Peace Comes Only When Men Lead Lives of Merry Christmas

Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength; The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."
-- Mark 12: 29-31

Every year, near Christmas, atheists sue across the country to force removal of creche displays from the public lands. But what if the atheists are right? What if there is no God? How does one love a God who doesn't exit?

And if there is no God, how can there be divine law? (By definition, divine law is the law made by God and revealed to mankind). If God has never existed, how could he make law? And if there is no God, how could Moses, Christ, Mohammed have spoken in God's name? Were they charlatans? Delusional?

Then, too, if there is no God, then the command that we "love our neighbor as ourselves," cannot come from God. If there is no God, if there is good, it must be good for reason other than God having declared it so. Without a God, how can there be objective right and wrong? But, if there is no God, no divine lawgiver, and no divine law, what's left?

Who gets to specify what is good in His place? Imagine the dire consequences for society. Social justice -- premised on the belief that God has mandated that "we love our neighbors as ourselves" -- loses its divine underpinning. What is good, then, is determined only by one or more human beings.

Then too, associated with the concept of divine law is the corollary that God, in the after-life, rewards those who obey his laws, and punishes those who disregard them. If God doesn't exist, he can do neither (even if there is some sort of after-life)! Without an after-life, and rewards and punishments in that after-life, justice must take place before death -- or not at all. The gangster who murders and escapes prosecution during his lifetime, beats the rap -- if after death there is no God to punish his wrongdoings in the after-life.

In the Gospel of Luke (ch. 16) we find the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

"There was a rich man who ... dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus ... When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died ... and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he ... cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. ... I am suffering torment in these flames.'
Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.'"

Without God, without divine law, and without reward and punishment in the after-life, the Lazarus story is just an uplifting tale.

Of course, apart from divine law, there are the "laws" of nature and of physics. But they do not speak to morality or ethics.

They say nothing about that "thou shall not murder, steal or commit adultery." Further, if there is no God, even the Ten Commandments are of human origin.

The stark fact is that if God doesn't exit, then all laws have their origin in human invention, superstition or in naked power.

History has shown that the lawmaker is most often the person (or cabal) that has the army or the mob at his back. That power can reside in a religious leader, a king, nobles, the people or a portion of the people -- whoever has and is willing to use power. At that point, as there is no God, the emperor, the dictator, majority or the mob gets to say what is good, evil, fair, unfair, just, or unjust. And of course, as we see so vividly in the middle east, might appears to make right.

If the atheists are right, might makes right, and the ends justify the means. And even if they are wrong, if all men operate as if there is no God, the world becomes a jungle where the ruthless rule. It will be a world that even the most decent of atheists dread.

Religion, given its human component, comes with faults. And scientists tell us that God's existence cannot be proved empirically. But I choose to believe He exists.

I think the world is a better place because so many others also believe He exists, and, more importantly, live out their beliefs. If this Christmas, there is no "peace (on earth) to men of good will," it will not be the fault of those who love God and love their neighbors as they do themselves. You cannot love your neighbor as yourself and murder him, steal from him, or sell his children cocaine.

Peace comes only when men live lives of "Merry Christmas!" That is the benign message of the creche.

Posted Online: : Posted Online: Dec. 20, 2012, 10:54 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Posted Online: Dec. 20, 2012, 10:54 am

x

If the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

If  the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

We are fast approaching the "fiscal cliff."

The president is playing hardball.

It is time for the House to play hardball, and to save the country. Here is the simple advice I would give Congressman Paul Ryan:

Dear Congressman Ryan:

Here is my plan to save the country by ending deficit spending.

1. Let President Obama "drive the bus" off the "fiscal cliff."
2. Then pass separate appropriation bills for only the things the House wants; e.g.:

a. A Social Security appropriation;
b. A Medicare appropriation;
c. A military appropriation;
d. An FBI appropriation.
e. Etc.

3. Make no appropriation for anything the House opposes. Agree to nothing else.

4. Force the president to accept or veto the things the country really needs.

The principle involved is simple. It can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, provides, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." And before any bill (appropriation or otherwise) can become law, it must be passed by both the House and Senate. "

The principle, therefore, is that the president and the Senate cannot spend one penny, unless the House agrees to appropriate the money.

If the House decides to take control of the "purse" as it did in the early days of the republic, and as it did after the Civil War, all the president's grand schemes are checkmated. There may be adverse consequences. But the deficit problem won't be one of them. Nor will deficit spending.

And until we eliminate trillion dollar deficits, all other fixes are phony.

Posted Online: : Dec. 11, 2012, 1:41 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

What are Privileges and Immunities of U.S. Citizens?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution

U.S. Supreme Court justices Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black fought a running battle from 1947-1962 over the meaning of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" provision of the 14th Amendment.

The battle lines were first drawn in the 1947 case of Adamson v. California. Adamson had been convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. He did not testify at trial. The prosecutor, as permitted by California law, commented on his failure to testify.

On appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, Adamson argued "that the provision of the Fifth Amendment that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' is a (1) fundamental national privilege or immunity protected against state abridgment by the Fourteenth Amendment or (2) a privilege or immunity secured, through the Fourteenth Amendment, against deprivation by state action because it is a personal right, enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights."

California argued that that portion of the Fifth Amendment had no application to the states. The Supreme Court agreed.

Justice Black, in a strong dissent, argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states. He believed they were the "privileges and immunities" in question.

"The first 10 amendments were ... adopted largely because of fear that (Federal) Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties.
"The people ... demanded a Bill of Rights written into their Constitution. The amendments embodying the Bill of Rights were intended to curb all branches of the Federal Government in the fields touched by the amendments-Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

"The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments were pointedly aimed at confining exercise of power by courts and judges. .... (Y)ears of arbitrary court action sprang largely from the past use of courts in the imposition of criminal punishments to suppress speech, press, and religion. Hence the constitutional limitations of courts' powers were, in the view of the Founders, essential supplements to the First Amendment, which was itself designed to protect the widest scope for all people to believe and to express the most divergent political, religious, and other views.

"But ...(i)n 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, ... this Court ... specifically held inapplicable to the states that provision of the Fifth Amendment which declares: 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' ... (T)he Court there said that it could not hold that the first eight amendments applied to the states. This was the controlling constitutional rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in 1866.

"My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects ... was to make the Bill of Rights, applicable to the states. With full knowledge of the import of the Barron decision, the framers and backers of the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed its purpose to be to overturn the constitutional rule that case had announced."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Frankfurter, took dead aim at his views:

"(Since) the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution ... a period of 70 years, the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by 43 judges. ... (O)nly one ... (The first Justice Harlan, now considered one of the Court's greatest members) ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments ... as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these (the other 42) judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court ... judges who were alert in safeguarding ... the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also ... mindful of ... of our federal system ... and therefore ... regardful of... the authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War. (T)hey did not find that the Fourteenth Amendment ... fastened upon the States procedural arrangements which, ... only those who are 'narrow or provincial' would deem essential to 'a fair and enlightened system of justice.' Palko v. Connecticut."

In subsequent cases, Justice Frankfurter took the approach that where state action "shocks the conscience, it violates due process," and no further provision of the Bill of Rights need be cited.

Frankfurter's test shocked Justice Black's conscience. Black argued that Frankfurter's test was "too vague," and substituted judicial whim for written constitution. Black also took dead aim at the danger to constitutional government inherent in Frankfurter's formula:

"Since Marbury v. Madison, was decided, the practice has been firmly established ... that courts can strike down legislative enactments which violate the Constitution. This process ... involves interpretation ... [I]nterpretation obviously may result in contraction or extension of the original purpose of a constitutional provision thereby affecting policy. But to pass upon the constitutionality of statutes by looking to the particular standards enumerated in the Bill of Rights ... is one thing; to invalidate statutes because of application of 'natural law' ... undefined by the Constitution is another. 'In the one instance, courts proceeding within clearly marked constitutional boundaries; in the other they roam at will in the limitless area of their own beliefs as to reasonableness and actually select policies, a responsibility which the Constitution entrusts to the legislative representatives of the people."

My next op-ed will deal with the collateral damage caused by Frankfurter's "selective incorporation" process.

Posted Online: : Dec. 05, 2012, 11:40 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

What Was the Author of 14th Amendment's Intent?

 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution

I have written that I believe our Constitution and Bill of Rights must be construed consistently with the intent of the men who wrote them -- that is, according to their "original intent."

The Constitution became the Supreme Law of the land on June 21, 1788. In 1791, the first 10 Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were adopted.

But for those unfamiliar with Constitutional history, the 14th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1868, three years after the Civil War ended. So how should it be construed? Consistently with the intent of the men who drafted it in 1868, and with the intent of the Congress that approved it and sent it on to the states for ratification. But who were the drafters?

George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and others who drafted the Constitution had long passed from the scene, and had no input in the 14th Amendment. It was largely drafted by one congressman, a man whose name will probably be unknown to any person who reads this piece: Congressman John Armor Bingham, R-Ohio.

In the words of the Supreme Justice Hugo Black, "Congressman Bingham may, without extravagance, be called the Madison of the first section of the 14th Amendment."

To understand Black's praise, it is necessary to understand that the Bill of Rights was written to limit the powers of the federal government, not state governments. The Bill of Rights, from 1791 until 1868, afforded nobody any protection against actions by a state. Indeed, in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, specifically held inapplicable to the states the provision of the Fifth Amendment which declares: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The court said that it could not hold that the first eight amendments applied to the states.This was the controlling constitutional precedent when the 14th Amendment was proposed in 1866.

Here is how Rep. Bingham, who served on the Joint Committee for Reconstruction, explained his work product to Congress:

"I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath (to support the Constitution), and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution ...

"I had read -- and that is what induced me to attempt to impose by constitutional amendments new limitations upon the power of the States -- the great decision of Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, wherein the Chief Justice said, in obedience to his official oath and the Constitution as it then was: 'The amendments (to the Constitution) contained no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.' The Chief Justice also said, 'Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the power of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.'

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ...

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."

Any fair reading of Rep. Bingham's remarks boils down to this: Chief Justice Marshall had ruled in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights (specifically the first eight amendments thereof) had no application to the states. Congressman Bingham concluded that the rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments were the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States.

He wrote the 14th Amendment to guaranty those "privileges and immunities" against state action, and to make the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to the federal government.

He sought to create no new rights. He merely advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath to support the Constitution, and punish all violations by state officers of the Bill of Rights.

More of Congressman's Bingham's remarks, can be found in the appendix to Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, where the majority construed the 14th Amendment according to its own "more enlightened" intent.

Only Justices Black and Douglas thought it should be construed consistently with the way the author of the amendment explained his proposed amendment to Congress.



Posted Online: : Nov. 23, 2012, 6:10 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Abortion Is More than Just Another Social Justice Issue

I have often wondered how the German people continued to support Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, as they came to learn the things he was doing.

I can only suppose their justification went something like this:

"Since Adolf Hitler took office, German unemployment has fallen substantially -- from six million in 1932 to one million in 1936. In addition, his government has embarked upon a massive infrastructure improvement program. If you take time to look, you will see the dams, autobahns, railroads and other public works constructed by this administration.

"The Fuhrer has instituted an array of social welfare programs designed to provide employment for every German citizen, and has instituted programs for social justice to insure a minimal standard of living for every German citizen. Before the Fuhrer, the unfortunate looked only to the charity of the individual; with his Winter Relief campaigns, the resources of the state are being put to use in feeding the poor and clothing the needy.

"The extermination of Jews is not the only important issue. To ignore the good -- the social justice -- that Hitler has done, and focus only on the extermination of a few Jews, and perhaps a few, a hand-full of mentally defectives, is to ignore Christ's social justice teachings that we care for the least of our brothers."

Add to the argument that another German might make, "That the churches should unequivocally denounce Hitler for what he is doing to the Jews, and the Gypsies, and the mentally handicapped."
I imagine that the rejoinder went like this:

"We do not want to be a nation of sheep who do not think for ourselves and weigh all the pros and cons of the various issues. I strongly feel that one needs to decide for oneself what issues are most important and for whom to vote. We certainly don't need the churches telling us how to think and how to vote."

Now substitute the phrase "abortion of fetuses" for the phrase "extermination of Jews," change the venue from Germany to the U.S, and fast-forward from the mid-30s to 2012.

What Hitler did to the Jews was "murder." The Jews were "human beings." Medically and scientifically, they were human beings.

They were as human as any other German. Only their religion was different. But even when they converted to the Christian faith, it made no difference. They were legislatively transformed into "sub-humans," stripped of the citizenship and rights, and exterminated.

Similarly, the human fetus developing within the womb is unquestionably -- from a medical and scientific perspective -- a "human being." And even if you deny that, if it is allowed to come to term, it will unquestionably emerge from the womb as a human being. It is only by deeming fetus in the womb "sub-human" that abortion (without serious justification) can be anything other than a killing which is "in the nature of" murder. (Note, that I am talking only about abortion, not contraception.)

My point is very simple. Human beings with well-(in)formed consciences cannot ignore the extermination or murder of their neighbors, whether they are Jews, Gypsies, the mentally impaired. From a medical and scientific standpoint all were humans, even if the mentally impaired were not "good poster children for the master race." And only those who ignored what their eyes should have seen, could argue otherwise.

Nor can human beings with well-(in)formed consciences ignore what abortion really is.

From a medical and scientific standpoint it is the killing of a human baby. That baby may not be fully developed. That may take nine months. But if not killed, it will emerge as a human, as fully human as you or me. And only those who ignore what their eyes should see, can argue otherwise.

The argument that the fetus is "no more than a part of its mother" is specious; the fetus contains the DNA of not only its mother, but its father as well. The mother's parts do not.

There is something askew with the argument that killing (or enslaving) other humans beings is just another "important" (social) issue. The argument that the government is doing "social justice" in providing the elderly with a pension, the poor with food stamps, and the unemployed with unemployment benefits, and that those things outweigh the extermination of Jews, Gypsies and the mentally impaired, or the enslavement of blacks, or the killing of children (fetuses) turns the notion of "social justice" on its head. Where was Hitler's "social justice" for the Jews when he "redistributed their wealth," sent them to concentration camps, and murdered them?

The reprehensible fact is that over 50 million fetuses have been methodically killed, and half our country doesn't care. But when somebody abuses a dog or kills a cat, the public is outraged. How many babies have to be aborted before the churches cry out?

Or must we look to Hollywood and politicians for our moral guidance?

Posted Online: :   Nov. 07, 2012, 3:02 pm   - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Why This JFK Democrat Won't Vote for President Obama

I have always considered myself a John F. Kennedy Democrat.
I sat glued to the radio when he tried to win the vice presidential nomination. I rooted for him as he debated Richard M. Nixon on TV.
It is because I remain a Kennedy Democrat that I won't vote for President Obama. I can't for three main reasons.
First, I think the president is dead wrong on how to raises revenues and revive the economy. I also believe that Gov. Mitt Romney, who is following JFK's approach, is right. Here is what JFK said. (As you read it, recall Joe Biden's derisive remarks to Paul Ryan: "Now, you're Jack Kennedy").
"There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth.
"But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand -- to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.
"It could ... be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy.
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
"(A)ny new tax legislation enacted ... should meet the following three tests:
"First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.
"Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment... When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
"Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.
"For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
"Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges.
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. ... This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.
"The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
"I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: (a) a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or (b) a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe -- and I believe this can be done -- a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future." -- JFK, address to the Economic Club, Dec. 12, 1962.
The second reason, I can't vote for President Obama is because he doesn't tell the truth, and sends his surrogates to lie for him. It began with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and continues with every unemployment report that excludes those who have given up seeking employment, as well as the series of lies about Libya, etc. I no longer have any confidence that anything he tells the American people will be the truth. Mr. Obama is the Democratic equivalent of the Richard M. Nixon.
Finally, I am tired of this president's broken promises to fix important things: Medicare and Social Security. I am tired of class warfare, and of his blaming everybody but himself. And I will not accept as the "new norm" that America grows poorer and weaker, while China gets richer and more powerful with our money.
Jack Kennedy wouldn't, and I won't.
(As a result of the JFK/LBJ tax cuts, unemployment fell from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.8 percent in 1966. And taxes paid by individuals rose from about $45 billion in 1964 to $60 billion in 1967.)

Posted Online: :   Nov. 1, 2012 at 2:22 p. m.   - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Time to Draw "Red Line" in Iran to Avoid a More Horrible War?

Gadaffi of Libya, no friend, had to go; he was threatening to kill his own people. Assad of Syria, no friend, kills in excess 30,000 of this own people; he gets to stay. Mubarak of Egypt, a friend, had to go; he was an undemocratic dictator.

The nicest thing anybody can say about the Obama/Clinton Mideast policy is that it is utterly incoherent. Consider the administration's drawing of "red lines."

The president has drawn a red line in reference to Syria's chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Crossing that line will result in "enormous consequences" for Syria. But what about Iran?

On Aug. 21, President Obama said, "That's an issue that doesn't not just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hand of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a 'red line' for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemicals moving around or being utilized. ... We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the area that that's a red line for us. And that there would be enormous consequences if we starts seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."

At the same time, the president cannot bring himself to draw a red line in reference to Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Compare the red line language, and the "enormous consequences" language concerning Syria with what the president has said about Iran and nuclear weapons.

"(The Iranian government) ... props up a dictator in Damascus, and supports terrorist groups abroad. ... it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

"Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time ... But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

It is sound policy for the U.S. to "do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." But it draws no red line short of Iran actually acquiring a nuclear bomb. Just how far will Iran be permitted to go before the "U.S. visits "enormous consequence?"

Do we know? Does Israel know? Does the world know? Do the Iranians know?
Why not draw the red line at a point where if we must strike Iran they will not have the bomb to retaliate?
The latest round of anti-American riot, should make it patently clear that the Mideast is a tender box. Islamist fanatics are coming to power throughout the region.

But what may not be clear is that today's Middle Eastern countries have weapons with more fire power than France, Britain or America had at the time they entered WWII. Already Syria and Iran have biological and chemical WMDs. Israel has the bomb. All have powerful jet fighters. We are on the verge of a Middle East war that could dwarf WWII.

Iran has threatened to eliminate Israel repeatedly. Syria, with its chemical and biological weapons, sits unstably across the the border from Israel.
Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas with rockets to fire into Israel from Lebanon. Egypt is now in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is in chaos. Iraq is heading there. So is it hard to understand why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has drawn his own red line?

In the 1930s, France was the strongest military power in Europe. Germany was disarmed. Treaties favored France. There were many places where France could have drawn the red line before Hitler's Germany could become al threat to France. When Hitler breached the Versailles Treaty and reinstituted conscription, France could have crushed the tiny German "army" and shipped Herr Hitler to Devil's Island at relatively no cost. When Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, France could have smashed the then insignificant German "army," and hung Hitler.

Then, too, France could have mobilized with England and Russia to prevent Hitler from dismembering Czechoslovakia. Instead, she vacillated, allowed Germany to rearm and crush France in six weeks.

The president was right to warn the world that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained." He was right when he said, "It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy."

And he's right when he says, "It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty." But he is wrong to allow Iran to refuse nuclear inspections without suffering "enormous consequences." While we vacillate, Iran may secretly finish its bomb, and then it may be too late to avoid a much more horrible war.

Posted Online: :   Oct. 25, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

The President Must Be More Than a “Stump Speaker”

    This is the season for “stump speeches.”

    The term “Stump speech” refers to the often raucous speech delivered by a politician

running for office. The term came into usage in the 19th century, when such speeches were

often made by the candidates as he on a stood tree stumps to allow himself to be seen and

heard, in an era before the voice could be amplified electronically. 



    The Historians, Morison and Commanger, in The Growth of the American
Republic, v. 1,  wrote of President Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew  Johnson, as follows:

    “In the 1866 campaigning Republicans brandished reports of such atrocities

    to warn that the South was robbing  [the people of the North] of their hard-

    won victory at war. ... Johnson [advocating Lincoln’s policy of tolerant

    Reconstruction] warned of the consequences of the Republican policy [of

    “Radical Reconstruction’]; “Southerners, he said, ‘cannot be treated as

    subjugated people or vassal colonies, without  a germ of hatred being introduced,

    which will some day or other though the time may be distant, develop into

    mischief of the most serious character.’ ”


    Morison and Commanger then wrote something that has stuck with me since

the day I read it at Notre Dame.

    “Johnson proved to be an inept campaigner. He seemed incapable of

    advocating a policy of tolerance in a tolerant manner, and his ... stumping

    tour of the Middle West, became in many an exercise in vituperation.

    “I would ask you ,” the President shouted on 3 September 1866 in

    Cleveland, “Why not hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?” [Radical

    Republican leaders].” Johnson was, said [Secretary of State] Seward, the

    “best stump speaker in the country,” but as Secretary [of the Navy] Wells

    shrewdly remarked, “the President should not be a stump speaker.””


    So what is legitimate in a “stump speech” delivered by candidate for the office of

the Presidency? At what point does a presidential candidate demean himself and the

office he is seeking? At what point does the candidate appear “un-presidential?”


    Many Americans decry “negative campaigning.” But there are two very distinct

varieties of “negative campaigning,” and the line between them, is a very bright line. So,

is it wrong to paint your opponent as “un-Presidential?” “Dishonest?” “Stupid?” “Ineffective?”

Is it wrong to label his policies or his positions as “ineffective?” “Wasteful?” “Cronyism?”

“Marxist?” “Predatory Capitalism?”

   
    The answer is simple. If the allegations are truthful, then “going negative” serves a

legitimate public purpose. If the candidate is a tax cheat, a philander, a communist flying

under false colors, or a thief, the public needs to be told. If the allegations are baseless,

the “negative campaigning” becomes a lie and it is impermissible.


    The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees free speech, and it guarantees

first and foremost political speech. If the voters are to intelligently select the best candidates,

and vote correctly on the issues, nothing is more important than that the candidates and their

supporters tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


    In 21st century America the issues are complex. Candidates like Ronald Reagan and

Bill Clinton has a way of making the hard stuff understandable to the voters. When a candidate

tells the truth and makes the hard stuff understandable, he does the voters a great service. If he

lies or indulges in half-truths, he obfuscates the issues, confuses the voters and undermines the

proper workings of democracy.


    My mother despised liar. She frequently told me that if you tell one lie, you will have

to tell another and another to cover it up.


    I am not so naive as to believe a President must always tell the truth. In war-time, no

president in his right mind would tell the enemy our battle plans. But in matters of domestic

politics - such as, which plan is best calculated to save Medicare and/or Social Security - there is

no reason to lie, unless the candidate is putting party over country. But any candidate,

Republican or Democrat, that does that is unworthy of high office and public trust. Indeed,

why would any reasonable voter trust a liar? Why would a Republican trust a Republican liar?

Why would a Democrat trust a Democrat liar?


    What I am suggesting is that there is no way to fix the present mess if the American

people continue to put people in high office who don’t tell the truth. I want a President who

puts forth a coherent plan, and who means what he says and says what he means.  If we continue

to elect politicians who continue to “bribe us” with government largess to get our votes,

we will go the way of Europe. We will not have to have a candidate “push us off a cliff;” we

will eventually walk off under our own power in pursuit of the next handout.

Copyright 2012

 John Donald O'Shea
   


   


   

   

Reducing the Deficit: Government Jobs vs. Private Sector Jobs

President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney have two very different visions of how the U. S. government should "raise the revenues" it needs to pay the nation's debts, and to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

Assume for a minute

-- a. That the U.S. government needed revenues in the sum of $2,000 to do all of the above,

-- b. That there were only two American citizens,

-- c. That the "First Citizen" has a salary of $5,000 and pays $1,000 in federal income tax, and

-- d. That the "Second Citizen" is unemployed, has no income and pays no federal income tax.

I use this simple "two citizen" example for ease of understanding because nearly half of the American people (47 percent ) presently pay no federal income tax while the other half (53 percent) do.

So, assuming the government needs $2,000 in revenues to meet its needs. What are the government's options? There are only four:

-- Run the printing presses, and print more money;

-- Reduce government expenses to $1,000;

-- Raise taxes on First Citizen from $1,000 to $2,000;

-- Create a job for Second Citizen that pays him $5,000, and have him pay the same $1,000 in taxes that is already being paid by First Citizen.

Neither the Mr. Obama nor Mr. Romney advocates "running the printing presses." That may be implied in their policies, but neither would dare overtly advocate it. To do so they would also have to espouse "inflation" which always follows "running the presses."

As to "reducing government expenses," the record of the "$1 trillion-plus (!) deficits for the last four years demonstrates that President Obama is less likely to "cut government spending" than the Cubs are to win the pennant.

Mr. Romney may cut some spending, but he is candid enough not to tell the voters that he can eliminate the deficit simply by cutting expenses.

As to the third alternative, "raising taxes on the rich (about 3 percent)," President Obama tells America that this is his plan to eliminate the deficit. Gov. Romney says he will lower federal income tax rates for middle class and wealthy Americans, but eliminate deductions for richer Americans. But the governor states that his tax reforms will be "revenue neutral."

Gov. Romney's honestly admits his tax revision plan will not eliminate the deficit. The president's claim that that he can eliminate deficit by taxing the rich and extra 3 percent is utter nonsense. You can run the numbers yourself.

If the deficit is to be eliminated, it will have to be eliminated by creating good paying jobs, and by getting those who are presently not paying income taxes onto the federal tax rolls.

President Obama's solution seems to be to create more "government" jobs by hiring more teachers, more policeman and more government workers. If you hire a teacher and pay that teacher $50,000 a year, and if he then pays $10,000 a year in federal income tax, you have spent $50,000 in federal revenues (tax dollars) for a return of $10,000! You are merely redistributing tax dollars taken from First Citizens and giving them to the Second Citizens.

This is what Mr. Romney describes as Mr. Obama's plan "Government trickle-down economics." (This does not mean that teachers and policemen are not "necessary;" but it does mean that tax dollars are spent to hire them.)

Gov. Romney's solution is to let the private sector to create the new "good paying" jobs. One example of how he would do it, is seen in his energy policy. He would drill for more gas and oil, and dig for more coal. Under Mr. Romney's plan, the wages of the people who drill for gas and oil, and dig for coal wouldn't be paid by the American taxpayer. They would be paid by private industry. If the oil worker was paid a salary of $50,000, it would come from his employer, without cost to the government. But that individual would still pay $10,000 in federal income tax.

Under Mr. Obama's "government" employment plan, the government loses $40,000. ($50,000 to pay salary generating $10,000 in taxes). Under Mr. Romney's Plan the government has a net gain of $10,000 (no government salary generating $10,000 in taxes.)

If 50 percent of the American people pay $1 trillion in taxes, the goal should be to get 100 percent of the American people paying $2 trillion -- without cost to the government!

Posted Online: :   Oct. 09, 2012, 2:46 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Why Should Israel Be Worried?

Israel is a very small nation of about 8,000 square miles. It is 263 miles long, and 9-7 miles wide. It could fit into Florida eight times.

On Aug. 15, according to a report from the respected Middle East Media Research Institute, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated, "As the morning star once rose on the Islamic Revolution's victory (in Iran) ... it will again rise, (this time,) on the cause of Palestine, and this Islamic land will undoubtedly be restored to the Palestinian nation, (while) the superfluous, mendacious and false Zionist (regime) will be eradicated from the geographical landscape..."

During the first eight months of 2012, Iranian proxies have fired some 353 rockets into Israel -- rockets supplied by Iran. So, if you live in Israel, can you risk allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Until recently, the United States has had a "special relationship" with Israel. Indeed, the 2008 Democrat Platform said exactly that.

"Our starting point (for our Middle East Policy) must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

In furtherance of the U. S. "commitment to the security of Israel," the 2008 platform went on to say, "The United States and its ... partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements."

The platform also recognized that, if Israel was to be a defensible nation, it was unrealistic to require thatIsrael give all land that it had won at war since 1949. "All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return (by Israel) to the armistice lines of 1949."

Finally, the platform stated, "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

Compare that with the 2012 Democrat Platform, as originally adopted.

" President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security.

"For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years.

"The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in the region.

"And we have deepened defense cooperation -- including funding the Iron Dome system -- to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

"The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.

"It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

"A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

"At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel.

"We will continue to support Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years.

"And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements."

If you are the Israeli prime minister, why would you be nervous? Clearly, the 2012 Democrat platform didn't unequivocally throw Israel under the bus, but equally clearly, there were four unequivocal assurances that were deleted, which could not have been reassuring:

-- The "special relationship."

-- America's promise to "isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism."

-- Support for not returning to "1949 borders," and

-- The plank about "Jerusalem being the capital of Israel."

(That latter provision was voted back in by a "floor vote" at the 2012 convention, where notwithstanding the ruling of the chair, it sounded like delegates voted against putting it back in. )

So, why would the Israeli prime minister want a face-to-face meeting with the U.S. President? Why would he want the U. S. to draw a a "red line" or a "line in the sand" saying to the Iranians that it mean war with the U. S. for Iran to cross that nuclear line?

And of course, what does it look like to Israel when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and allows Iraq to come unraveled? When the American president announces a "deadline" for America to leave Afghanistan? When we stands idle as the Syrian dictator murders his own people? When America "leads from the rear" in Libya? And when the America apologizes for a YouTube video while its ambassador is murdered, and its embassies are demolished all over the Muslim world? If we can't protect our own embassies, why would the Israelis believe we will protect them?

Given that, if you were Israel, would you strike Iran while you still had the chance -- before Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, which in the words of the "Supreme Leader" would enable Iran to "eradicate Israel"?

Posted Online: :   Sept. 25, 2012, 1:38 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Are You Really Better Off? Crunch the Numbers Yourself

Candidates in both parties are asking, "Are you financially better off now than you were four years ago?" What do you think? Are you?

Here are a few statistics.

-- The number of persons said to be living in poverty in January 2009 was 39.8 million. Today that number is 43.6 million.

-- The August jobs report released Sept. 7 revealed that 368,000 Americans simply gave up looking for work. That number was nearly four times larger than the 96,000 people who actually found jobs. The government also reported that the "labor force participation rate" fell to 63.5 percent — the lowest figure since September of 1981.

-- In January 2009, the national debt was $10.627 trillion. Today it is over $16 trillion. There are about 300 million Americans. Therefore, your share of the national debt in January 2009 was roughly $35,000. Today, it is roughly $53,000. But there are problems with these numbers.

First, they are impersonal. They are huge numbers, but unless you are living in poverty, or unemployed, they are just numbers to you.

Second, while they are government statistics, we hesitate to rely on them because, in the words of a great 19th-century British statesman, "figures lie, and liars figure." For you, therefore, to accurately answer the question, "Are you better off?" I think it is better to look at the more immediate things that affect your daily life.

I have formulated a series of questions, which should make it very clear whether you were better off in January 2009 than you are now.

-- What was your salary in January 2009? What is it now? What was the percentage increase (or decrease)?

-- If you are on pension, what was your monthly pension benefit in January 2009? What is it now?

-- If you are on a pension, was the Legislature or your employer looking for a way to reduce your pension in January 2009? Is it now?

-- What was your health insurance situation in January 2009? Have you lost health insurance? Has your employer reduced the share he or she paid? Increased the share you pay? If you're a state employee or retiree, is the Legislature requiring you to pay more or is it about to?

-- What was the value of your home in January 2009? What is it today? Are you current on your mortgage, or underwater?

-- Has the cost of schooling your children increased? College? Grad school?

-- Are you paying state income tax today at a rate in effect in January 2009? Or has the Legislature increased it?

-- Has your municipality increased sewer rates? Water rates?

-- Are you paying the same real estate tax you were paying in January 2009?

-- Do you have cable? Are you paying the same monthly amount you were in January 2009?

-- The average price of gasoline in January 2009 was $1.83 per gallon. What are you paying today?

-- When you go to the grocery store, are you paying more or less? Here are a few of my comparisons from my receipts:

16 oz. peanut butter (4/5/09) -- $1.47; 28 oz. peanut butter summer 2012, $4.

16 oz. strawberries (4/5/09) -- $1.77. 32 oz strawberries summer 2012 --$4.99.

1 gallon skim milk (8/15/09) -- $1.79. Summer of 2012 -- $2.99.

18 oz. Oreo Cookies (4/5/09) -- $2. 16.6 oz Oreo Cookies Summer 2012 -- $2.49

2 qt. Breyers Ice Cream (4/5/09) -- $2.50. 1.5 qt. Breyers Ice Cream Summer of 2012 -- $3.

You should be able to calculate whether you income has increased more than your expenses, or vice-versa.

If your income has increased more than your expenses, you should be in better shape financially. If not, you are probably in worse shape.

It looks to me like things are going from bad to worse. And, with the present administration, I see no meaningful plan to make things better.

The president's plan would raise taxes. Those paying a marginal tax rate of 36 percent would see their rate increase to 39.6 percent. The Heritage Foundation reports that in 2011 the federal income tax on individuals raised $1,091,500,000,000.

But for ease of understanding, assume that every taxpayer's federal income tax was raised by 3.6 percent on all income (which clearly won't be the case!). That would raise a tad less than $40 billion per year.

But when you consider that the White House's Office of Management and Budget projects that the 2012 deficit will be, $1.33 trillion, you're talking about less than 4 percent of that figure -- a drop in the bucket!

It is for that reason that I give the president's plan to tax the "rich" an extra 3.6 percent a vote of no confidence.

The simple truth is this, 50 percent of the American people paid $1.091 trillion in income tax during 2011. If each of them paid 100 percent more (rather than 3.6 percent more), it would raise an additional $1.091 trillion -- not enough to cover the projected 2012 deficit of $1.33 trillion. The president's plan is nonsense.

It's good class warfare and good politics, but the numbers simply don't work.

Posted Online: :  Sept. 19, 2012, 2:16 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Hope and Change Is a Soundbite, Not Serious Policy

"The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairman, Democratic National Committee

The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds should be mandatory reading for any American planning to vote in November. It is not a partisan document.

Three of the six trustees are prominent Democrats and members of the Obama administration: Timothy F. Geithner, Treasury secretary, Hilda L. Solis, Labor Secretary and Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services secretary.

The Medicare program has two components:

Hospital Insurance (HI), otherwise known as Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital, home health, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled.

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled.

Part D provides subsidized access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries and premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees.

(Medicare also has a Part C, which serves as an alternative to traditional Part A and Part B coverage. Under this option, beneficiaries can choose to enroll in and receive care from private "Medicare Advantage" and certain other health insurance plans that contract with Medicare. These plans receive prospective, capitated payments for such beneficiaries from the HI and SMI Part B trust fund accounts.)

So, what shape is Medicare in? According to the Medicare Trustees, "The estimated exhaustion date for the HI trust fund (Part A) remains at 2024 .... As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years."

Things are not as gloomy for the SMI component. "The SMI trust fund is adequately financed over the next 10 years and beyond because premium and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to match expected costs."

But if Medicare Part A fund is estimated to be "exhausted" in 2024, what will seniors do in 2024? If the fund is "exhausted" it isn't going to be there to pay for "physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled." Such payments as are made, will be reduced, and paid only from current revenues.

If the Medicare Part A fund will be "exhausted" in 2024, the head in the sand approach is abject stupidity. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (speaking of Social Security) says, "The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." But when the fund is heading to exhaustion in 12 years, doesn't doing nothing amount to "putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans?"

At the minute, there is only one candidate running for the presidency or vice-presidency who has put a plan to fix Medicare on the table. The response by the president, vice president and the Democrats has been to accuse that candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, the only guy with the guts to put a plan on the table, of "wanting to push grandma and her wheelchair off the cliff."

Here is what Mr. Ryan writes on his website:

"It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America's health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America's social contract with retired workers."

Not content with that "broad statement of principles," candidate Ryan proposes remedies to take effect in 2023, when those presently 55 and under begin to reach retirement age.

"Beginning in 2023, when workers currently under the age of 55 become eligible for Medicare, seniors would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange.

"Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.

"The Medicare Exchange would provide all seniors with a competitive marketplace where they could chose a plan the same way members of Congress do.

"All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs.

"Health care plans would compete for the right to serve Medicare beneficiaries."

What is clear is that Mr. Ryan's remedy:

-- Does not effect current retirees.

Would be applicable only to people presently 55 and under who will reach retirement in 2023 or after.

-- Would give Americans reaching retirement age in 2023 a choice, to go with "a traditional Medicare Plan," or a "private plan."

Congressman Ryan's plan may be good or bad. But at least he has had the guts to put it on the table for debate. Calling Mr. Ryan or his plan names does not seriously address the issue. Running political ads showing a Ryan look-a-like pushing an old lady off the cliff is not serious discussion.

We deserve more from President Obama and the Democrats. What are the details of his plan to keep Part A from becoming exhausted? Doing nothing and avoiding the issue is not a "plan."

Medicare Part A is going broke. "Hope and Change" without more will not save Medicare. Where is the Harry Truman-type of leadership?

Posted Online: :  Sept. 09, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Can Democracy Survive When Political Leaders Lie

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

How far can a candidate (or political party) go to win an election? Can the candidate lie? Can the political party?

If a Super PAC lies to further the interest of the candidate or political party, can the candidate say, "They are independent; we don't control what they say." Or must the candidate denounce the lie told by the Super PAC?

And if the candidate opts not to denounce the lie and benefits, is he not complicit in the lie? If a friend of mine lies saying, "I have won the Congressional Medal of Honor," can I accept any advantage that follows from the lie?

If I don't disavow the lie and profit from the lie, do not I myself become a liar? Is it permissible to use an evil means -- a lie -- to achieve a good end -- victory at the polls?

On Aug. 7, Priorities USA, a Super PAC, released a political ad titled, "Understands." It features former steelworker, Joe Soptic. The ad is calculated to link Mitt Romney with the death from cancer of Mr. Soptic's wife. Mr. Soptic, referring to Bain Capital takeover of GST Steel plant, says, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.

"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that, my wife became ill ... she passed away in 22 days."

But here is the timeline:

-- 1993: Bain Capital acquires GST.

-- 1999: Romney takes paid leave-of-absence from Bain to run 2002 Olympics.

-- 2001: GST goes bankrupt.

-- 2002: Joe Soptic is laid off from GST, finds job as school janitor (at much lower salary).

-- 2006: Joe Soptic's wife dies from cancer accidentally discovered when she goes to the hospital for pneumonia.

So, on these facts, would any impartial American jury find Romney caused the death of Renae Soptic? I don't think so. A juror or two might be persuaded, but not 12.

So is this political ad a lie? A lie is generally defined as an intentionally false statement, or a statement made with a reckless disregard from the truth. Had the ad come right out and said, "Mitt Romney murdered my wife," that statement clearly would have been a lie under either prong of my test. The ad doesn't go that far, but it does falsely allege that Romney closed GST.

Romney didn't close GST. He had gone three years before to run the Olympics, and had no part in the plant shutdown, or in Mr. Soptic being laid off or losing his insurance.

To say that a "short time" after (in reality, four years), Mrs. Soptic became ill, and passed away 22 days later, ignores the timeline and the fact that Mrs. Soptic's cancer was discovered seven years after Romney went off to run the Olympics and four years after Mr. Soptic was laid off.

The purpose of the ad is to paint Romney as an "unfeeling predatory capitalist," who runs around closing plants, blithely unconcerned about who he hurts, and that the GST closing resulted in Mrs. Soptic's death.

So, why am I bothered by politicians and PACs that lie? If they lie to get elected, why won't they lie once in office?

Similarly, I am concerned about the Obama administration seeking to redefine abortion as a "woman's health care issue," and not as a "moral issue" as the Catholic Church argues. I don't trust politicians to tell what us is moral.

President Harry S. Truman once said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. ... If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

For many people in politics, lying has become a way of life. For them it is an acceptable means to an end. As long as they perceive the end to be a societal good, they believe the means chosen to attain the good are moral. Most churchmen would disagree.

The Catholic Church, the oldest of the Western Christian churches, after considering whether the ends justify the means for 2,000 years, teaches, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. Well-formed conscience is upright and truthful ...

"Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it; the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'"

The Church's bottom line is: "One may never do evil so that good may result from it."

Truman saw that. If we tolerate politicians who lie to achieve a greater good, or who utilize lies put forth by their supporters, and refuse to disavow them, then lying becomes a permissible political tool to achieve what whatever the government labels or defines as good.

Posted Online: : August 22, 2012 3:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Romney Guilty until Proven Innocent?

"I was told by an extremely credible person that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years. People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes ... It's clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.

"I don't know if it's true." -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.


The Democrat majority leader demonstrated from the floor of the U.S. Senate why Washington D.C. is a cesspool. Then, not content with messing the Senate floor, he went on to tell the Huffington Post that, a "person who had invested with Bain Capital," called his office and said, "Harry, he (Mr. Romney) didn't pay taxes for 10 years!"

Sen. Reid continued, "Now do I know that that's true. Well, I'm not certain."

When Mr. Reid states that Mr. Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years, there can be but two logical -- diametrically opposed -- interpretations: Mr. Romney lawfully paid no taxes because he took advantage of all deduction made available to him by the tax code. Or Mr. Romney is guilty of tax evasion -- a felony.

Now, if Mr. Reid were merely saying, Mr. Romney took advantage of all lawful deductions, then what did Mr. Romney do that any other lawfully acting American wasn't permitted to do? Doesn't the rational person paying federal income tax take advantage of every deduction allowed to him?

But then, what is Sen. Reid talking about when he goes on to say "People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes? What (dirty?) "tricks"?

Aren't those "tricks" known as deductions? Aren't all Americans entitled to take every applicable deduction allowed? And who wrote the code with all those "tricks?" Clearly not Mr. Romney. Aren't the tax laws made by Reid and his cronies in the U.S. House and Senate?

I suggest Mr. Reid intended his remarks to be pejorative. If that is not so, why accuse Mr. Romney of "hiding something, ... and the American people deserve to know what it is?"

Mr. Reid's innuendo is clearly that candidate Romney is a tax evader -- a criminal. What kind of man accuses another of employing "tricks," "hiding something" or criminal tax evasion, and then backs it up with insipidity? ("I don't know if its true." Or, "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain.")

Gov. Romney is a public figure. Ordinarily, public men can't be libeled or slandered unless the libels or slanders are made with a "reckless disregard for the truth." But what else is it other than a "reckless disregard for the truth," when Mr. Reid says, "I don't know if its true"?

Does a man act ethically when he implies another is guilty of tax evasion? When he repeats something -- from an unnamed source -- that he does not know to be true? But then of course, Sen. Reid, has a trump card.

For a speech made in the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution says Mr. Reid cannot "be questioned in any other place." He can't be sued for libel or slander.

In criminal law, a judge can't issue an arrest or search warrant without first finding probable cause. When a police officer applies for a search warrant, and the officer is relying on hearsay of a "confidential source" or "unnamed informant," the affidavit for a warrant must show more than that an informant says, "Mr. X is committing a crime."

First it must show specific facts that make probable a crime is being committed. The affidavit must further factually demonstrate to the judge that the informant (who is not before the court and not subject to penalties of perjury) is a "reliable informant." The American public has been told nothing factual by Mr. Reid which in any way demonstrates that his "unnamed informant" is or was "reliable." Mr. Reid concluding that his source is credible does not make it so.

Instead, Mr. Reid demands that Mr. Romney release 10 years of his tax returns; that is, that Mr. Romney must "prove his innocence." That is the rule of the Spanish Inquisition, not of the American judicial system. In America, men are "presumed innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A senator should know that. Even a Republican candidate for president should be accorded that presumption. And if Mr. Romney has been evading taxes for 10 years, where has the IRS been?

On Feb. 9, 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said, referring to people in the U. S. State Department:

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."

In 1951, calling somebody a communist was the preferred way of destroying them. Today, suggesting that a candidate is a rich tax-evader seems to be the method of choice.

Americans came to despise Joe McCarthy. As the accuser, Harry Reid has the burden of proof.

If he cannot demonstrate he is acting in good faith, he will deserve to be called, "Dirty Harry" and ranked with Joe McCarthy.

Posted Online: : Aug. 13, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

If You're Successful and It Isn't Your Fault, Whose Is It?

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. ... Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

These remarks come from a speech delivered by President Barrack Obama on July 16 at Roanoke, Va. When I first heard reports of this speech, I was shocked.

I was shocked further when I found the entirety of the speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia.

The president is obviously correct when he says roads, bridges, the internet and the American system facilitate American business. But that is like saying no farmer is successful without farmland. You obviously can't farm without farmland, but without the efforts of the farmer you get only weeds, brush and trees. Nor can you raise corn without seed. But if the farmer owns land, and buys seed and leaves the seed in the barn, he isn't going to have a corn crop -- unless somebody else does the work for him.

The same is true of having a good teacher and a road. Imagine a man and his wife opening a Yoga studio in downtown Moline. They won't have a successful business because they had wonderful teachers, ample nearby parking, and a road in front of their business.

The proof is simple. The guy who runs the business next door may be located along the same road, have the same access to parking, and may have had the very same teachers during his school years. But why does the Yoga business thrive after six years, while the business next door goes out of business? The reason is clear. The owners of the Yoga studio worked hard to be successful, and made good business decisions. The owners of the defunct business either didn't work hard enough or made improvident business decisions.

Why has Apple Computer succeeded? Did it build a better computer? A better iPod? A better iPad? A better iPhone? Did they have better ideas? Better execution of their ideas? Or did it have better roads to service its business?

There is no question but that it can be a great help for a business to have the government bury it with subsidies, e.g. Solyndra. But if good teachers, roads, and government subsidies translate to success, Solyndra shouldn't be in bankruptcy.

When the Pilgrims came to America in 1620, there were no roads, schools and government subsidies. They set up their community under the model of the early Christians, as told in the Acts of the Apostles. They worked community farms, and all shared equally in the produce of the land. And they nearly starved to death. It was only after the Pilgrims were allowed to farm individual plots and to keep the produce of those plots, that the community prospered. And of course, some barely got by, while others grew prosperous.

For 70 years the U.S.S.R. was a communist society. The worker derived no benefit if he worked harder than his neighbor. The only people who prospered were top government officials. The citizenry lived in a dull, gray, functional government apartment buildings. After 70 years, the Soviet people had had enough.

And now, President Obama holds them up as a model for us. Not satisfied with equal opportunity (liberty) for all Americans, the president opts to emulate Marxist, communist, and socialist models, and incessantly calls for income redistribution and equality of outcome.

If good teachers are the key to success, why does one student prosper while the next goes to prison? Doesn't individual effort have something to do with success? Why does one student learn to read and play the violin, while the next remains illiterate and does drugs?

Why does one student become a doctor, while the guy at the next desk earns minimum wage all his life? Better roads? Bridges?

Perhaps President Obama thinks the way he does because of his own experience. Politicians only become president because others (media-moguls, money-men and voters) opt to push him to the top of the "greasy pole." But most successful business men do it on their own.

Posted Online:  July 31, 2012, 1:50 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea


 

Al Gore Concession Speech among American History's Finest

Whether or not you approve of the United Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, it effectively resolved the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election.

That being said, the lion's share of the credit for the peaceful transition must be accorded to Mr. Gore, himself. He chose to abide by the the Supreme Court ruling. Had he behaved differently, America could have experienced riots in all its major cities, and perhaps even civil war.

In a concession speech a day after the ruling, Mr. Gore told the American public:

"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. ... I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we've just passed.

"Almost a century and a half ago, Sen. Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.' Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

"Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, 'Not under man but under God and law.' That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.

"And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends. ....

"This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.

"Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will. Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in a spirit of reconciliation.

"So let it be with us.

"I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country. ...

"The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I, personally, will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us -- to unite behind our next president.

"This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president."

I regard Mr. Gore's concession speech as one of our nation's greatest speeches. It is eloquent both in what was said and in Mr. Gore's commitment to the rule of law. Imagine what he could have said. Envision him having said, "This election was stolen!" Or, "I will not abide a corrupt decision of a corrupt partisan court!" Imagine him demanding "a new election, with international monitors." Or calling for his supporters to "take to the streets to prevent obstruction of the will of the voters." Mr. Gore's speech saved our Republic from chaos and possible civil war.

But as dangerous as the 2000 situation was, imagine a future election scenario with the challenger eeking out the narrowest of wins, with the president calling the decision "a corrupt decision by a out-of-touch partisan court." Imagine further the president refusing to abide by the high court's decision, declaring himself the winner, and stationing troops in the streets to maintain his power. Such a thing has never happened in America, but it could in the future.

This is why Mr. Gore deserves to be greatly respected for what he said and did.

Posted Online: July 19, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

AT WHAT POINT SHOULD A CHURCH ENTER THE POLITICAL THICKET?

   

    The Catholic Church has sued the Obama Administration. Bishop Daniel Jenky

of Peoria explains why:

    'We all know that our religious freedom is under direct attack as articulated

    in the federal government's Health and Human Services Mandate. ... “The

    mandate forces Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and charitable groups

    to provide insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and
   
    sterilization. This is directly contrary to our Catholic mission and violates our

    religious freedom.''


    But if the Obama Administration is truly directly attacking the “religious freedom”

of Catholics and the Catholic Church, why isn’t the church calling upon its membership

to “dump” President Obama in the fall election. If killing fetuses is truly a grave moral wrong,

why “pussy foot.” Why merely suggest that Catholics should “vote their consciences?” Why not

come right out and call for the President’s defeat? I suggest there are two reason.

   
    Father Michael Schaab of St. Pius Parish in Rock Island gives the first reason:

    “People always are concerned and leery that the church doesn't get into

    situations in which it looks as if they're being told how to vote. But the Bishop

    has been clear that's not the intent,''


    But if the church really believes abortion is tantamount to murder, why isn’t that “the

intent?” What’s the purpose of having a church if it won’t forcefully speak out against

what it perceives to be the equivalent of murder?


    So why doesn’t the church come right out and say, “If you truly believe that

abortion is a grave moral wrong, you can’t vote for President Obama in the fall? Indeed,

prior to 1954 the Churches were not so circumspect.


    On the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website, you will find the following, which I

suspect is the real reason for the church “pulling its punches.”


    “In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to

     prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes ... churches, from engaging

    in any political campaign activity. [O]ver the years, it has in fact strengthened

     the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the

    language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing

    candidates.

    “Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity ...  churches by

    defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in,

    or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),

    any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate

    or public office."

    So, the question is this: Does the church have a realistic fear that if that if it descends into

the “political thicket,” that it will lose its tax exempt status? You decide. That same web site also

states

    “For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS received 237 referrals and

    selected 100 (44 churches, 56 nonchurches) for examination. More
   
    than half of these cases are still under investigation. However, the

    IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued

    written advisories. So far, there are no revocation recommendations.



   But why does the IRS’s conduct not violate the First Amendment. That amendment

states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...”


    If a President raised a campaign war fund of a billion dollars with the promise he would

repeal the 13th Amendment and re-enslave all blacks, wouldn’t the churches, as a free exercise

of their religion and speech, have a right to denounce him and encourage the election of his

opponent? What if the President called for the extermination of all Jews, Catholics and Baptists,

or the suppression of all religions, wouldn’t the churches have the right to compare him to

Hitler and Stalin, and call upon their congregations to make sure he was not re-elected?


    There is a Constitutional reason that the churches are not taxed. Chief Justice John

Marshall long ago said “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” In 1970, in Walz v. Tax

Commissioner, Mr. Chief Justice Burger wrote

    “The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement

    nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. ...


    “Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an

    indirect economic benefit ..., but yet a lesser involvement than taxing them.


     The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between

    church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal

    relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce

    the desired separation insulating each from the other.”


    For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS investigated 100 churches, and found 26 violations.

It revoked no tax exemptions. Why? Because the IRS has to know that to do so would violate

First Amendment (free exercise of religion and free speech) rights, and would be

unconstitutional. No rule is better settled than that the First Amendment exists first and foremost

to guarantee political speech. Where true political speech is involved, “no law” means “no law.”


    In the much maligned (by liberals) 2009 case of Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm.

the court said bluntly:

        “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of
   
         political speech, the Government may impose restrictions
   
        on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic
   
        lead us to this conclusion.”


  The “disfavored speakers” who brought the Citizens United case were corporations who wished

to use their “general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech

 (“electioneering communication”) ... expressly advocating the defeat of a candidate.” The Court

stated, “the Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.” Most

churches are corporations. And if under Citizens United, they can expend funds to advocate the

“election or defeat of a candidate, they certainly can engage in pure speech to advocate the

“defeat” of a candidate.


   But even if the churches would have to sacrifice their tax exemptions to condemn grave

moral wrongs, shouldn’t they do so?  If they fail to speak out in the face of who and what they

perceive to grave evil, who needs them?

Posted Online: July 17, 2012, 7:21 a. m.  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea