Illinois' Welfare State - for Really Big Corporations

Illinois corporations are leaving and threatening to leave Illinois.

To stop this exodus, the Democrat-controlled Illinois Legislature is offering tax breaks to a number of really big corporations. Those breaks will be paid for by you, me and small businesses. A cynic might call this "welfare for large corporations."

In case you missed it, in January of 2011, the Legislature raised Illinois' corporate income tax to 9.5 percent. No Republicans voted for the increase, either in the House or the Senate.

At the time, Gregory Baise, head of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, according to the Dec. 13, 2011 Huff Post Chicago, predicted that "the only businesses that will benefit (will be) the moving companies. They will be helping many of my members (corporations) move out of (Illinois)." Illinois has a "state bird." Maybe Mr. Baise should be named "state prophet!"

Last month Office Depot Inc. and OfficeMax completed a $1.2 billion merger. the new company will be called Office Depot. Prior to the merger, OfficeMax was based in Naperville, Office Depot was headquartered in Boca Raton, Fla.

The new Office Depot has picked Boca Raton, for its global headquarters, over the Illinois home of OfficeMax, its merger partner. Both companies, of course, asked for tax breaks from Florida and Illinois.

Office Depot Inc. had sought a $53 million EDGE tax credit from Illinois over 15 years. When the incentive failed to pass the Illinois House, Office Depot opted to locate its new headquarters in Boca Raton.

Office Depot CEO Roland Smith said that, after assessing its options, the company determined Boca Raton provided a way for it to drive better profitability and reach planned savings. Businesses prefer to be profitable! According to Mr. Smith, Office Depot looked at a number of factors, including the cost to run each location, lease obligations and sublease considerations, government incentives and tax implications.

Prior to merger, OfficeMax had about 1,600 employees at Naperville. Office Depot Inc. had about 1,700 in Boca Raton. We are told that it is too early to estimate how many OfficeMax employees might move to Boca Raton. It does not appear that any of the 1,700 employees of the old Office Depot Inc will be moving to Illinois.

At the same time Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) has been discussing relocating its corporate headquarters with representatives from St. Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. Presently ADM has its corporate headquarters in Decatur.

To induce ADM to retain jobs in Decatur and relocate its headquarters to Chicago, Democrat State Sen. Andy Manar, of Bunker Hill, wants the legislature to give ADM a $24 million Edge tax incentive -- $1.2 million over 20 years.

Directly upon learning that Office Depot was heading to Florida, State Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, called on Gov. Pat Quinn to bring the House back to Springfield to pass an incentive package to keep ADM in Illinois. (capitolfax.com/2013/12/10/officemax-react/).

So, why are corporations leaving and threatening to leave the state? The Tax Foundation has the numbers.

Look at what Illinois, with its 9.5 percent corporate income tax, is competing against: Colorado, 4.63 percent. Florida, 5.5 percent. Georgia, 6 percent and Alabama, 6.5 percent.

Look at the combined city and average local sales tax rates: Illinois, 8.13 percent. Florida, 6.62 percent. Colorado, 7.39 percent. Georgia, 6.69 percent. Alabama, 8.48 percent.

Or look at the Unemployment Insurance rates and taxable wage base. Illinois' highest rate is 8.4 percent on a taxable wage base of $12,740. Florida's is 5.4 percent on $7,000. Georgia's is 5.4 percent on $8,500. Colorado's is 5.4 percent on $10,000. Alabama's is 6.7 percent on $8,000
So, when it is cheaper -- more profitable -- to do business in other states, why would any company choose to remain in Illinois? The answer is simple.

Illinois bribes them to stay here with corporate welfare. If you're big enough, the Legislature will give you breaks that are not available to little businesses.

In Dec. of 2011, Gov. Quinn signed legislation that granted tax breaks and incentives aimed at keeping two large employers in Illinois: Sears Holdings Corp. and CME Group Inc. (operator of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange).

According to the Chicago Tribune, the deal gave Sears tax credits worth $15 million a year for 10 years, which it can use against withheld employee income taxes. The deal also would extend a special taxing district, reducing the company's local property tax bill for another 15 years. CME expected to pay about $158 million for 2011, less than Illinois's 9.5 percent corporate income tax. The legislation is expected to cut that tax bill by nearly half.

The governor justifies the raid on the Illinois treasury as follows: "You have to defend yourself. If Ohio is offering $400 million to Sears, a company that has thousands of employees in Illinois, we will defend ourselves with a reasonable, adequate approach."

I'm sorry. This stinks. President Obama says it's fair to tax the rich to benefit the poor. Gov. Quinn, House Speaker Michael Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton and their cronies in the Legislature have it the other way around: tax the small guy to benefit the rich.

The solution isn't to incentivize big corporations by bribing them to stay in Illinois. The real solution is to lower the corporate tax rate for all corporations. Do that and the incentive for all corporations to relocate out of Illinois will disappear. Of course, that might require some fiscal discipline, and that is unknown in Springfield.


Posted Online: Dec.  20, 2013, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea


John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit court judge.

'Means' and 'Ends': Whither Goest America?

Why is compromise in Washington no longer possible? Consider this: There are at play in America two diametrically opposed systems of morality.

The Catholic Church traditionally has taught that the morality of human acts depends on the "goodness" of (a) the object chosen, (b) the intention and (c) the circumstances. It holds that neither the "goodness" of the object nor the intention (for example, helping one's neighbor) justifies using means that are evil, such as lying, demonizing your neighbor or stealing. The church teaches that "the end does not justify the means," and that "one may not do evil so that good may result from it."

The opposing system, which is perhaps best described by Saul Alinsky, teaches that if the "end" is good, the morality of the "means" chosen to achieve that end is not a matter worthy of consideration. All that matters is that the means chosen will work.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky devotes his second chapter to a discussion of means and ends. He writes:

"The second rule of the ethics of 'means and ends' is that the judgment of the ethics of 'means' is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis.Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions. To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. Any foreign occupation would so ethically judge its opposition. However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death."

Alinsky would no doubt see universal health care as a matter of "life and death." As such, he would place the "have nots" in the shoes of the Resistance, fighting the Nazi occupation, and those who oppose universal health care, in the shoes of the Nazi occupiers. For that reason, an Alinsky-ite would ask only what means he would work? Fair and truthful political argument? Lying? Demonizing your opponents? Destroying his reputation? Calling him a racist? Bribing reluctant supporters? Punishing political opponents?

Alinsky has written, "Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. ... he who fears corruption fears life."

Once the Alinsky-ite decides that the end is achievable, and worth the cost, his only other question is whether the means chosen will work. Therefore if lies will work, lying is a permissible means. If destroying your opponents reputation will work, that is permissible. And, at the extreme, if assassinating your opponent works, do it! And if by controlling the press you can stifle all outcry, that too is an acceptable means.

For the Alinsky-ite, the individual cannot stand the way of the good of the masses: "The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action;' in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he doesn't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them."

The church teaches otherwise: "Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him. Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature.These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects."

The great problem, of course, with Alinsky's view of ends and means is that if you and your friends can assassinate me (politically or actually) to achieve political or economic mass good, then why can't I and my friends employ like means against you to achieve our notions of mass good? What sort of society do you have when everybody and every political faction lies, bribes and blackmails in support of what they believe to be "social justice?"

Alinsky's equating the struggle between the "have-nots" and the "haves" to war and Nazi occupation turns civilian life into war. But war is the absence of morality and the rule of law. "War is Hell." Is that what we want for ourselves and our children?

So, why is compromise becoming impossible in Washington? How do you compromise when the other side lies about you and the issues? Who vilifies and demonizes you? Who calls you a racist?

Alinsky's notion that the individual and his conscience must be sacrificed for the mass good scares the hell out of me. His paradise looks too much like a new and unimproved version of Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany. If the government -- on behalf of the masses -- determines that the ends are achievable and worth the cost, what prevents the despoilment, destruction or enslavement of the minority "haves?"


John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Dec. 05, 2013, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Should the Federal Government Vacuum Leaves?

"Subsidiarity," according to Wikipedia, is an organizing principle of decentralization, which holds that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.

The principle of subsidiarity is built into the U.S. Constitution. As designed, the federal government was to have only such specific powers as the experiment under the Articles of Confederation made clear were necessary and proper to an efficient national government, consistent the with notion that ours was to be a federal system. The last two amendments to the Bill of Rights were specifically designed to prevent mission creep -- to limit the federal government to the exercise of its "specifically enumerated powers." They are:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- Ninth Amendment (1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment (1791)

To understand the practical implications of the principle of subsidiarity, consider Moline's annual leaf vacuuming program. And consider whether every American has a right to have his leaves vacuumed up.

Every year at this time, Moline goes into the business of collecting leaves that have fallen from Moline's innumerable trees. This is a great program. The men and women who conceived, implemented and have continued this leaf collection deserve the gratitude of everybody who breathes Moline air.

In 2012, Moline collected 1,624 tons of leaves (3,248,000 lbs) Oct.15-Nov. 30. This job took 5,592 man hours. In addition to vacuuming leaves, the city also collected 167 tons of leaves using a tractor and hay baler. Once collected, most leaves were spread and then worked into the soil on two farms owned by the city; the remainder were utilized by local farmers. The city incurred no land-fill fees.

The cost of the 2012 program was $285,187, or $6.59 per resident. This was a bargain for every resident of Moline, and an even greater bargain for those residents with asthma or other respiratory diseases who avoided just one night in the hospital.

Nowadays, as the federal education department and Obamacare clearly demonstrate, whenever Congress decides that a problem is "national," the principle of "subsidiarity" gets obliterated.

This federal government mission-creep is not new. It dates back to Dec. 5, 1791, when Alexander Hamilton made his Report on Manufacturers to the House of Representatives. In it he wrote:

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature (Congress) to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.

"And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare."

The federal courts, which were originally controlled by federalist judges, accepted Hamilton's construction of the Constitution. When 140 years later, Congress passed Social Security, federal judges sustained it using Hamilton's reasoning.

But if the only qualification is that "the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, (must) be general, and not local, what would stop the federal government from deciding that the leaves that fall throughout the nation each autumn, are a matter of "general" and not just "local" concern? What would stop Congress from deciding that the federal government can do a better job of collecting and disposing of leaves than Moline (and all the other cities throughout the nation)?

How many people would have to be hired at salaries in the range of $100,000 per year to run the new Federal Department of Leaf Collection and Disposal? Would they get pensions? Health care?

What would become of the Moline employees who up until now have collected leaves? Would they become federal employees? Or would they be replaced, and new federal employees hired? Perhaps politically connected ACORN "workers?" Would the appropriations for the new department increase at 3 percent, 5 percent, or 10 percent per year? And would the new federal employees get the leaves collected as efficiently as our local workers? And what new "regulations" would be imposed on Moline home owners?

And when the Feds got involved would the cost remain at $6.59 per Moline resident, or would it decrease? Increase? If you have any doubts, just look to the U.S. Department of Education. It began with two employees. Its 2013 budget was $105 billion. Were the services provided by Washington worth $105 billion to the nation's 81 million school children?

Did each child get $1,300 worth of services from Washington?



John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Nov. 21, 2013, 11:48 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

What's Left to Give when Everyone Is Broke?

"There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to misunderstand it." — Abraham Lincoln, The Galesburg Debate (1858)

I have never been jealous of rich people. Here's why.

Imagine you have no assets, and that your income is $2 per day. How much can you give (Christian charity) to help the poor? How much can the government tax (social justice) you to assist the poor?

Social justice is premised on the notion that those with excess wealth can be taxed to provide for the basic needs of the poor in genuine need. Social justice presupposes an upper class and a middle class, each having some degree of excess wealth, that can be redistributed to meet the genuine needs of the poor. But what happens if you have no upper or middle classes; when every citizen is poor? Penniless?

Without wealthy capitalists -- and even without the wealthy socialists -- who is there to tax? If nobody is wealthy (which I define as "having surplus wealth"), who can make meaningful charitable or social contributions?

If perfect equality is achieved, and if everybody is abjectly poor, who can you meaningfully tax?

I am not ideologically opposed to social justice. But it is predicated on taxing the people with excess wealth to assist the genuinely needy. If everybody is genuinely and equally needy, social justice income redistribution becomes impossible.

To illustrate, consider a country with a population of 10.1 million, where more than half the men, women and children live on less than $1 a day. Where about 80 percent of the people live on less than $2 per day. A country where 80 percent of the people live below the poverty line. Where 54 percent live in abject poverty.

Imagine a country where 80 percent of its college grads choose to live abroad. Where the money they send home represents 53 percent of the country's GDP. Imagine a city within a city in that country where 500,000 people literally eek out a living on a garbage dump in a place described by the U.N. as the most dangerous on Earth. A country where 225,000 children work for their existence as unpaid household servants.

Imagine Haiti.

What charitable contributions are those who are trying to survive able to make? When somebody is starving on $2 per day, how much of his income can be redistributed? How many of these 8 million Haitians, living on $2 or less per day, are able to provide jobs for fellow Haitians, so as to provide them with a living wage? Would anybody be able to start or run a business and pay salaries on $2 per day? Pay health benefits?

The poor of Haiti have very little to share -- even if they want to. In Haiti, only 20 percent of the people live above the poverty line.

The World Bank tells us that the Haitian 2012 Gross National Income was $760 per person per year. (As such the Total National Income would be $7,676,000,000: that is, 10.1 million Haitians x $760 per person.) Therefore, if the nation's entire GNI was equally redistributed, each Haitian would have $760 annually to live on. The 50 percent living on less than a dollar a day ($365 per year or less) would, after redistribution, see their incomes "jump" all the way up to a still miserable $2.08 per day. Those living on $2 per day as well as the wealthy, after redistribution, also would have incomes of $2.08 per day.

Again, I am not against social justice. But to have meaningful social justice you need prosperous and numerous upper and middle classes. If you have 99 "wealthy" people and only one in "genuine need," social justice is easy to achieve. But when you have 99 who are living in abject poverty, and 1 who is "rich," social justice is an impossibility.

In a thriving capitalist system, you can tax excess wealth, and redistribute taxes to the less fortunate -- to a point. But there comes a point when taxes are raised on the wealthy, that it no longer is worthwhile to run a business and/or take the risks to create "excess wealth." When that point is reached, businesses either shut down, or downsize.

Indeed, the main ways any business downsizes is by laying off employees, and/or by reducing their hours. While those with excess wealth can be asked to pay more, there are therefore practical limits.

The early Christians sold all they had and laid their wealth at the feet of the apostles. That system worked only briefly. But if it was the best system, why did the early Christians abandon it? Why didn't it work for the Pilgrims? And what happened during the 1920s in Germany when the middle class was destroyed?

If you want social justice and redistribution of wealth, you'd had better make sure that you have vibrant upper and middle classes with "excess wealth." The more they have, the better for income redistribution.

Posted Online: Nov. 13, 2013, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Supporting 'Democratically Elected' Enemy Is Nuts

The U.S. cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Egypt, according to The Associated Press, after the "military ouster last summer of the nation's first democratically elected president."

The "democratically elected president" was Mohammed Morsi, who had previously served as chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party when it was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. Once elected, however, Morsi granted himself power to rule by decree on the pretext that he would "protect" the nation from the "Mubarak-era reactionaries."

There are a number of good reasons for ending American foreign aid. This was not one of them.

There are a great many ways to win an election. The only democratic way is to get more votes than your opponent in an open and free election. But there are many other ways that are hardly democratic. You can kill everybody inclined to vote for your opponent. You can jail opposition voters or keep them away from the polls. You can outlaw opposition political parties, and allow only supporters to vote.

A great many in the Obama administration believe America should support the Muslim Brotherhood as long as it is democratically elected, not withstanding the fact it would destroy our country if it could.

They close their eyes to how it managed its democratic win. We are asked to support a party that kills Coptic Christians and destroys their churches.

According to Wikipedia, the Muslim Brotherhood's stated goal in America "is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the 'sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the ... community ... and state."

The online encyclopedia quotes An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals for the Brotherhood in North America, 1981, which said, for the Brotherhood it is a "'Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan (brothers) must understand their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Wikipedia also links to a federal court document which states the general strategic goal of the Brotherhood in America is "Establishment of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslim efforts, presents Muslim as a civilization alternative, and supports the Global Islamic State wherever it is."

The Muslim Brotherhood, although ostensibly democratically elected in Egypt, was democratic only until it gained power. Once in power it became an intolerant, ruthless theocratic dictatorship.

Eighty years ago, another political party appeared to come to power democratically. But it won by suppressing the vote of all who opposed it. Then, once in power it "democratically" turned itself into a ruthless dictatorship. Next, it started World War II.

On Jan. 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor. Immediately, Hitler demanded dissolution of the Reichstag and new elections. In February, in anticipation of the March 5, 1933, election, the Nazis unleashed a campaign of political terror. Hitler's stormtroopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices, as well as their homes. Gangs of Nazi "brownshirts" broke up Social Democrat meetings and assaulted speakers and audiences. Newspapers were banned.

The German Catholic Centre Party was attacked. Twenty newspapers were shut down for allegedly "slandering" Hitler's government. Centre Party members holding governmental offices were dismissed from their positions. Stormtroopers viciously shut down their party meetings in Westphalia.

Six days before the election, the German parliament building was set ablaze. The Nazis blamed the Reichstag fire on a communist. Those who believed the Nazi propaganda, turned against the KPD.

Capitalizing on the "emergency," Hitler induced President Hindenburg to issue the emergency Reichstag Fire Decree. Civil liberties were suspended and 4,000 KDP members and their leaders imprisoned. As intended, the Communist vote was suppressed. The day after the March 5 election, the Communist Party was banned.

The Reichstag Fire Decree also handicapped Social Democrats. Party leaders fled to Prague. Members were forced underground. The Nazi terror worked as intended, and on March 5, the Nazis won 43.91 percent of the vote, and 288 seats out of 647. To keep his majority, Hitler continued his coalition with the Black-Red-White Struggle Front.

To the outside world, it appeared Hitler had been democratically elected, and that he had democratically formed a coalition government.

But Hitler wanted to rule by decree -- to have dictatorial powers. He got his constitutionally required two-thirds vote when he persuaded the Center Party and a number of the smaller parties to vote in favor of his March 23, 1933, Enabling Act which gave him power to rule "by decree." Forty-two days later, he abolished trade unions. Leaders were arrested. In July, he decreed it was a criminal offense to start or be a member of any political party other than the Nazis.

The Western Democracies deluded themselves into believing Hitler really didn't mean what he said in Mein Kampf.

America needs to see the Muslim Brotherhood for what it really is. It makes no sense to support someone who would destroy our Western way of life.

A dictatorship, even with the trappings of democracy, is still a dictatorship.
John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit court judge.

Posted Online: Nov. 07, 2013, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Minimum Wage Job Better For Society Than No Job

Working at minimum wage is not fun. It's not glamorous. But those who do, clearly benefit society.

Don't get me wrong. I would not be satisfied with my healthy college-educated daughter being satisfied with a minimum wage job. But I would rather see her work at a minimum wage job than spend her days at the beach, and living off a SNAP card and the largesse of friends.

The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us, in addition to the "unemployed who are actively seeking work," that 2.3 million more people "are unemployed and have quit looking for work."

"In August (2013) 2.3 million persons were 'marginally attached' to the labor force ... not (currently) in the labor force, (but they) wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as 'unemployed' because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

"Among the 'marginally attached,' there were 866,000 'discouraged workers' ... persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them."

So, imagine two men on welfare. One is "genuinely needy" and is genuinely incapable of working (owing to permanent or temporary disability). The other, though presently poor, is capable of working at a minimum wage, but considers working for minimum wage beneath his dignity and prefers to get by with a SNAP card and the assistance of his friends.

The Illinois minimum wage is $8.25 per hour. A person who makes it will earn, if he works a 40-hour week for 52 weeks, $17,160 per year. Hardly a satisfactory income, but $17,160 better than nothing!

Now consider the 2012 federal tax consequences (for a single person). The Standard Deduction was $7,400. The Personal Exemption was $3,800. As such, the first $11,200 of income is not subject to federal income tax. Assuming the remaining $6,000 was not subject to any further credits, federal income tax to be paid would be about $600. That is not much, but if 2.3 million "marginally attached" people were to pay that much, the U.S. Treasury would take in an extra $1.38 billion.

On the other hand, when you start talking about Social Security and Medicare taxes, you're talking about bigger money. A person working at minimum wage pays both into both. For ease of computation, let's assume the minimum wage is $10 per hour (rather than the actual $8.25).

If a person earns $10 per hour, and works 40 hours per week, his gross income is $400 per week. If he works 52 weeks a year, his annual gross income is $20,800.

The FICA and Medicare payroll tax for 2013 is 7.65 percent of wages up to $113,700. (6.2 percent for Social Security plus 1.45 percent for Medicare). And the employer matches that. If you are self-employed, the tax is 15.3 percent (12.4 percent for Social Security plus 2.9 percent for Medicare).

Therefore, an employee with an income of $20,800, pays $1,591 (for FICA and Medicare); his employer also pays $1,591. A self-employed individual pays the same: $3,182 ($1,591 times two).

If 2 million more people earn $20,800 per year, The U.S. Treasury takes in an additional $7.32 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year.

Why is that important? Consider a May 31 report in "The Hill" (thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/302719-social-security-insolvent-by-2033#ixzz2gaTypMty).

"Medicare will reach insolvency by 2026 ... Social Security's two trust funds (old age and disability) will become insolvent by 2033 ...

"... (The) Social Security (old age fund) will no longer be able to pay full benefits to retirees after 2033. Only three-quarters of benefits will be delivered after the projected insolvency date."

"The trust fund that pays disability benefits through Social Security is headed for insolvency in 2016 and will only be able to pay out 80 percent of benefits after that date."

So what am I trying to say? People who are genuinely in need are the only people who should be getting welfare or social justice distributions. They would include people who can't work because of temporary or permanent physical or mental disability -- such as a disabled child, a mentally impaired adult or a wounded soldier. A compassionate society clearly has a social justice duty to those who can't help themselves. A person who has no ability to work, has no duty to the state or the taxpayers to work.

But what about people capable of working, who are temporarily out of work? I suggest that while they may be entitled to reasonable temporary assistance for a reasonable period of time, that they have a duty to minimize the amount of assistance needed by taking work -- even at a minimum wage job. When they pay federal, FICA and Medicare taxes they contribute to the long term solvency of the Social Security and Medicare funds, and more slowly deplete what would be available to assist those in more profound "genuine need."

Simply, people capable of working, but who refuse to work, should not be getting social welfare money. As St. Paul said in II Thessalonians, "He who will not work, shall not eat."

So my point is this: A single person who works and makes minimum wage helps support himself, contributes tax dollars to the welfare, Social Security and Medicare funds, reduces their rate of depletion, makes additional dollars available for those needier than him, and derives a degree of satisfaction by being productive and by being a contributing member of society.

Posted Online: Oct. 23, 2013, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Ted Cruz: 'Wacko Bird' or True Patriot?

Is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, really a tea-party anarchist or is he an American who cares deeply about our country? I think it's too early to tell.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964, Barry Goldwater argued "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in defense of justice is no virtue." (youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU)

Like many other Americans at the time -- when most adult Americans believed in American "exceptionalism" and considered America the greatest country on earth -- I was mildly amused by his words. In those days, I was a young Jack Kennedy/Harry S. Truman Democrat. I didn't realize that at the time, that in listening to Sen. Goldwater's speech, I was listening to the beginning of modern-day conservatism.

In his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative," (1960) Goldwater wrote "I ... propose to extend freedom. ... "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. ... not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. ...

"And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Sen. Goldwater was saying the first and most important duty an American president was to guarantee is the birthright of the American people: Liberty.

Now, Sen. Cruz proclaims a desire to snatch the banner Goldwater dropped as he passed from the political scene: And the left savages him. Consider this tidbit from the Huffington Post:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is the best thing that has happened to Democrats since 'Brownie' handled Katrina for Bush 43, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is playing him like a violin. Let him talk, and the more voters who hear Cruz, the better for Democrats.

"Cruz is not only the biggest vanity player in Washington (and that is saying something!), and he is not only a charlatan ... he is a walking advertisement for the weird ring of Republicans -- I call them Banana Republicans -- who could well become a death knell for Republicans in 2014 and 2016."

But is Sen. Cruz really the stupid buffoon, that the "left" and The Huffington Post tells us he is? Not if his academic record is any indication.

Sen. Cruz was valedictorian of his high school class, graduated cum laude from Princeton, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Allan Dershowitz, a "lion of the left," has said that "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant." Cruz clerked for the Chief Justice of the U.S. William Rehnquist.

Clerking for the chief justice is the most prestigious position available to a law school grad. It is not available to the stupid.

So the real issue is, is Cruz a "charlatan," a "weirdo" or "bananas?" Is he "publicity hound," or does he really believe in what he says?

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a video -- a nine-minute speech made by Ted Cruz's father, Rafeal Cruz. I provide the link below. I defy you to watch Cruz's father and come away with the "take" that Ted Cruz is an insincere "vanity player." On the other hand, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Ted Cruz, like his father, Rafeal Cruz, has as his first value "liberty."

Rafael Cruz is a refugee from Cuba. He went to jail and was beaten for protesting the oppressive dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. He welcomed the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power, but then when Castro began seizing private property and suppressing dissenters, he fled to the U.S. at age 18 -- with no money and unable to speak English. Listen to what the senior Cruz says and how he feels about America. Perhaps it takes an immigrant and political refugee to explain to Americans what America really stands for -- "liberty" and "opportunity." And consider how easily this most basic of human rights can be lost (youtube.com/watch?v=0Ym4Xt0T6fM feature=player_embedded).

So is Ted Cruz a "wacko bird" as John McCain says, or is he "his father's son?"

It has been wisely said that "social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The human person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him. Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it."

Without freedom of the individual, there is no social justice.

So, if that is what Ted Cruz really believes, he is no "humbug." His political ideas deserve careful examination -- at least until he proves himself to be another Washington political hack.

In America, when serious men have an important point to make, they seek the optimal public forum. To call attention to his cause, the Rev. Martin Luther King and his supporters took to the streets. When Abraham Lincoln believed the Dred Scott decision was immoral and wrong, he denounced it in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, even though after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, Dred Scott became "the law of the land."

When U.S. senators -- men such as Webster, Clay and Calhoun -- have believed that legislation undermines the welfare of the American people, for 200 years they have taken to the floor of the Senate. What better way does a senator have to call attention to his point than to take to the will of the Senate, and hold the floor until press and public are forced to notice?


Posted Online:  Oct. 08, 2013, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Tweet

You Won't Understand the Constitution by Simply Reading It

"The Democrats in Congress refuse to follow the law -- no budgets, votes that support the president's illegal usurpation of power, forcing legislation through without hearings, etc., etc. Any person who seriously takes his oath to support the Constitution would not act this way. Their disregard for the values the country was founded upon, will destroy us in due time." -- From a reader's response to my recent "Locust's Years" op-ed.

Have you ever read the Constitution and Bill of Rights from beginning to end and wondered what the various clauses mean? Or why they were put there? Think abuses!

In the summer before I entered law school at Notre Dame, Dean Joseph O'Meara directed us to read two books: "The Common Law" (1881) by Oliver Wendell Holmes; and "The Lion and the Throne" (1957) by Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Holmes enunciates the abstract principle that "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

Drinker Bowen wraps that principle in flesh and blood, in her biography of Sir Edward Coke, speaker of the House of Commons, attorney general of England, chief justice of Common Pleas (the civil court), chief justice of King's Bench (the criminal court), and leader in the House of Commons.

Coke held public office almost continuously from 1593 until 1628, beginning his service under Elizabeth I (1558-1603), continuing during the reign of James I (1603-1625) and ending during the reign of his son, Charles I (1625-1649).

He began his service as a loyal supporter of Elizabeth. He ended his days in Parliament (1629) as a staunch opponent of Charles and the Stuart Kings' notion that the king ruled by "divine right."

Elizabeth and the two Stuart Kings were very different monarchs. Elizabeth (by and large) respected the common and parliamentary laws of the realm. James, coming out of Scotland, did not. He believed the king's word was law.

As James crossed into England for his coronation, when a pickpocket was discovered working the crowd of onlookers, James ordered the man hanged. He was -- without trial! The English present, accustomed to trial by jury before hanging, were appalled.

As the years passed, Charles, embroiled in foreign wars, found himself needing money. For that purpose, he convened Parliament. But the House of Commons had grievances and refused to vote to give the king his subsidies. Charles decided to send his tax collectors out to collect the tax "as if ... an Act had passed to that purpose." When the country refused to pay a tax not approved by Parliament, the king's Treasury settled upon the device of "forced loan." Commoners who refused to make "voluntary" loans were impressed into the navy. Peers and gentry who refused were imprisoned without charge. When they sought habeas corpus, the king's judges ruled that when a man was jailed on a king's warrant without charge, the matter must be too serious for the courts to meddle with!

When Parliament dared to debate the "King's Prerogative," members were sent to the Tower of London, to remain there at the king's pleasure. When the Commons sought to call to account the Duke of Buckingham, James' favorite minister of state, the sponsors, too, were conveyed to the Tower.

The men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights were not simply political philosophers. They were practical men, educated in the history (royal abuses) of England. They valued the rights extracted by their English forbears from the English kings, often at the cost of imprisonment or death. They realized their rights were made only reasonably permanent, by the victory of the parliamentary forces over King Charles I in the English Civil War and the beheading of the Charles.

They wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure that the American people would rule themselves. They feared kings whose powers were limited only by their own conscience or ambitions. They rejected the notion of a divine right of kings, but also feared that democracy could all too easily degenerate into mob rule. As additional protection, they added a Bill of Rights.

They understood the importance of personal liberty, as guaranteed by Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1629) and the English Bill of Rights (1688).

Congress members and the president refuse to follow the Constitution for a number of reasons. Many believe what they want to do is just, fair or necessary and that the ends justify the means. They believe their modern interpretation of the Constitution is more enlightened than that of men who wrote and ratified it. They believe it is a living document, and that in a democracy, the majority gets to interpret it to further the will of the majority.

They believe the men who wrote the Constitution were selfish, wealthy aristocrats who wrote the document to protect their wealth. They fail to understand the danger of an all-powerful central government — as our forefathers did. They see government as benign, and ignore its historical tendencies to absolutism.

If you want to understand the meaning of our constitution, read "The Lion and the Throne" ("L&T"). If you want to understand the historical reasons for our Constitution, read "L&T."
If you want to understand the dangers of an all-powerful central government, read "L&T."

It is my favorite book.

Posted Online:  Oct. 02, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

What Happens When Prayer Doesn't Work?

"To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well." -- Gospel of St. Luke 6:29

On Sept. 1, Pope Francis from St. Peter's Square in an address called "Angelus," said:

"War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected. ...

"With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons ... There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence ...

"I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people...

"What can we do to make peace in the world? As Pope John said, it pertains to each individual to establish new relationships in human society under the mastery and guidance of justice and love....

"To this end, brothers and sisters, I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria. ...

"Let us ask Mary to help us to respond to violence."

To try to end the civil war in Syria, Pope Francis has "exhorted the international community," invited for "dialogue and negotiations," called for the "establishment of new relationships," "proclaimed ... a day of fasting and prayer," and asked "Mary to help us."

So is anybody in Syria listening? Assad? Al-Nursa, al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood? And what happens to innocent men, women and children if Assad or the opposing side goes on shooting, bombing or attacking them with sarin gas? (Sarin produces death within one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose, by suffocation caused by lung muscle paralysis).

So what if the pope's exhortations, negotiations and prayers don't work?

In the years just before and during WWII, Adolf Hitler embarked upon a campaign of mass murder and extermination. Six million -- one million children, two million women and three million men -- of the nine million Jews who lived in Europe were murdered by Hitler and his S.S., most in Hitler's death camps.

In addition, the Nazis killed between 220,000 and 500,000 of the Romani People (Gypsies). Between two and three million Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi hands died by starvation, mistreatment or execution. About 345,000 Czechs died, and nearly 600,000 Yugoslavs. And as many as a 110,000 mentally ill or disabled were exterminated. Had Hitler won, it would have been even worse.

Heinrich Himmler's "General Plan East" was approved by Hitler in the summer of 1942. It called for exterminating, expelling, or enslaving most or all Slavs from their native lands so as to make "living space" for German settlers. The plan was to be carried out over a period of 20 to 30 years.

General Plan East was a plan to reduce indigenous populations in the defeated states: Poles by 85 percent; Belarusians by 75 percent; Ukrainians by 65 percent; Czechs by 50 percent. These reductions would be produced by "extermination through labor" or decimation through malnutrition, disease and controls on reproduction. The Soviet people, once the USSR was defeated, would suffer a similar fate.

Before WWII, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, "negotiated" the destruction of the Czech state to appease Hitler and prevent WWII. Before and during WWII, countless millions prayed for peace. During the Holocaust, the Jews prayed that God would save them. God didn't stop the war, or prevent the Holocaust -- unless he acted through the Allied armies! Nothing short of destroying the German war machine stopped Hitler. Indeed, what happened in Hitler's concentration (extermination) camps led many to conclude that "God was Dead," or that if He existed at all, He was useless in the face of such evil, or even worse: He didn't care.

Winston Churchill's view differed from the Pope's.

"The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics. ... Still, it is not on these terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding the state. Their duty is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and war and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects.

"But ... if the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used.
"And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favorable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year, if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win ..."

The pope's call for prayer and fasting is noble. But if militant Islam has its way, there won't be a pope; and there won't be any Christianity. One only has to look at the Middle East over the last 1300 years to see how Christians have fared. At the time of Mohammed, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and all of North Africa were Christian. Today, the last Christian remnants in Egypt, Syria and other Muslim states are being exterminated.

Against a dictator willing to use sarin gas against children, pacifism affords no protection. It is one thing to be slapped on the cheek; it is another thing entirely to have your neighborhood turned into a gas chamber. When prayers of the blessed peacemakers aren't doing the job, a resort to force may be the only alternative short of martyrdom.

Posted Online:  Sept. 20, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

When Social Justice Degenerates into Injustice -- Theft?

When I was a young law student, our Natural Law professor at Notre Dame introduced us to the concept of social justice. He explained that "social justice is the duty of every society to provide for the basic needs of every citizen."

But his definition troubled me. I could not understand why society has a duty to provide for the basic needs of people capable of providing for themselves, and I asked, "was there a corresponding duty of the citizen to the society to provide for his own basic need to the extent he was able?"
He replied, "The citizen has no corresponding duty." I was appalled by this and remain so to this day.

I cannot understand how a person fully capable of providing for his own needs, in justice, can refuse to work and demand that his neighbor, who does work, should support him.

What follows is a partial transcript from an Aug. 9, 2013, Fox News Town Hall.

In it we meet a "social justice" recipient who sees no "injustice" in taking food stamps (a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP Card) paid for by Americans who work and pay taxes to support his opting not to work, while living as a beachbum. You can watch it yourself at youtube.com/watch?v=bP_izYhdehY.

Bret Baier: Food stamp enrollment has surged since 2008. Forty-seven million Americans are on the program now at a cost of $85 billion per year.

John Roberts: Meet Jason Greenslate, food stamp recipient.

Jason Greenslate: Another day in the life of Jason Greenslate, leading the rat life. ... I wake up, go down to the beach with my friends, hit on some chicks, and start drinking.

Roberts: ... (This) 29-year-old has chosen the life of a beach bum. ... He gets by with a little help from his friends, and you, the taxpayer.

Greenslate: (This is) My EBT SNAP Card ...

Roberts: How do you get a SNAP Card.

Greenslate: Just go out to the Human Resource Office, have your birth certificate and your Social Security Card. I don't have a pay check coming in, so I qualify ... They've got it now so that (you have to qualify) only once a year.

It wasn't always that easy. Back in 1996, if you were an able adult like Jason, with no family, there were limitations. You could get food stamps for only three months, every three years. The exception was, if you were working at least a 20-hour work week or participated in a work training program President Obama wiped away those restrictions when he signed his stimulus bill in 2009. And in 2010, Obama used his regulatory powers to extend the suspension of those "welfare to work requirements."

Roberts: So you fill out a form for a SNAP Card and they give you that for a year, no questions asked?

Greenslate: Yeah, you're good to go. Two hundred dollars per month. Two hundred dollars. It's free money. It's radical. Why not? ... It's my job to make sure everything's rolling smoothly -- the sun is up, the girls are out ...

Roberts then accompanied Greenslate to the Gourmet section of the local food mart.

Greenslate: We got achi, salmon, eel, yellowtail with rice and avocado, and they have lobster on special, and coconut water.
He paid with his SNAP Card.

Greenslate: Two hundred dollars a month ..." (Sliding card). ... All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars. ... Yeah. I usually get sushi, but I make it my own way. But they didn't have any good fish, so I just got the pre-made stuff.

Roberts then inquired why Greenslate didn't work.

Greenslate: That's not the direction I'm going right now.

Roberts: That's not something that appeals to you?

Greenslate: Not whatsoever.

It is a just thing to live on a pension that one has worked a lifetime to earn. It is an unjust thing to have the government tax -- steal from -- your neighbor who works so you can refuse to work and spend your life surfing. It is wrong to divert moneys that should go to the disabled to play Santa Claus and buy the votes of parasites unwilling to work.

Fifty years ago, I asked the right question.

Posted Online:  Sept. 14, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

If We Must Go to War, We Must Win It

"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years." — Marshall Ferdinand Foch, commander-in-chief of Allied Armies, WWI, on the Treaty of Versailles.

"Even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued (by the Western democracies) even ten or fifteen years at a time." — Winston S. Churchill

It appears we are about to make war on Syria. Why? To reestablish President Obama's lost credibility? To punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his people?

There are only two valid reasons for going to war:

-- To guarantee that Assad's chemical weapons can never be used against us or our allies; and
-- To destroy Iran's principal ally, and to send a full warning to Iran that, if they don't immediately abandon the nuclear program so those weapons are never used against us or our allies, the same or worse will befall them.

If America should have learned any lesson in Asian wars since WWII, it is this: The enemy will fight until we get tired and go home -- if he is able.

These two goals require more than a proportional response; they require the will to win. Winning means you destroy the enemy to such an extent that he has no ability to continue the fight. It also requires doing whatever is necessary to ensure that victory doesn't become a five- or 20-year armistice. That will mean killing great numbers of civilians.

Aug. 21, 2012 President Obama, said, "We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hands 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 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 start seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."

Secretary of State John Kerry has told the world that that red line has been crossed, and the U. S. will make make "limited" war on Syria. But what is limited?

President Clinton in 1998 went after a "pharmaceutical plant" in Sudan, killing one, in response to attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 244, including 12 Americans. The reprisal told Osama bin Laden that America was not serious, and did nothing to deter him from the 9/11/01 attacks. Sending cruise missiles after an aspirin factory in Syria, may satisfy the president's need to prove his credibility, but it won't solve the Syrian chemical weapon problem, or the Iran nuclear problem.

If this is what President Obama has in mind, it will be meaningless and ineffective. President George W. Bush believed we could fight a limited war, topple Saddam Hussein and turn Iraq into a 21st century democracy. History proved him wrong. He believed we could crush the Taliban in Afghanistan and create a stable government. That hasn't happen either.

In the Middle East, the only way to win, is to obliterate the enemy in a short war of extermination. A short war because America doesn't have the stomach to fight limited war indefinitely. Mr. Obama's withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan prove Churchill was right.

But could a war of obliteration or extermination ever be justified without America first being subjected to a catastrophic attack which threatens its very existence?

I don't think so. Americans obliterate enemies only as a last resort — unless we become like our enemies.

Who are we going to hit with our cruise missiles? President Bashar Al-Assad and his inner-circle? The Syrian military? Hezbollah? Iran's Republican Guard "volunteers?" What if they survive the attack? What if they shoot back? What if Syria's Air Force attacks our naval units? What if Iran, in retaliation, closes the Strait of Hormuz? What if they attack Israel? What if Russia intervenes?

Before the President acts to punish Syria for crossing his "red line," these are grave questions that America must ask and answer. Our proportional response could turn into WWIII.

I am not willing to go to war to restore Mr. Obama's squandered credibility, or to keep Assad from killing his people. But if the American people (through their members of Congress) vote that war is necessary to guarantee destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, and/or to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, Congress should declare war.

But we must make war in a way that absolutely guarantees that Syrian chemicals and Iranian nukes can never be used against us or our allies. If you choose to use that quantum of force, you'd better be willing to kill as many Syrians or Iranians, military and civilian, as it takes to get the job done!

Only in that way can you make unmistakable to Iran and North Korea America is deadly serious.

Posted Online:  Sept. 03, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Why Be or Vote for a RINO?

                 "So, because you are lukewarm -- neither hot nor cold -- I am about to 
                  spit you out of my mouth. -- Revelations 3:16

Nelson A. Rockefeller, R-N.Y, sought the presidency in 1960, 1964 and 1968.

He was generally described as a "moderate" Republican. A less-than-kind commentator once described his presidential agenda as, "Me too, but not so much," indicating that Rockefeller wanted everything the Democrats wanted, but not so much.

I have never been able to understand why anybody would wish to be a RINO (Republican in Name Only), or why anybody would ever vote for one! Why vote for a Democrat "lite" when you can vote for the genuine free-spending thing? If you like what the Democrats are peddling, why not vote for a Democrat?

As I look at recent American presidential races, the landscape is littered with dead RINOs, run over by Democrats on their way to the White House. In 1976, moderate Republican Gerald Ford was done in by the Jimmy Carter Express.

In 1988 George H. W. ("Read my lips") Bush, in the guise of a conservative, beat Michael Dukakis. Then, in 1992, Bush (having broken his pledge not to raise taxes) lost to Bill Clinton when he appeared to be running as a moderate.

In 1996, President Clinton dispatched moderate Bob Dole. In 2008 President Obama buried moderate Republican John McCain. And in 2012, President Obama, running as Santa Claus, bumped off Mitt Romney, who couldn't make up his mind what he was.

Since the passage of Obamacare, Republicans in Congress have voted 40 times to repeal it -- knowing full well that their votes were utterly meaningless! With the Democrats in full control of the Senate, House Republicans knew that their bill had less than the chance of snowball in hell in the Senate, and even less than that, had it ever gotten to the president's desk.

Their votes in the House were political theater, and lousy political theater, at that.

Now the tea party branch of the Republican Party talks about refusing to vote money for Obamacare -- to "defund" it. If the Republicans truly hate Obamacare as much as they say they do, this is the foolproof way to kill it dead.

If they refuse to fund, we won't have to, in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "read the bill to find out what is in it." It will be dead as a dinosaur!

But RINOs in the house are afraid to defund. They fear losing their precious seats (along with their power and perks) in Congress. So they are content to do nothing. Therefore, at this juncture it is not clear whether the Republicans have the guts to put their seats in Congress where their mouths are.

And then the Republican Party wonders why people think it is worthless -- why people won't vote for it.

If Obamacare is really as bad as the Republicans say, if it is really going to destroy jobs and the economy, why not do what is right? Why not find the guts? Put principle over politics.

Then again, if the RINOs have their feckless way, who needs them? And who needs the Republican Party? Who in their right mind is going to vote for a Democrat Lite when they can vote for a bona fide Democrat?

Republicans whine that President Obama and the Democrats are spending the country into bankruptcy. Their inane answer is to pass an Omnibus Spending Bill. But they fear to make the true cuts they whine are necessary for fear the president will veto the bill, and the Republicans will be blamed. So they engage in more banal political theater.

If the Republican in the House are serious, they have it in their hands to control the game, and to force the president to take the blame for any irresponsible veto. Instead of an Omnibus Spending Bill, pass separate spending bills for each programs the House Republicans deem worthwhile:

-- Social Security;
-- Medicare;
-- Military Procurement;
-- Veteran's benefits;
-- Food Stamps (SNAP program); etc.

At the same time, pass NO appropriation for Obamacare. Then watch and see if Mr. Obama really is willing to veto the individual appropriations for Social Security, Medicare, etc. If he does, he will not be able to avoid the blame.

Posted Online:  Aug. 21, 2013, 2:23 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Those Darn Democrat "Obstructionists!"

When the Affordable Care Act was crammed through Congress, without a single Republican vote, Republicans were labeled as "obstructionists."

In the full flush of victory, President Obama promised Americans (youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E) that:

-- "We will keep these promises to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period! If you like your heath-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period!" -- June 15, 2009

-- "First of all, if you've got health insurance and like your doctor, like your plan, you can keep your doctor, keep your plan." July 16, 2009

-- "No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or your health-care plan you can keep it." -- Aug. 15, 2009

-- "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period!" -- Aug. 22, 2009

-- "If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job ... nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Sept. 9, 2009

-- "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." Jan. 27, 2010

But lately, even the president's most loyal supporters are beginning to sound like Republican "obstructionists."

On April 18, 2013, Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the principal authors of Obamacare, told the Senate, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

A few days before, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D.-W.V, also instrumental in drafting the law, said "it is just beyond comprehension... (it is) the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress."

And now, leaders of three great Democrat-leaning labor unions are joining the Cassandras. James P. Hoffa, Teamsters president, Joseph Hansen, United Food and Commercial Workers president and D. Taylor, UNITE-HERE president, have written:

"Dear Leader (Harry) Reid and Leader (Nancy) Pelosi:

"When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class...

"We have been strong supporters of ... affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

"Since the ACA was enacted, we have been ... seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans ... Our arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. ...

"We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios: First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation ... The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

 Second, our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the administration, our employees will be treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded to other citizens...

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable ...

"The Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans...

"Corrections can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as the President pledged."

And now a fourth union, the National Treasury Employes Union, which represents the IRS employees who will enforce Obamacare, also wants out!

And, by the way, President Obama and his Office of Personnel Management now have decreed that those impoverished folks in Congress, and their staffers (who earn $75K to $175K per year) will have you and me pick up 75 percent of their Obamacare insurance costs.

Michael Cannon, a health-care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute explained why this is happening: "The whole problem with 'Obamacare' is this: the only people who can implement it properly are people who are competent enough to plan one-sixth of the economy, and no such people exist."

George Orwell was right, "Some animals are more equal than others!"

Posted Online:  Aug. 14, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

These are America's Locust Years

                            "Washington's taken its eye off the ball."
                                                 — President Obama, July 24, 2013 Galesburg

As I look at America's last five years, I see a rudderless country, drifting ever faster into the maelstrom. I see no serious effort on the part of President Obama or Congress to deal with the great issues facing America.

Instead, we are led by a president and two parties intent only on gaining/retaining power and distributing the spoils to loyal supporters. And as long as supporters get their "bread and circuses," everybody goes on living in a fool's paradise.

By "bread and circuses," I mean pensions, Social Security and our other forms of corporate and individual welfare. With apologies to Winston Churchill, I call these our "Locust Years."

Consider just some of the problems America is facing:

-- Social Security is going broke.

-- Medicare Part A is going broke.

-- Immigrants pour across our southern border.

-- Billions of dollars are spent buying foreign oil -- often from our enemies.

-- The Muslim world -- Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, etc. -- is in chaos.

-- North Korea is developing longer range missiles, and threatens us and its neighbors with nuclear attack. Iran is trying to build a bomb.

-- A real unemployment rate (U-6) of 13.8 percent.

-- An overall unemployment rate among "young people" (ages 18-24) of 18 percent; among young blacks of 28.2 percent; among young Latinos at 16.6 percent.

-- Our cities and states are going bankrupt, and as they do, bondholders and public employees and pensioners face economic ruin.

What serious efforts are being undertaken to deal with these problems?
I see none; only bread and circuses.

The bankruptcy filing by the City of Detroit, is the first shoe to drop. Chicago's bond rating has just been reduced to Aa3 with a "negative outlook." A hundred other cities are close to bankruptcy.

24/7 Wall St labels California the nation's "worst run state." It's per capita debt is $4,008. It has a 20.7 percent budget deficit. Its unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, while 16.6 percent of its people live below the poverty line. Its S&P credit rating is the worst of all the states. Moody's says it is second worst.

Recently California voters passed a ballot initiative which raises sales and income taxes on people who make $250K or more. The Tax Foundation says that the state's increased taxes make it the country's third worst state to do business in.

In some respects, Illinois is in even worse shape -- though it lacks the honor of being labeled "worst." Illinois per capita debt of $4,790 is worse than California's.

It's budget deficit also is worse: 40.2 percent. Its unemployment rates is 9.8 percent and 15 percent of its people live below the poverty line. Standard and Poors gave Illinois the second worst credit rating.

And Illinois state pensions systems are $85 billion "underfunded." In January 2013, S&P downgraded Illinois' credit rating to "A- with a negative outlook." Moody's lowered it from A3 to A2 with a "negative outlook." And now Fitch has downgraded the state to "A- with a negative outlook."

Detroit's bondholders, employees and pensioners are demanding a federal bailout." Bailing out one city is possible. But what happens when Washington is called upon to bail out 99 more cities, and the states of California, Rhode Island, Illinois, Arizona and New Jersey (with it $6,944 per capita debt), not to mention Social Security and Medicare?

What if the Obamacare cost estimates, as is probable, were grossly understated? What if we can't really provide insurance for 39 million people (including 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants) without the government providing additional billions of dollars? What if there is no free lunch?

In 1948, Mr. Churchill penned "The Gathering Storm," the first volume of his history of World War II, and the events leading up to that tragedy. In the fifth chapter, "The Locust Years," Churchill described the five-year period from 1931-1935, the years when Hitler came to power, when the European Democracies still put their trust in the "collective security" promised by the League of Nations, when the United States and Europe were mired in the Great Depression and isolation, and when the British government looked with unseeing eyes on ominous events in Germany.

Mr. Churchill decried the lack of leadership of Britain's national government, in these words:

"Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success regardless of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigor in ... leaders of the ... government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems ... the utter devotion ... to sentiment apart from reality ... and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries ... beyond comparison in human experience."

Change only the word "Europe" to "the world," and Mr. Churchill could well have been speaking of America's last five years.

Unless America addresses its problems without delay, America will soon pay an awful forfeit for its lack of leadership, for its Locust Years, and for its policy of bread and circuses.

President Obama has lamented "Washington's taken its eye off the ball." But he and John Boehner are Washington -- Washington at its most feckless.

Posted Online:  Aug. 10, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Federal Government Now Has Unlimited Power

On June 28, 2012, in National Federation of Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote, "The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits."

Then, in the remainder of that opinion upholding the Obamacare law and its"penalty" as a "tax," Justice Roberts administered the coup de grace to all pretense that the federal government was in truth one of limited powers:

"The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

"There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

The chief justice then upheld the Obamacare "tax" and took to its logical conclusion what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had written in his 1791 Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives:

"The National Legislature has express authority 'to lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general welfare,' with no other qualifications than (1) that 'all ...excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and (2) that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census' ... and (3) that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.'

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of (Congress) to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare ... The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

Under Hamilton's formulation, Congress is the sole judge of what concerns the general welfare. Where Roberts goes beyond Hamilton is that Roberts would say Congress has power to tax not only acts, but omissions. Under the Roberts' formulation, Congress -- once it determines that its tax concerns the general welfare -- can tax anything! It can tax buying insurance or not buying insurance. It can tax eating broccoli, or not eating broccoli. It can tax having children or not having children. It can tax engaging in a sexual act or not doing so.

In 1828, during the course of the nullification crisis, John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest, foresaw the threat to the the sovereignty of the states by vesting in any branch or department of the federal government the power to "act as judge" in controversies between the federal and the state governments, and between the federal government and the people -- that is, to "act as judge" in a case where it also was either "plaintiff" or "defendant."

"If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that (the states) hold their portion by the same tenure as (the General), it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. 'The right of judging,'  in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the 'exclusive right of judging' of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised) is to convert it, in fact,into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights. It is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion."

To say that Congress alone is the sole judge of the general welfare and that once Congress decides that an activity -- or inactivity -- concerns the general welfare and should be taxed, is to give Congress unlimited power.

When that power is coupled with the power of the federal government to define what is and what isn't religious activity, and what is or what isn't free speech all notions that the federal government is a government of "limited powers" becomes a cynical fiction.

The "power to tax," in the words of Chief Justice John Marshal, is the "power to destroy." If you doubt that assertion, simply consider what the Internal Revenue Service has been doing to
conservative groups. Tea party-type groups exist to speak in favor of limited government. The government, by labeling their free speech as "political activity" seeks to abolish their 1st Amendment rights.

By denying that the Catholic Church, in operating universities and charities, is engaged in religious activity, the government seeks to deny the church "the free exercise of religion," Roberts' holding is a logical extension of Hamilton's position. But in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "the law is not logic; it is experience."

The American experience is that we declared independence when a king tried to tax sugar and stamps. Would the people who ratified our Constitution have done so had they understood that it would mean what Mr. Justice Roberts now says it means? No way!

Posted Online:  Aug. 03, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Special Prosecutor Right to Put Zimmerman before Jury

Gadfly reporter Geraldo River told a Fox News interviewer Sunday the special prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case should never have brought charges against Zimmerman.

I could not disagree more. In an era when the public distrusts all politicians -- including prosecutors and even the U.S. attorney general -- I think this is precisely the sort of case that should have been decided by a jury of our fellow citizens. And remember, both the prosecution and defense had the power and the right to select the jurors they wanted, and exclude those they didn't want.

I am not expressing my personal opinion as to whether Zimmerman was guilty or not guilty. Nor do I condone any misconduct by the prosecutor, such as withholding exculpatory evidence. But in her decision to have the matter tried by an impartial jury, the special prosecutor did precisely the right thing.

In my years as an assistant state's attorney, and later as a circuit court judge, I came to have very definite opinions about bringing charges or not bringing charges.

Prosecutors can decide whether to charge and, if they do, to charge the greatest offense or a lesser offense. This is called "prosecutorial discretion."

Most often, the prosecutor makes that decision himself. But he also can present the matter to a grand jury and give it the option of whether to change and what charges to bring. Either way, it is a one-sided presentation; the defense gets to say nothing.

Under our system of justice, however, one thing is clear: While a prosecutor or grand jury may charge, and while a president or a governor may demand an individual be brought to justice, it is the petit jury, the trial court jury, that is the sole finder of fact. It is the petit jury that weighs the evidence and evaluates the credibility of witnesses. And it has the great advantage in that it hears all the relevant evidence -- both prosecution evidence, as well as defense evidence.

The national press has spent a great deal of time inveighing against the "stand your ground" provision in Florida's law of self-defense. I look at the Martin-Zimmerman case rather as a traditional self-defense case. And I look at our self-defense statute and believe the Florida jury decided its case under similar principles.

The Illinois statute provides:

" A person ... is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."

Our statute does not mention "a duty to retreat." But where retreat is a reasonable option, or where retreat would render unnecessary the need to use deadly force, I believe an Illinois jury would be justified in finding no self-defense.

That being said, when your head is being pounded against the ground, and the next blow driving your head against the concrete may produce death or great bodily harm, and where retreat appears impossible, the reasonable and necessary course may well be to shoot your assailant to save your own life.

That is why I think the Florida special prosecutor did the right thing in bringing this case before a jury. Indeed, I see many reasons for doing so:

1. This was a racially charged case.

2. An unarmed young man, who may or may not have been an aggressor, was shot to death.

3. A petit jury exists to determine the facts, to judge credibility of witnesses, to draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, and to act as the sole judge of the facts. (This excludes the judge, the police, prosecutor and even the president of the United States as appropriate judges of the facts.)

 4. The case is tried in an adversarial setting with the prosecutor doing his best to prove guilt, and the defense doing its best to establish reasonable doubt or innocence. The jury will get the fullest possible presentation of evidence, and will be assisted by arguments of counsel in understanding the evidence and showing them the inferences to be drawn from it, as well as the court's instructions as to the law.

5. The jury, with its six-person collective memory, is better able than any one individual to sort through the jumble of evidence and decide:

a. Whether Trayvon Martin's mother was telling the truth when she testified that her son was screaming for help, or whether Zimmerman's mother was telling the truth when she testified her son was screaming for help.

b. Which of the witnesses were most credible, and to compare and weigh the testimony of each witness.

c, Whether from all the facts, Zimmerman had an intent to murder, or an intent to defend himself.

d. Whether Zimmerman was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

e. Whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was reasonable.

f . Whether it was necessary.

g . Whether Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete, and whether in doing so Martin was committing a forcible felony.

In short, in a case of this nature, the best way to find the truth is to put the matter before an impartial jury, assisted by an impartial judge and competent attorneys.

In this case, the jury was freely chosen by both the prosecution and defense. Nothing suggests that the jury harbored an iota of bias or that their verdict was anything but on the law and the facts.

Posted Online:  July 17, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Why the Senate Immigration Bill Is Nuts

Imagine that a one-inch water pipe bursts in your basement. What do you do first? Do you try to shut off the water? Or do you let it continue to run, and begin cleaning up the water with sponges, towels and a Shop Vac?

Your wife, while preparing a salad, seriously cuts herself with a knife. She bleeds all over your kitchen. What do you do first? Try to stop the bleeding? Or wipe up the blood from the floor and sink?

Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are pouring across our open Southern border. What should Congress do first? Shut off the flow of illegal immigrants? Or worry about giving them a "pathway to citizenship?"

Eight U.S. Senators, inanely referred to as "The Gang of Eight," have cobbled together a 1,200-page bill which purports to solve "the immigration problem." (America's first immigration bill ran a page and a half!) Does it close the border? Not exactly.

Instead, according to Fox News,"The measure voted on (June 24, 2013) ... would double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol at a cost of around $30 billion and complete 700 miles of fencing. At the same time it sets out a pathway to citizenship for some11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, who would be permitted to get permanent resident green cards only once all the border changes had been put in place, about a decade after enactment of the legislation. The Department of Homeland Security already has fenced off 651miles of the 1,969-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico. If 700 more miles are fenced off, 1,351 miles would be fenced off, leaving 618 unfenced.

Do fences work? Ask the Israelis.

In early 2013, Israel completed a 144-mile section of fence along its southern border with Egypt to keep out "illegal infiltrators." It is 16 feet high and is augmented with barbed wire, surveillance cameras and radar. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Wall Street Journal, states that illegal crossings have declined 99.9 percent from 2,000 per month to only two. The 144-mile section cost $416 million. (So, what would 1,318 miles of fence cost?)

The new Israeli fence is separate from the fence that runs along the West Bank, which began in 2003. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003."

In 2002 alone, Israel suffered 55 suicide bomber attacks that resulted in 220 deaths. As the West Bank fence was completed, both attacks and deaths declined. By 2005, there were but seven attacks which took 22 lives. In 2006, there were four attacks that killed 15. In 2007, there only was one attack that took three lives. According to the Israeli Security Agency, there were no suicide attacks in 2009 and 2010.

The U.S. would not be building a fence to stop suicide bombers. But if a fence can stop Muslim fanatics determined to plant bombs in Israel, even at the cost of their own lives, it certainly should be able to stop Mexican men, women and children trying to escape Mexican poverty and drug violence from entering the U.S.

A U.S. fence also would have a second critical use. It would make it far more difficult for Mexican drug lords to send their drugs, violence and agents into our country. If you think this isn't a major problem, consider the words of Jack Riley, special agent in charge of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's Chicago office:"While Chicago is 1,500 miles from Mexico, the Sinaloa drug cartel is so deeply embedded in the city that local and federal law enforcement are forced to operate as if they are on the border."

Our open southern border facilitates the transport of deadly illicit drugs into our country. It allows the cartels to send in their hitmen. And it allows them be become rich and powerful enough to control governments.

If drug operatives are easily crossing our open border, why can't Muslim terrorists? Does it make any sense that we leave our border unfenced, while our National Security Agency is reading the emails and monitoring the other Internet traffic of every American in a effort to keep the country safe from Muslim terrorists? This is nuts!

It's like barring the front door, while leaving the back door and windows open!

Sadly, it appears, that in the eyes of the Senate and the President, that illegal immigrants and narco-violence "specialists" less are worthy of less government scrutiny than are law-abiding Americans using the internet!

Our immigration policy should not exist to create little "Democrats" or little"Republicans" or to provide a power base to keep politicians in office who put party over country.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our doors are not closed. Every year, America admits over a million immigrants legally. A spreadsheet prepared by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that no other nation even comes close.

Our immigration policy should have two goals: First, close the border to illegal immigration, Mexican drug violence and potential terrorists; then, once that is done, create a fair bipartisan path to citizenship for those who are here illegally but who haven't created felonies and/or do not pose a danger to this country.

Posted Online:  July 06, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea