparable loss?

And if imposition of the “death penalty” is “immoral,” even in “despicable” cases of murder, and if indeed Mr. Biden’s commutations were compelled by his Catholic conscience, where has his conscience been all these years when it comes to abortion and the slaughter of entirely innocent babies in the wombs of their mothers? Were the fetuses given free attorneys? An indictment setting out the crime they had committed? A public trial? A presumption of innocence? Proof beyond reasonable doubt as to a crime they had committed that would justify their being sentenced to death? Or has he no conscience when it comes to killing innocent unborn babies?

There is something hopelessly muddled at Biden’s core which allows him to behave like King Herod when it comes to slaughtering innocent fetal life, while at the same time succoring “despicable” murderers.

 First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 19, 2025.                                                                                        Copyright 2025, John Donald O'Shea

Enough “lawfare;” it’s time to govern

President Biden has pardoned his son, Hunter. The pardon applies to all offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2024.

In doing so, President Biden broke a pledge he made on June 13, 2024. Biden, while speaking at the G7 Summit in Italy, said he would not pardon or commute his son, Hunter’s, Federal gun charge: "I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that. And I will not pardon him."

To be honest, I’m glad President Biden pardoned his son following his plea of guilty. Now, I hope that President Biden pardons himself.

Joe Biden is too old to ever run for President again. And in closing the mishandling of “classified documents case” against Joe Biden, Special Counsel Robert Hur, gave as his reason for not prosecuting, that President Biden would be difficult to convict, describing him as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

But if President Biden were somehow convicted of “something,” there is no likelihood whatsoever, given his dementia, and his years of honorable service to the country, that he would ever be imprisoned even for a day.

Better to let him fade into the political twilight. Better to let history say what it will about him.

If, however, Joe Biden doesn’t pardon himself, I hope that President Trump pardons him directly upon taking office.

Special Counsel Jack Smith and the DOJ (according to Smith’s “Statements of Expenditures”) spent $35.7M to prosecute President Trump through March 31, 2024. Additional expenditures thru 30 Sept. 2024 are estimated at $14M.

Is it worth an additional $50 million to have the DOJ or a Special Counsel, prosecute President Biden? Or might the Republic have a better use for $50M?

In the period running up to the November 2024 election, the prosecutions against President Trump — especially Special Counsel Smith’s “Classified Documents” case, and Judge Merchan’s bizarre “fraud” case — had the effect of making a “martyr” out of President Trump in the eyes of a majority of the popular voters.

Nearly two thousand years ago, Tertullian, a father of the Christian Church, wrote, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." In saying that, Tertullian meant that the suffering and death of martyrs for their faith actually helps to strengthen the Christian Church.

The Democrats’ “lawfare” against Trump had the unintended consequence of making a martyr of President Trump, and encouraging the voters to vote for a man willing to stand and fight it.

President Trump would be foolish to make the same mistake. It would be counter-productive to make President Biden a martyr, and give the Democrats cause to which to rally.

The Ancient Athenians used large jury trials to decide criminal cases. On one occasion, they empaneled a jury of 5000.

In November the American people formed a jury of 153,000,000. President Trump won the majority. He was vindicated on all charges, and elected as the 47th President.

The people have spoken. They didn’t like “lawfare.” They won’t like it any better if President Biden is the target.

   First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 3rd, 2025.                                                                                                                                               Copyright 2025, John Donald O'Shea

Will Ukraine Go Nuclear? Has it already Done So?

Since my most recent op ed on the Russian/Ukraine war, things have been happening fast.

President Biden has reversed the U.S. government’s position and authorized Ukraine to launch U.S. missiles into Russia.

Then Russian President Putin signed into law” a law that “lowered the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons: If Russia's "territorial integrity" is threatened or if it is attacked by a non-nuclear armed nation (i.e. Ukraine) supported by a nuclear power (such as the US or Britain), Russia can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Additionally, Russia is now firing new experimental missiles into Ukraine.

This war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on since February 24, 2022. News reports tell us that Russia has been making incremental advances on the battle field. President Trump indicates he will end weapon’s shipments.

So, given the uncertainty, will Ukraine go nuclear?

On Oct. 24, 2024 Ukraine President Zelensky put the nuclear option on the table. Zalensky first reminded the world of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which was a treaty under which

Ukraine transferred all its nuclear weapons to Russia. In return, Ukraine got guarantees from Russia, the US and the UK that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would not be violated. Zelensky that remined his NATO audience of Russia’s bad faith in first seizing Crimea, and then invading Ukraine in February of 2022.

He then laid out Ukraine’s options: “Either we go back to nuclear weapons, or we have to become part of an effective alliance, and NATO is the only one that works” and whose members have avoided wars of aggression since joining.

Zalensky made clear that Ukraine preferred the NATO option.

So, when Zelensky speaks of “going back to being nuclear,” does Ukraine really have that capacity? Is he bluffing?

If you surf the internet, it appears unanimous that Ukraine, which once possessed the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, has the plutonium and know-how to build atom bombs.

How long would that take? Expert opinions are all over the place. But one says “We have the material, we have the knowledge. If there is an order, we will only need a few weeks until [we produce] the first bomb.” Others say it might be a very dirty atom bomb, but that dirty bombs have the advantage of being deliverable by conventional combat aircraft.

Admittedly, I am a non-expert. But what do I think?

I believe that as long as the battle lines along the front remain relatively stable and Ukraine has the weaponry to maintain stalemate, Ukraine will keep silent and build its nuclear bomb(s). Indeed, they may have already done so. That would guarantee that Ukraine cannot be obliterated without Russia takings nuclear counter-losses unacceptable to Russia.

I believe that President Zalensky is telling the truth when he says NATO membership, or Ukraine goes nuclear.

President Trump has pledged that he quickly intends to negotiate the war’s end. But on what terms?

Is Ukraine willing to cede Crimea to Russia? Is Russia willing to give Crimea back to Ukraine? Is Putin willing to pull out of the eastern portions of Ukraine he now occupies? Will Ukraine demand back those territories that Russia has “annexed?” Will the U.S. end military aid to Ukraine? Will Ukraine demand reparations for the damage to Ukraine that Russia has inflicted?

If President Trump can untie these “Gordian Knots,” I believe he will deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

   First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 27, 2024.                                                                                                                                               Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is Ukraine really “months away” from having its own nukes?

Anybody who has read my op eds knows that I have found little to like about President Biden and his administration. But in his support for Ukraine, I think he has been essentially correct.

Like Biden, I do not believe that Putin merely wants a subservient Ukraine along Russia’s border. His invasion of Ukraine, and his prior invasions into Georgia and Crimea demonstrate Putin’s larger goal is to reconstitute the old USSR.

We can quibble about whether clearer Biden administration statements before Putin’s invasion might have forestalled the invasion, whether U.S. F-16s should have been made available to Ukraine sooner, or whether the limitations of use that be Biden administration placed upon the use of the weapons we have supplied should have been less restrictive. But what Biden has done, has been essentially correct— to keep Putin from devouring a peaceful neighboring state.

President Trump is now on the verge of taking office. He has stated he will cut military aid unless Ukraine engages in peace talks. Trump has warned President Zelensky, “You’re 38 days from losing your allowance.” Presently, we don’t know what Trump has told Putin.

At present, Russia is been making slogging advances in the war. But the cost to Russia in dead and wounded Russian soldiers has been awful. Now, each side is upping the ante. Russia has put N. Koreans into the war zone. Ukraine has seized some Russian territory, and is now manufacturing/using very effective drones.

Russia has frequently warned that it might use its nuclear weapons.

But now, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if President Trump withdraws US military assistance. That also suggests Ukraine could develop a nuclear bomb whether or not the US withdraws military assistance. The Times1 writes, quoting from the briefing paper:

“The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. … “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later.”

“Ukraine still controls nine operational nuclear reactors and has significant nuclear expertise despite having given up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in 1996.

“The weight of reactor plutonium available to Ukraine can be estimated at seven tons … A significant nuclear weapons arsenal would require much less material … the amount of material is sufficient for hundreds of warheads with a tactical yield of several kilotons.”

President Biden’s great fear has always been that if Russia starts to lose the war, it will use nuclear weapons. He has, therefore, placed limits on use of the weapons we have supplied Ukraine. I am guessing that President Trump has the same fear, and wants to negotiate a Russian/Ukraine peace before Ukraine gets its own nuclear bombs and delivery systems.


If Russia has a “red line” which will trigger its use of nukes, things get a damn side more dangerous when Ukraine has its own nukes and its own “red lines.”

The notion that the country that once had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons can’t quickly build enough rudimentary nukes to take out Moscow, St. Petersburg and a half-dozen other major Russia cities is wishful thinking.

If Trump can negotiate an end to the war it will (1) save the U.S. billions; and (2) reduce the threat of a Russian/Ukraine nuclear war with all that entails.

Caption as revised by Editor: “Edging closer to nuclear weapons in Ukraine”

  1.   https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw  

                       First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 17, 2024.                                                                                                                                               Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

 

 

The obvious solution to the Hamas/Israeli conflict

  

There is an obvious way for the Arab world to deal with the “Palestinian problem” that no state in the Arab World has been willing to try — without war, and with no Palestinian deaths. Simply put, it’s love your neighbor as yourself. 

Instead, the Arabs and Palestinians have repeatedly gone to war with Israel. They declare that “if Israel will only declare a “cease fire” and negotiate in good faith, the war with Hamas could easily be ended. It is all Israel’s fault.”

That of course, utterly overlooks the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023.

It also overlooks the clear words of Hamas’ founding document — “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,”18 August 1988:

That document says “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it. ”It asserts that “Palestine (Israel) is an Islamic Possession consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day."

It sets out the Hamas goal: “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” (What: no “Two-state solution?”)

The document rejects all negotiations: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” and declares “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad (Holy War).”

So, how is Israel supposed to negotiate with Hamas that believes (1) “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement;" and who believes (2) “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad (Holy War).”

Roughly 2 million Palestinians live in Gaza, a 140 square-miles corner of Israel, along the Mediterranean Sea, just north of the Sinai Peninsula.

Wikipedia tells us that “The ‘Arab world’ comprises a large group of 22 countries, mainly located in Western Asia and Northern Africa.” It includes Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and Somalia.

The Arab world spans an area of some 5,000,000 sq. miles. Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, encompasses a mere 11,200 sq. miles.

The Palestinians, living in Gaza, believe that all Israel belongs to them by right of the Mulsim conquests of the Holy Land during the middle-ages.

Since Israel was re-constituted in 1948, the Arabs and Palestinians have started and lost war after war to exterminate Israel. This time, responding to the Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, the massacre of Israeli 2000 civilians, and the taking of some 100-plus Israeli hostages, Israel has retaliated by reducing Gaza to rubble and killing thousands of Palestinians.

There is a better solution. If the Arabs states are truly acting in good faith, and out of love of the Palestinian people, each of the 22 Arab states could open their borders to perhaps 100,000 Palestinian immigrants. That would eliminate the need to exterminate Israel — unless, of course, the Muslim’s real goal is religious — to reconquer Israel in the name of Allah and the Muslim faith.

Are there examples of Christian nations opening their doors to Muslims? Yes. France has admitted over 3 million Muslims. The “Great Satan” — a/k/a the U.S.A — has admitted about 2,500,000 since 2000. How many have been admitted by Iran? Egypt? Iraq?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 6, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

With censorship, we are no longer a democracy

The 1st Amendment to our U. S. Constitution provides:

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....”

The U.S. Supreme Court, over the last 200 years, has recognized only a handful of exceptions to the notion that “no law” means “no law.” Those exceptions include libel, slander, obscenity, “fighting words,” and words that create a “clear and present danger.”

Of course, “words” can be “elements” of a criminal offense, but only when they are accompanied by an action. Tom and Harry conspire (words) to rob a bank. They then drive to the bank.

But what about “misinformation?” “Disinformation?’ False information? Can “misinformation” spewed during a political campaign be punished? “Disinformation” or “false information during a pandemic be censored?

For over 200 years, our Supreme Court has held that the sole remedy is “counter-speech.” Civil penalties, criminal punishments and censorship have been forbidden remedies.

But why do I ask?

On May 2, 2022, during the Biden presidency, that CNN reported “Biden administration defends disinformation boardfrom fierce GOP criticism. …The Department of Homeland Security and the White House are defending a new initiative to help target disinformation … Last week, DHS announced an interagency team, dubbed the “Disinformation Governance Board,” to coordinate department activities related to disinformation aimed at the US population ….”

So, what exactly is “Disinformation Governance Board?” It would be a board authorized to censor whatever they deem to be “Misinformation, Disinformation or False Information” — speech or other information that they believe that you and I should not be permitted to hear. E.g. information pertaining to Hunter Biden’s laptop.

If you believe in censorship who would you nominate for the office of “Lord High Censor?”

The men who penned our Constitution and Bill of Rights believed the right of free speech was a “God-given right” of every free man.” It was not a right granted to men by governments.

Our founders knew that we could not trust ANY person or government official to impartially determine which speech should be allowed, or prohibited. Indeed, without assurance that a Bill of Right would be added to our Constitution that would guarantee free speech, the Constitution would not have been approved by the requisite nine states.

Hitler had his Ministry to Truth and Public Enlightenment. You can have the same. Simply vote for the party of the “Disinformation Governance Board.” Vote for the party, that with the support of 51 “former security officials” and FBI operatives, that prevailed upon Facebook and Twitter to bury the Hunter Biden lap-top story. Vote for the party that used the FBI and DOJ to suppress any Covid information, other than Dr. Faucci’s.

The founders believed that ideas should fail or prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.” They trusted no censors. Their remedy for misinformation, disinformation and false statement — the only one compatible with democracy — was, AND STILL IS, counter-speech.

Trust the government to censor even-handedly, and you piss away your God-given right of free speech.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 27, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Where exactly do Harris, Walz stand on the key issues?

Imagine: You are in the market for a new house. You contact a realtor Larson E. Conjob. He tells you, “I’ve got the perfect house for you. It’s a steal at $550,000.” Enthused, you ask him to show you the house. He replies: “Trust me. I can’t show it to you now; but you can see it right after you buy it! Trust me. You’ll be overJOYed!”

That is Kamela Harris’s campaign pitch; she’s selling “JOY!” And she is demanding that you wait until after you vote; then she will disclose her “program!” Rather like Nancy Pelosi, speaking of the Obamacare bill: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it!” Or Joe Biden passing himself off as a moderate, while hiding in the basement; then governing from the far left.

The American voters — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — are entitled to know Harris’ positions on the key issue before they vote. And HOW she plans to deal with those issues.

Our Southern Border: Will she leave our southern border wide open? Or, close it? If so, how? Build a wall? Shut off welfare benefits to those who cross illegally? Immediately deport all who cross illegally? Revive the stay in Mexico policy? Stand on the border saying, “Don’t?”

Inflation: How is she going to beat inflation? Be “Joyful?” Print more money? Adopt Trump’s policy of “Drill Baby, Drill!? Raise corporate income taxes to 28%? Give first-time home buyers a $25,000 credit? Raise the top marginal individual tax rate to 44.6%? Raise capital gains tax rates (including “surcharges”) on realized gains up to 45%? Impose a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains? Impose price controls? Pray for “Hope and Change?”

Israel/Hamas War: Give Israel whatever support it needs? Support Hamas?” Give Iran billions to “play nice?” Borrow Trump’s policy of “maximum sanctions against Iran?” How?

Iran becoming a nuclear state: Let it happen? Do what must be done to guarantee it will never happen? Hope that Israel “nukes” Iran? How?

Men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.: Support men calling themselves “women?” Force the women to let men participate in women’s competitions? Stand up for women and girls?

Defund the Police: Four years ago, she was “for it.” Is she still for “defunding?”

“Cashless Bail:” Four years ago, when rioters were burning down American cities, she invited donations to provide bail to get the rioters out of jail. She also supported “cashless bail.” Has she seen the light? Or is she “doubling down?”

Fracking: She was against it four years ago? Whither blow the winds now?

“Medicare for All:” Four years ago, she was for abolishing all “private insurance,” and legislating “Medicare for All.” What, Kamala, is your position today?

Prevent Medicare and Social Security from going broke: Make both available to illegal immigrants? Deny both to illegal immigrants?

War in Ukraine: Would you “wash your hands of it?” Continue the current level of military aid?
Provide greater aid? Tell Putin, “Don’t?”

Taiwan: Most of our computer chips come from Taiwan. What if China invades? Let China take Taiwan? Go to war if necessary to keep Taiwan free?

Electric Cars: Is she still planning to phase out all gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2030? 2035? Allow the market to determine whether cars purchased are electric, or gas/diesel powered? Is there even enough electric power available if all cars were electric?

First Amendment: Is “hate speech” beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Is misinformation? Disinformation? Or has the U.S. Supreme Court over the last two hundred years correctly determined the categories of speech that are beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Can the U.S. Government use privately-owned business to limit free speech — something the Government itself is prohibited from doing?

Climate change: Should all gas stoves be eliminated? Replaced with electric stoves? Should Americans be limited as to how low they can set their air-conditioners?

There is something very wrong with a presidential candidate who refuses to truthfully tell the voters what she plans to do if elected? There is something equally bizarre with voters voting for a candidate who refused to tell the voters what her program is. (Note: many of her proposals come from her “surrogates.” That allows her to say, “I never said that!”)

We in America have never experienced a communist national government running our country. Everywhere else, once you get a communist government, you stuck with it — like incurable cancer.

Vice Presidential candidate Walz has made over 30 trips to China. Is he a Communist? A Communist fellow-traveler? Is this something a rational voter should want to know? When’s the last time the Communists were voted “out” in China?

America was built on the idea expressed in our Declaration of Independence that our rights are inalienable and “God-given” — our rights weren’t given us by kings, presidents or congresses. The only thing that stands between us and totalitarianism is what is written on a few sheets of paper — our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So long as our founding documents are construed consistently with the intent of the founders, our rights remain “God-given.” But when people come to power who believe that the Constitution should be construed consistently with their “more enlightened” notions, you will have lost your freedoms — even if you were promised “Joy and Freedom.”

Don Wooten is worried about AI being an uncontrollable ugly monster. I have the same concerns about candidate Harris who is afraid stand in front of the voters — sans teleprompter — and tell the American people where she stands on the key issues, and more importantly; HOW she intends to deal with them.




First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 11, 2024.
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea