"CAN "ENHANCED INTERROGATION" BE USED FOR SELF-DEFENSE?

Democrats in the U.S. Senate have just issued a report equating the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) with torture.

The report states water boarding resulted in physical harm, including vomiting and seizures to at least some of the prisoners, and in one instance, death. It asserts that the CIA mismanaged the operation, kept poor records, and gave inadequate and inaccurate information to the Bush administration, to Congress and to the press.

The report claims that the information given by the terrorists under the EIT was inaccurate and worthless, and that the program has damaged the reputation of the U.S.

Those who minimize the findings, claim Democrat Senate staffers who prepared it spoke only to the attorneys representing the Gitmo detainees, and not to the the CIA agents involved.  I do not intend to address that issue.

For me, the real question is whether the U.S. is ever justified in using EIT.

Many who oppose enhanced interrogation, like Sen. John McCain, label it torture. But the intent is different. There is no claim the CIA used EIT with intent to punish or to wantonly inflict pain -- that is “to torture.” Clearly the goal was to extract information to prevent a second 9/11 and save American lives.

Additionally, EIT can take many  forms.  At one end of the spectrum, enhanced interrogation includes sleep deprivation, irksome music, putting the prisoner in a cramped box, or a chilly or hot room, etc.  At the other end  -- the torture end -- EIT would include the ripping out of fingernails, the rack, cutting off fingers, toes, arms and legs, roasting over hot coals, etc. Some forms of enhanced interrogation do not kill or maim the prisoner; others do.

Would it ever be right for the U.S. to engage in the more brutal forms of enhanced interrogation? If we can cut off a prisoner’s fingers, arms and legs, and roast him over hot coals, it would seem to follow bugging him with gangster-rap music would also be permissible.

The question is not as easy to answer as you might first believe. There are three good main reasons most reasonable Americans oppose torture.

-- First, a person being tortured might lie and say whatever his interrogator wants him to say to avoid further torture.

-- Second, America does not torture its prisoners of war because it hopes the enemy will act accordingly.

-- Finally, America doesn’t torture out of respect for the human person.

That being said, the question remains, why is it worse to torture a prisoner than to kill him with a drone strike? To fire bomb his cities? To kill his countrymen with nuclear bombs?

The CIA’s enhanced interrogation all occurred after the 9/11 attacks on our country to forestall subsequent attacks. But would the CIA have been justified in using torture in its most rigorous form in the hours before the 9/11 attacks occurred to prevent those attacks?

You will recall that on Sept. 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaida Islamic terrorists hijacked four civilian airliners. Two were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. A third was flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

All the civilians aboard the four airliners were murdered in the crashes or resulting fires. At the Pentagon, 125 military and civilian personnel were murdered. At the Trade Center and in the nearby vicinity, nearly 3, 000 people were brutally murdered; including 343 firefighters and paramedics, and 23  police officers. Only six people in the towers at the time of their collapse survived. Some 10,000 were injured; many severely. Others contracted cancer from what they inhaled that day.

So,  what if 24 hours before the 9/11 attacks our CIA had captured a major al-Qaida operative, who  boasted, “Twenty-four hours from now, we will teach America a lesson it will never forget!”? And what if in response to CIA normal interrogation, the operative had told his interrogators, “You’ll find out soon enough!”?

Would the CIA have been justified in water-boarding him? Ripping out his nails to force him to talk? Or would it had been better to terminate the interrogation, and wait 24 hours until the planes had destroyed the towers and wantonly murdered more than 3,000 Americans?

What if my hypothetical al-Qaida operative under torture had talked and the attacks had been thwarted?  Would the Iraq war have been avoided? The Afghan war? How many American soldiers would be alive today? How many would have avoided wounds that have destroyed their quality of life, and crushed their families.

I don’t like torture. But I have always felt that the assassination of Adolf Hitler would have been justified to prevent World War II, and the millions of deaths caused by Hitler and his war.

Similarly, if the Iraq and Afghan wars would have been avoided by preventing 9/11, torturing my hypothetical operative would have been morally justified. (Self-defense does not always require that the assailant be killed!)

To paraphrase the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The legitimate defense of societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense, including non-lethal forms of self-defense, can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s nation; and the killing or extracting information from of the aggressor. “The one is intended, the other is not.”

Homicide can be murder or self-defense. It depends upon the intent.

Enhanced interrogation can be torture or a legitimate act of self-defense.

Again, it depends upon the intent.

Posted Online:  Dec, 20, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Can a Minimum Wage Hike Help the Unemployed?

Chicago will increase its minimum wage to $13 per hour. This is obviously good for those who will see their wages rise to $13. But what about those who are unemployed?

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than attempts to amend “the law of supply and demand.”

There is a reason Giancarlo Stanton was given a 13-year $325 million contract ($25 million a year) to hit a baseball by the Florida Marlins. He does it in a way that only a handful of people on this planet can do it. And a great many people are willing to pay big bucks to see him do it. The Marlins were not compelled by any minimum wage law to offer Stanton this contract. They did it voluntarily because they thought Stanton’s drawing power would produces revenues in excess of the cost.

But what if the Marlins had opted not to pay Stanton his $325 million? Could they have signed an equivalent player for substantially less? What if the Marlin’s had offered to pay Stanton $7.93, the Florida minimum wage? Do you think he would have signed? Would any other equivalent player who hit about .288, with 37 home runs and 105 RBIs sign for $7.93 per hour?

It is not an easy thing to hit major league pitching. Very few people can hit fastballs that come to the plate at 95 mph, sliders that look life fastballs until they break at the last minute, and change-ups that leave the pitcher’s hand looking like a fastball, but come up to the plate about 10 mph slower.

Michael Jordan was one of the greatest athletes America has ever known. He tried baseball for one year in 1994. He managed to hit .202 with 1 home run at Class AA Birmingham! Last year in the majors, out of roughly 750 players, only 29 hit .288 or better; only 11 hit 30 homers or more.

But regardless of what Giancarlo Stanton is paid, that has no effect whatever on teacher salaries.

There is a reason why teachers start at disproportionately smaller salaries. There are far more people who want employment as teachers than there are available teaching positions. All applicants have the required education and licenses.

Presumably,  they can all do the job. But nobody is willing to buy a $100 ticket to see them teach.

According to a January 2014 Program Evaluation report, the average starting salary for an Illinois teacher is about $36,636 annually. And according to USA Today (Feb. 19, 2013), “The nation is training twice as many K-5 elementary school teachers as needed each year, while teacher shortages remain in the content specific areas of math, science and special education.

“Illinois trained roughly 10 teachers for every one position available.”

But what would happen to starting teacher salaries if there were 100 positions that needed filling, and only 25 teachers seeking employment? Because demand would exceed supply, there would be a bidding war, and salaries would go up to attract the best and brightest.

There is a reason Walmart and McDonald’s can pay $10 per hour. There are a great many more workers who want jobs than there are jobs. When there are 100 people willing to work at $10 per hour, Walmart can ignore the retired $100K executive who is willing to work at $25 per hour, and hire from the pool of 100.

When the minimum wage is increased, the Walmarts, as well as small businesses, have choices to make. They can

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage, “eat” the increased cost of doing business, and accept a diminution of net profits:

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage to some workers, and hold down costs by discharging other workers, or

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage and pass the cost on to customers.

What happens when a business is operating on a tight margin and doesn’t believe it can pass its increased labor costs on to customers? If it can’t risk increasing its costs, it has two options:

-- Fire enough workers to offset the increased cost of labor for others, or

-- Go out of business.

Of course. it can risk doing business as a loss; but why?

According to Forbes (Feb. 20, 2012), the “unemployment number ... reported at 6.2 percent ...  is simply misleading.  ... According to the U-6 report, the ‘real; unemployment rate is 12.6 oercent,” which includes those who have not looked for work during the four weeks.

But in the black community, Newsmax stated on Nov. 27,  the unemployment rate is worse: 11 percent  and for young black men (ages 16-21),  21 percent.

So what happens, when the president issues an executive order granting work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants? How many of those will be competing for the minimum wage jobs that are out there?

How does flooding the labor market with 5 million illegal immigrants help the 12.6 percent of Americans and the 21 percent of young black American males who can’t find employment? Increasing the supply of unemployed workers by 5 million only guarantees employers a larger pool to pick from, and it removes pressure for them to pay better wages.

A far better plan, would be for the government to work to create a job market where there are more jobs than applicants. If Walmart and McDonald’s need 1,000 workers, and there are only 100 available, wages will increase and no minimum wage law will be needed. The law of supply and demand will do the job better than any minimum wage law ever could.

Flooding our job market by providing illegal immigrants with work permits only increases the worker supply while at the same time driving down wages.

President Obama’s executive order will only exacerbate America’s unemployment situation!

Posted Online:  Dec, 6, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea


 


 

'I’m Not the King of the U.S. ... or Am I?'

                    “I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not.”  

                                                                               President Obama, Nov. 20, 2014

 

The liberty that Americans have known since 1789 rests on nothing more firm than an understanding.

That understanding is embodied in a brief 15-page document -- the Constitution.

It was an understanding reached by men who feared both one-man rule and mob rule, and who therefore intentionally separated executive, legislative and judicial powers.

It is an understanding reached by the statesmen who feared kings -- kings who claimed to rule by “divine right,” and whose fiat was law.

It is an understanding reached by men who believed that the American people through their elected Congressional representatives ought make their own laws.

It is an understanding under which the President’s law-making power was limited to “recommending  to (Congress for) their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” and to vetoing bills passed by Congress, to prevent their enactment.

It is an understanding under which the President’s duty as executive would be “to take care that laws enacted by Congress be faithfully executed.”

It is an understanding that Congressmen, judges, and the president would make a solemn oath to observe the Constitution prior to taking office.  Indeed, the president takes the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In short, the freedom and liberty of every American rests upon nothing more than a fragile understanding” written on a 15-page scrap of paper.

Note that there is nothing in Article VI, Section 2 about executive orders or other presidential fiats being the supreme law of the land.

This president knows that. Indeed, he has said so some 22 times! Here are just two examples:

 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. ... When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.” -- Jan. 30, 2013

 “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” — Feb. 14, 2013.

(Read all 22 of his declarations at speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.ErCRBgJk.dpuf.)

Mr. Obama makes many arguments in favor of his immigration executive order.
In the main, they include that:

       -- He needed to act by executive order out of compassion for the illegal immigrants and their children.

     -- He needed to act by “decree” for the good of the American people, because the “system was broken;” i.e., because the House would not pass the Senate’s proposed immigration bill that he favored.

Our Constitution gives a president no power to take the lawn into his hands,  out of  “compassion” for the illegal immigrants and their children, for the good of the American people, or  because Congress was “broken,” or wasn’t acting fast enough to suit him.

“I acted alone for the good of the state,” “I acted alone out of necessity;” these are the traditional justifications of dictators.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.” William Pitt, the Younger, 1783.

But what is the present necessity? This is the same president who for the first two years of his term had absolute majorities in both houses of Congress, and who could have had Congress pass  immigration reform just as it passed Obamacare.

The president would answer, “To those members of  Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

But what about, “I’m not a king” or “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed”?

Where is it stated the president can take the law into his own hands where Congress fails to act, or to please him?

Mr. Obama also justifies his actions alleging that President Bush also made executive orders pertaining to immigration. USA Today (Nov. 21) debunks that:

“But where the two presidents largely agreed on the principles and policy, they diverged in strategy. While Bush issued a number of small-bore executive orders -- to expedite citizenship for immigrants in the military, or to defer deportation for students affected by Hurricane Katrina -- his speech called on Congress to act.”

It comes to this: if any president can make orders which have the force of law with his pen, then we have lost our republic and have replaced it with a one-man dictatorship. And what the king can do for you today, he can do against you tomorrow!

Posted Online:  Dec, 1, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Is Pope Francis Really an 'Unfaithful Bishop?"

Once again, the readers of this page were treated to dueling op-eds concerning the Catholic Church’s recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family -- and indeed, on the Catholic Church itself: one by Don Wooton and one by the Rev. John Theiryoung, of Aledo.

Mr. W. favors compassion; Father T., favors orthodoxy. Mr. W. believes that Christ will reject no one -- no “sinner” -- who comes to him -- even if the sinner comes without first having repented. Father T. believes Christ would bar the way of those sinners who are divorced and have entered second marriages without the blessing of a priest, until they have repented of their sin -- their “adultery.” Father T. is so certain that he refers to those bishops who would not agree with his view of Catholicism as “unfaithful bishops.” The real question for me, is would Father T. label Pope Francis as an “unfaithful bishop?"

Most Americans probably have never heard of German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the only cardinal Pope Francis invited to speak to the 2014 preparatory two-week session of the Catholic Church’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family. He is author of a controversial proposal that would make it easier for divorced, civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion. The Cardinal believes Pope Francis backs the measure, but that Pope Francis would not apply it without support from bishops at the 2014 and 2015 sessions of the synod.

The National Catholic Reporter writes that Pope Francis presided at the 2014 session, but never expressed his views, keeping silent throughout the two weeks of discussions, while encouraging the participating bishops “to speak freely.” Indeed in his opening remarks, the Pope said, "Everyone needs to say what one feels duty-bound in the Lord to say, without respect for human considerations, without fear."

By church law, according to the Catholic News Service (CNS), divorced and remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as "brother and sister."

In an interview with CSN, Cardinal Kasper said, "I had the impression the pope is open for a responsible, limited opening of the situation, but he wants a great majority of the bishops behind himself. He does not like division within the church and the collegiality of bishops." (catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404088.htm)

The Cardinal argues, “That, in certain cases, the church can tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.”

Critics commonly point to several scriptural prohibitions of second marriages, especially Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9: "Whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Cardinal Kasper responds that Matthew 19:9 must be read in the context of Christ’s larger, essential  “message of love, of mercy, of forgiveness and of a new chance."

The cardinal is uncomfortable describing second unions as adulterous, especially in a “pastoral context.”

"If you tell people who live in this way, and [who] do it in a responsible way, [that they are living in]  ‘permanent adultery,’ I think they would feel insulted and offended ... Permanent adultery? It seems to me too strong."

The Cardinal notes that “second unions,” while not equivalent to  “sacramental marriage,” possess many of the "essential elements of marriage and of a family: there is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, there is forever, there is prayer life, there are children who are well-educated in Christian life.” Additionally, “there is a public dimension."

Cardinal Kasper expresses "high esteem" for those who abstain from sexual relations” in their canonically irregular marriages, but he questions "whether this can be the path for everybody -- 
especially for younger people? He argues that there is danger in focusing only on the "sexual relations aspect," while ignoring what might be the many other good aspects of the relationship. He suggests that under the “right circumstances,” the church might not merely tolerate sexual relations in an "irregular" union but even consider them good. Such marriages frequently have  “positive values; not only ... negative values.”

Cardinal Kasper believes when love is involved, the church’s first word, in every situation is, “Yes.” He believes the church should say, “I'm happy that God gives you this love and that you can express this love. It's not the fullness (of love) ... but who of us loves God and loves the neighbor as he should do it? We are all on the way."

CNS notes that the cardinal stresses that his proposal is intended only for a small number of people -- serious Catholics -- who would be admitted to Communion only after following a "penitential path" for the failure of their sacramental marriages. The Cardinal notes that when a marriage breaks up, neither partner, more often than not, is totally innocent. And like Pope Francis, who said “Who am I to judge,” the Cardinal says, “It's difficult to judge here."

Cardinal Kasper knows his views are not shared by all Cardinals. Indeed, four important cardinals -- including the Vatican's doctrinal and finance chiefs and the head of its highest court -- recently have published essays arguing against the cardinal's proposal.

So who is right? A Pope who asks, “Who am I to judge?” Or churchmen who believe it is their duty to judge, and to bar people they judge to be sinners from taking the Eucharist?

Who is more Christ-like? Did Christ ever bar any sinner from coming to him? Didn’t Christ say nobody can come to him unless the Father wills it, and that he would reject no one whom the Father had sent? It seems to me that if Christ is the judge of the living and the dead, the Pope is right when he asks, “Who am I to judge?”

Posted Online:  Nov. 19, 2014 1:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Understanding Limits of Executive Orders

There is no constitutional provision that explicitly permits the president to make executive orders. Originally, executive orders were issued to instruct and direct officers of the executive department as to their duties. Over the years, their use has expanded. Nevertheless, to be constitutional, a presidential executive order must still find support either in a grant of power to the president by the Constitution, or in a congressional grant of power to the president by a law enacted by Congress.

As noted, the Constitution does not specifically say that the President has power to make Executive Orders. It does, however, provide that the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army and Navy. Implied within his power as commander-in-chief is the power to direct the Army and Navy. When he sends troops into battle, for example, he does that by an executive order which is a presidential directive.

Some executive orders may be relatively minor as in the case of President Lincoln calling for the observance of a day of Thanksgiving, or of tremendous significance such as Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which was entered by President Lincoln acting as commander-in-chief as a war (rebellion suppression) measure. Executive orders, properly entered under the president’s constitutional authority, or under a grant of authority pursuant to congressional law(s), have the force of law. But they are not laws.

In 1950, the U.S. was involved in a “police action” against North Korea. When the steel workers threatened a nationwide strike, which President Truman believed would hurt the war effort, Mr. Truman decided to seize (“federalize”) steel production facilities to keep them operating with management and workers in place to run the plants, but under federal direction.

Mr. Truman argued to the Supreme Court that he acted under the president’s “inherent authority in response to a National Emergency.” That lead to the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which is regarded as the leading case on the president’s use of executive orrders.  The concurring opinion therein, written by Justice Robert Jackson, which has become the most respected of the opinions rendered therein, states

“1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all [the Constitutional Authority] that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said ...  to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

“2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

“3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.  Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it said that  the employer mandate shall take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The president’s action extending (amending) that date is “incompatible with the expressed will of Congress, and his power is at its lowest ebb” -- unless the act grants the president that power.

The same is true when Congress passes a law that establishes a prescribed mode for immigration.  Unless an act of Congress grants the president power to establish a different mode, the president has no power to prescribe an alternative mode.

The same president who can override such laws, can override the will of the voters at the next election and decide that he shall remain in office because he thinks what he is doing will help families across the country. Or because it’s good for workers, employers and the middle class.



Posted Online:  Nov. 15, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

 

Who Makes Laws, Congress or the President?

How would you like living in a United States where the laws are made by one man. Where laws are made by executive order? This isn’t a mere hypothetical. President Obama has announced that this is how he means to proceed.

On July 30, the U.S. House authorized Speaker John Boehner to sue President Obama over his 2013 decision to “rewrite” the Affordable Care Act  (Obamacare)  to postpone for one year (from Jan. 1, 2014) the employer mandate. The ACA requires that all firms with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees -- defined as 120 hours per month -- offer government-certified health coverage to their workers, or pay a significant fine.

The president was derisive in his response to the speaker’s suit (whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/07/31/president-signs-fair-pay-and-safe-workplace-executive-order#transcript):

“[L]ast night ...  [t]hey got together in the House of Representatives. The Republicans, and voted to sue me for taking the actions that we are doing to help families.

“One of the main objections that’s the basis of this suit is us making a temporary modification to the health care law that they said needed to be modified.

“So they criticized a provision; we modify it to make it easier for business to transition; and that’s the basis for their suit.

“But it’s not going to stop me from doing what I think needs to be done in order to help families all across this country.

“The executive order I’ll sign in a few minutes is one that’s good for workers, it’s good for responsible employers, and it’s good for the middle class.

“We need a Congress that’s willing to get things done.  We don’t have that right now.  In the meantime, I’m going to do whatever I can, wherever I can, whenever I can, to keep this country’s promise alive for more and more of the American people.”

So, where in the Constitution is the president granted power to make, amend, suspend the effective date, repeal or refuse to enforce a law? It is one thing to say Congress needs to amend or repeal a law; it is an entirely different thing to say the president should take the law into his own hands.
The Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then Congress alone has power to enact laws and to amend or repeal laws. If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then no legislative power is vested in the president (save the power to suggest legislation and veto bills subject to override).
Governing by executive order “is governing by decree.” Tyrants rule by decree, not American presidents.

Once Congress passes a law the president has no power to amend it, suspend its effective date or repeal it, unless he is specifically granted that power by Congress by law. Indeed, his oath is:  “I do solemnly swear ... that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
His Article II  “Constitutional duty” is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed;” not to rule by decree for the benefit of the “workers,” for “responsible employers,” or for any class (whether middle, upper or lower).

I have no confidence Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit will succeed. The House has a clear, certain Constitutional remedy short of impeachment to control a lawless president. It controls the purse; it can refuse to fund the president’s alleged illegalities. The fact that the House lacks guts to defund, doesn’t justify its lawsuit. The real victim of presidential lawlessness isn’t the House. It’s the American people. They pay. And only a handful of citizens have the resources, even if indeed they have the standing,  to sue the president. With a feckless House and Senate, President Obama can rule by decree -- as if the Constitution didn’t exist.

So does the President have power to make executive orders? Of course, he does. Since the beginning of the republic, presidents have made executive orders to govern the conduct of officers and employees within the executive department.

President Truman, as commander-in-chief, ordered the end of segregation within our Armed Forces. President Lincoln, as a war measure, issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

But it is one thing to make executive orders to govern the conduct of people in the executive department; it is an entirely different thing to make executive orders to govern the conduct of the American people.

So when can the president ever make executive orders with the force of law to govern the American people? See my next op-ed.


Posted Online:  Nov. 8, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Can't Candidates Answer the Question Asked?

In the Oct. 5 Viewpoints, Rep. Cheryl Bustos, D-East Moline, and challenger Bobby Schilling, a Colona Republican, were asked a simple question: "Can you offer 10 specific recommendations for tackling the nations economic problems?"

Neither did.

Mr. Schilling, rather than making the "10 specific recommendations," requested, wrote:
"The most important thing ... for a better economy (is) to end gridlock ... to elect ... Congress(men) ... totally focused on making a positive contribution.

"In 2010, I ran for Congress because I was deeply concerned. ...

"I refused to participate in the congressional pension.... I cut my budget by 11 percent. ...

"I fought against government shutdowns. My opponent had six opportunities to avoid last year's shutdown. ...

"It is very important for economic expansion to cut runaway government spending.
"In my two years in Congress we succeeded in spending fewer dollars. ...

"I ... worked in a bipartisan manner ... to maintain and grow ... the Rock Island Arsenal. We also worked together to replace the Interstate 74 bridge. ...


"Economic expansion (is) critical to ... sustain ... funding of essential government programs. ... we need to stop wasting so much of our budget on interest on the debt ....

"We need to fundamentally simplify our tax code to ... reward work, saving, investment, and job creation. ...

"We need tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits. ...

"I have offered five ... modifications to Obamacare to lower health care costs and stop the parts of Obamacare that ... destroy thousands of jobs.

"We need a robust energy policy -- more domestic energy ... and ... ... incentives to produce ... renewable energy ... so we can become the leading exporter of renewable energy." This will lead, he said to prosperity in the decades to come.

So, did Mr. Schilling answer the question asked? Are these "10 specific recommendations?"

Perhaps on simplifying the tax code, modifying Obamacare and a robust energy policy.

And did Rep. Bustos make the "10 specific recommendations requested?" She wrote:

"1. I introduced the Government Waste Reduction Act ... that would save ... billions of dollars by eliminating duplicative services.

"2. The federal government currently pays billions of dollars to dead people... My ... Improper Payments Agency Cooperation Enhancement Act, which recently passed the Senate, will put an end to this ... wasteful spending. ...

"3. I'm a ... sponsor of the No Budget, No Pay Act.. .. We cannot solve our nation's fiscal problems on the backs of working families. Our nation's economy will be strongest when we have a ... thriving middle class....

"4. I support the Bring Jobs Home Act, which would give businesses a tax credit for creating jobs in America while ending tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs....

"5. I introduced the Access to Education and Training Act, which would allow students who receive Pell grants to take advantage of them year-round. ...

"6. I also support the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act to allow students to refinance their existing loans. ...

"7. When the president visited Galesburg, I successfully urged him to bring the nation's first-of-its-kind Digital Manufacturing Lab to Illinois....

"8. I also worked across the aisle with Sens. Durbin and Kirk ... to pass legislation to improve our nation's locks and dams using public-private partnerships.. ...

"9. I launched Partnering for Illinois' Economic Future with experts from the University of Illinois and other economic development, education and business leaders. ....

"10. I joined "No Labels," an organization made up of Democrats and Republicans ... united in the goal of breaking congressional gridlock....."

Like Mr. Schilling, Rep. Bustos didn't answer the question. Instead, she re-wrote the question to tell what she has done during her two years in Congress; how she has sponsored or introduced a bunch of bills. She doesn't say that any have become law. (One game representatives from both parties play is to sponsor or introduce bills with glorious sounding names to show constituents they are working diligently: e.g., "A Bill to Cure all Evils in the Known World." These bills never pass, and would be useless if they did.)

In one respect, however, Rep. Bustos answer was superior to Mr. Schillings: She demonstrated she can count to 10!

So what might the candidates have said? Here are four specific recommendations John F. Kennedy made:

1. No tax increases. They will not solve our deficits or our economic problems.
2. Full employment. It is the most important thing we can do to tackle the nations economic problems.
3. When more people work, the government collects more taxes.
4. If the government collects more taxes (and if it can avoid spending increases), it will have money to cut the deficit and fund existing programs.

Then the candidates might have added:

-- We need to get the work force participation rate well above 62.7 percent.
-- We need to repeal or amend laws that encourage owners to turn full-time jobs into part-time jobs, or to lay off employees.


Posted Online:  Oct. 17, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Obama on Economy: Oblivious? Delusional? Lying?

On Oct. 2, President Obama told an audience at Northwestern University, "It is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office. ... By every economic measure, we are better off now than when I took office."

Sadly, that statement is demonstrably false. And unless the president is oblivious to inconvenient economic facts or delusional, it is a demonstrable lie.

In the movie, "Truman," President Truman utters the line, "I'm just the man holding this office. If I dirty it, the dirt doesn't leave with me when I go, it stays here to rub off on whoever comes after me from now on." The line may be pure Hollywood, but that doesn't make it any less true.

It is not "indisputable" that the American economy is "stronger today than when he took office." Below are facts from non-partisan sources which clearly indicate that what the president told the American people is far less than the whole truth.

1. In January 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate was 66.2 percent. In 2014, rather than improving, that rate declined to 62.8 percent.

2. In 2008, 28 million individuals receiving food stamps (annually); in 2014 the number has increased to 47 million.

3. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau publication "Income and Poverty in the U.S: 2013," the median income in the U.S. (50th percentile) was $51,939. This is a decline from 2007, when the median income was $56,436.

4. The Real Median Household income for Asians dropped from $72,000 in 2008 to $67,000 in 2013. For whites, it dropped from $61,000 in 2008 to $58,000 in 2013. For Hispanics, from $42,000 in 2008 to $41,000 in 2013. For blacks it dropped from $38,000 in 2008 to $34.5 in 2013, according to the Census Bureau publication "Income and Poverty in the U.S: 2013."

5. According to the same report, the "number in poverty" rose form 35 million in 2008, to 45.3 million in 2013.

6. According to the same report, the Annual Average Consumer Price Index for 2008 was 316.2. It increased to 342.1 in 2013. That represents a 7.6 percent decline in household purchasing power.

7. In 2008, 11.8 percent of families had total income under $15,000; in 2013, 12.7 percent. In 2008, 12.6 percent of families had incomes between $50K and $75K; in 2013, 11.9 percent of families. In 2008, 12.6 percent of families had income between $75K and $100K; in 2013, 11.9 percent. In 2008, $13.3 percent of families had income between $100K and $150K; in 2013, 12.4 percent.

8. The Department of Labor publishes statistics showing full-time vs. part-time employment, for persons aged 16 and over; 35 hours or more is considered "full time." The focus is on "total hours worked." Full-time status may result from multiple part-time jobs.

a. Of those employed age 16 and over, 83 percent had full-time employment in 2008; 81.3 percent in 2014. In 2008, 17 percent of workers had part-time employment; in 2014, the number has risen to 18.6 percent.

b. The Employment Cumulative Changes since 2007 shows full-time employment (ages 25-54) has decreased by 5 percent. Part-time employment has increased 0.4 percent (advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php).
Unless Mr. Obama is oblivious to inconvenient economic facts or delusional, there is only one reason why a president would say, "It is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office."

He wants to keep his party in power and he is willing to lie to achieve his goal. The Watergate plumbers did what they did to insure President Nixon's re-election. We impeached President Nixon because he lied to cover-up what had been done. I consider President Truman the greatest president of my lifetime (I was too young to know FDR) precisely because he refused to lie. Here's something President Truman actually did say:

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

It is one thing for the government to mislead our enemies. It is another thing for the government to mislead the American people for partisan advantage. If we can't believe the president when he talks about how the economy has improved during his tenure in office, how can we believe him when he tells us what we need to do to destroy the Islamic State (ISIS), to protect the homeland from terrorism and Ebola?


Posted Online:  Oct. 10, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Bustos, Schilling Ignore Best Job-creator: the Private Sector

 

In Viewpoints [last] Sunday, our two candidates for Congress in the 17th District, Democrat U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, and Republican challenger Bobby Schilling, stated the action they would take to help create and retain jobs in the area.

What struck me in what each wrote was that both seemed clueless as to how jobs are created in America. Both seemed wedded to the notion that jobs are created by "government spending." The programs of both harkened back to the 1930's New Deal programs of FDR. Neither wrote of what they would do to facilitate the creation of private sector jobs.

Rep. Bustos spoke of Cheri on Shifts, the Make it in America initiative, her "one-on-one visits," and the new Goose Island Digital Manufacturing Lab which was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (according to U.S. Sen Dick Durbin, D-Ill.).

She also talked about the opening of the Thomson prison facility, which is expected to create "1,100 good paying jobs," and upgrading "aging locks and dams along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers."
Mr. Schilling touted his efforts to keep the Rock Island Arsenal going strong, and his belief in the need to "invest in public infrastructure," such as "transportation networks," highways and the Interstate 74 bridge.

Do not misunderstand me. The jobs at Goose Island, at Thomson and at the Arsenal are important. But to create them, the government taxes all of us to raise the money needed to pay the salaries and their related fringe and retirement benefits.

The advantage of jobs created by the private sector is that you and I are not taxed and are not paying the salaries with their related fringe benefits and retirement benefits.

When John Q. Public opens a yoga studio in downtown Moline, he pays the salaries, fringe and retirement benefits allotted to himself and his employees.

To understand the significant difference, consider this:

If there were only 11 American taxpayers, and if all earned $110,000 per year, each would have to be taxed $10,000 per year to pay the salary of one government employee being paid $110,000 per year. If two of the 11 were government employees, all 11 would have to be taxed $20,000 per year. If all 11 were government employees, each would have to be taxed 100 percent of his 2014 salary to pay his 2015 salary of $110,000. And of course, the above figures take no account of fringe and retirement benefits!
There is no question but that we must have arsenals for our nation's defense and road and bridges. Similarly, there is no question that the people who work in our arsenals and who build our roads and bridges work at necessary jobs; good jobs.

But there is a limit to how many people can be on the government payroll before the system crashes. Putting it another way, there is a limit as to how much people working in the private sector can be taxed to support people working in the public sector. At some point in time, taxes on the private sector make it unprofitable for the private sector to remain in business and pay taxes. Neither candidate discusses that.

The key issue in job creation is not how to create public sector jobs; rather, it is how to create private sector jobs. Public sector jobs are funded by taxation. True private sector jobs are funded by ordinary people who go into business and the people who work in the businesses; not by the government.
Any candidate for Congress discussing "jobs" needs to address not only government stimulus and public works programs, but how to get the private sector going.

President Obama and the Democrats have had six years to get the economy going. Unemployment is decreasing only because people who don't have jobs and have quit looking for work are erased from the unemployment roles, and moved to the role for people who are no longer looking for work. It is a cruel shell game.

Some people believe our Internal Revenue Code is about raising money to finance government operations. Others believe it is about income redistribution.

In either case, the best way to increase revenues is to increase the labor force participation rate from 62.8 percent. It is not complicated. If 62 people pay $1 each in federal income taxes, the government gets $62. If 95 people pay $1 each, the government gets $95.

The question that these two candidates need to be discussing is, how do we increase job creation in the private sector? Small businesses create most of the jobs. Are they over-regulated? Are they being taxed out of existence? What needs to be done to encourage them to hire? The labor force participation rate, according to Mr. Schilling, is at a 36-year low.. If 62.8 percent is too low, what are you going to do, Mr. Schilling and Rep. Bustos, to make it easier for private businesses to succeed and hire?

Government stimulus is good; it can create jobs. But it is dependent on taxation. Tax too much and you depress the private sector. One-hundred percent of Americans can't work for the government.

Posted Online:  Oct. 3, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Can We Trust President Obama to Win War on ISIL?

On Sept. 10, President Obama finally announced his "strategy" for dealing with ISIL:

"We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL. ...

"That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.

"It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and support from partner forces on the ground. It's a strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, the same targeted strategy that the United States has been using in Yemen and Somalia."

The President stated his justification for his strategy: "If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including the United States....

"This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."
Do you have any confidence in the President's strategy?

I have no confidence because he either is unable to identify the enemy, or refuses to do so. The president began his Sept. 10 remarks by saying, "Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents."

But if ISIL, which now simply calls itself the "Islamic State," is not "Islamic," why does it call itself "Islamic?" Why is it proclaiming itself "as a caliphate with religious authority over all Muslims across the world?" Why does the Islamic State compel people in the areas it controls, under the penalty of death, torture or mutilation, to accept Islam and live according to its interpretation of Sunni Islam and Sharia law?

Why are its warriors beheading infidels who refuse to convert to Islam? Why is It directing violence against Shiite Muslims and Christians and other non-Muslims? And who, other than Muslims, calls for jihad?

When the President refuses to call Islamic terror "Islamic terror," who can have an iota of confidence that he will "do what is necessary" -- over the long term -- to win this war? Indeed, it is Mr. Obama's "deadline" for the removal of U.S. troops in Iraq that has made the Islamic State's "resurrection" in Iraq possible.

To deny that there is also a violent strain of Islam in the face of daily violence across the Mideast since the time of Mohammad and especially since WWII, at best suggests the president is closing his eyes to reality and seeing Islam as peaceful through rose-colored glasses. It is impossible to win a war if you can't size-up your enemy.

Then too, if The Islamic State (ISIL) poses a "growing threat to the U.S.," why would any rational American president believe that "other nations" will provide ground troops to fight and die? If President Obama isn't willing to risk American lives to protect the U.S., how can we expect France, Canada, England, Australia or Saudi Arabia to send their sons to do so?

The president proposes to employ "the same targeted strategy that the United States has been using in Yemen and Somalia." But in Yemen and Somalia we are killing a handful of terrorists with drone strikes. In Iraq, the Islamic State has seized Iraq's second largest city, a tract of land as large as Belgium and the oil revenues of the Sunni regions of Iraq, and has disappeared among the civilian population. Is the president willing to kill civilians to exterminate terrorists living and hiding among the civilian population?

President Obama has only one choice: exterminate ISIL, or do something less. It is not an easy choice. But he cannot simply sit by while the Islamic State becomes an Islamic Nation.
With oil revenues and the power of taxation, the war will only become harder and more costly for us to win.

Vice President Biden has said "we'll follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice." President Obama now says "if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." But these are sound-bites, not a strategy. If you corner them at the "Gates of Hell," then what? Kill them? Transport them to New York for jury trials?

The real question is:

Can America win a war, if America fights a civilized, limited war, while the Islamic State fights war rejecting all rules and conventions? Can we successfully fight a limited war, while they fight a war to destroy us? Will half-measures do the job?

So, is the president really taking America into a war he intends to win? Not if you listen to his team.
Less than 24 hours after the president's speech, Secretary of State John Kerry re-muddied the waters: "The U.S. is not at war with ISIS. ... The fact is, it's a major counterterrorism operation."

Even worse, again less than 24 hours after Mr. Obama's address, his press secretary Josh Earnest, when asked, "What does destroy mean?" responded, "I didn't bring my dictionary."

If the president can't enunciate a "strategy," without his secretaries immediately walking back his remarks, why would our enemies fear us? Why would our allies send their sons into ground combat?

Posted Online:  Sept. 19, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

America's Open Southern Border is a Red Carpet for Terrorist's

 On Aug. 28, President Barack Obama told the whole world -- including our enemies! -- he has not yet developed a strategy to combat ISIS. His remarks come weeks after ISIS has seized Iraqi cities and village and declared war on all "infidels," and more than a week after it has beheaded an American journalist.

To quote Mr. Obama: "We don't have a strategy yet." But you can be sure that ISIS does. Their strategy is "We are coming for you" to "kill Americans any way we can."

The beheading of two American journalists should indicate to any president, that ISIS is serious. Connecting the dots in this instance isn't that difficult. Try it yourself.

-- Dot 1: On Feb. 26, Gen. John F. Kelly, the U.S. Marine Corps commander of the U.S. Southern Command testified before the House Armed Services Committee. Here are the remarks by the commander responsible for all Department of Defense security cooperation in the 45 nations and territories of Central and South America and the Caribbean Sea remarks concerning the convergence of transnational" drug crime and terrorism:

"Criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines. My concern ... is that many of these pipelines lead directly into the United States, representing a potential vulnerability that could be exploited by terrorist groups seeking to do us harm. Supporters and sympathizers of Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in ... the region ... in ... drug trafficking. ...

"Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States."

-- Dot 2: A July/August 2014 Mother Jones headline states "70,000 Kids Will Show Up Alone at Our Border This Year?"

The article tells the story of "Adrian," a 17 year-old boy from Guatemala, who found his way to a dessert safe-house in Northwestern Mexico. There, the drug traffickers "asked him" to strap on a load of marijuana and walk across the border into Arizona. Adrian" agreed to do so.

Mother Jones said, "When the Border Patrol caught Adrian a week later in the Arizona desert -- he'd ditched the pot at a drop point along the way -- he became one of the 38,833 unaccompanied minors apprehended by the Board Patrol in fiscal year 2013. That was a 59 percent jump from the year before, and a 142 percent increase from fiscal 2011; no one knows how many more kids avoided Border Patrol detection... . This year, officials have told advocates they anticipate the numbers to double again, to as many as 74,000 unaccompanied children. That's equivalent to every single student in Dallas' 81 public middle and high schools." (motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america)

-- Dot 3: Now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is warning the U.S. that jihadists could target the Europe and the U.S. if world leaders do not react to the growing terrorist threat from ISIS.

"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America.

"These terrorists do not know the name of humanity and you have witnessed them severing heads and giving (the heads) to children to walk with in the street."

 -- Dot 4: According to senior U.S. officials, the United States government is tracking as many as 300 Americans supposedly fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. "We know that there are several hundred American passport-holders running around with ISIS in Syria or Iraq."

Washington is worried that these radicalized American fighters, presently fighting abroad, could create havoc in U.S. if they return and carry out jihad in the U.S. (washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/us-citizens-joining-islamic-state-pose-major-threa/)

So, if 300 American jihadists opt to come home to fight "holy war" here, how are they going to get here? Use their passports to re-enter? Enter illegally from Mexico?

If 70,000 unaccompanied children can walk across our open southern border (and if no one knows how many of those aren't being caught by the Boarder Patrol), it should be duck soup" for 300 trained terrorists try to infiltrate. And if kids can slip past the Border Patrol, is there any reason to believe that trained terrorists will fare any worse?

Our open southern boarder is a red carpet to Muslim terrorists to pull off a second — and perhaps worse -- 9/11. But if it happens, rest assured President Obama will quickly advance a strategy: Blame George Bush!

We elected a president to preserve and protect" the Constitution and the country. We don't need an "Ethelred the Unready," or "Nero fiddling while Rome burns."


Posted Online:  Sept. 8, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right in Ferguson

Eighteen year-old Michael Brown, a black teenager, was shot to death by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo. State and federal prosecutors will investigate to determine whether the officer used "excessive force." If he did, he should face prosecution.

So, what legal or moral principle justifies the looting? (I am not talking about lawful "peaceful protesting." I am talking only about "looting" and destruction of neighborhood stores).

When I was a boy, my mother taught me that "two wrongs don't make a right."

During the 1858 Galesburg Debate, Abe Lincoln said "Judge Douglas declares that if any community want Slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in Slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong."

The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Riot, on the other hand, is not peaceably assembling; it is an assembling to do violence.

So assume, for purposes of argument, that Michael Brown, a black teenager, has been wrongfully shot to death by a white police officer in Ferguson. I say "assume" because at this point no proof has been shown before any competent tribunal that the officer did anything whatsoever wrong.

A shooting if wrongful can be murder or manslaughter. But a shooting can be done with legal justification, if it is done in self-defense or in defense-of-another. Illinois law provides that 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."

In Illinois "forcible felonies" include first- and second-degree murder, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The facts will determine whether the officer was legally right or wrong. Facts adduced in court will show whether the officer used excessive force, or justifiable force.

Riots won't help. Nor will lawful, peaceful protests.

The key idea found in the statute is that deadly force can only be used where that use of force is "necessary" to "prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" to the person or another, or the commission of a forcible felony."

Did Michael Brown use or threaten deadly force against the officer?

The statute nowhere authorizes the use of deadly force for "revenge"or any other purpose.

So, what then is the justification -- legal and/or moral -- for burglarizing, looting and wrecking neighborhood stores? They are owned by whites? They are owned by blacks? They are owned by strangers? They are convenient to destroy? They are owned or operated by people who had absolutely nothing to do with Michael Brown's death?

"The only good cop is a dead cop?" It's great fun to destroy a community? The unemployment rate is too high in the community? We are poor? We dropped out of school? We are living in one-parent families. There are drugs in our community? Reparations for slavery? Cops pick on young black men? The store owners are rich? We looters are merely helping ourselves to our "fair share?" Revenge? Hatred? Black racism? The end ("more" for me) justifies whatever means I choose to get "more," including burglary, looting and wanton destruction of my neighbors' property.

Personally, I can see no justification for the rioting in Missouri. If each faction in a society is free to achieve its own perceived (good( ends by resorting to evil means, the society degenerates into chaos, if not civil war. If riot is an acceptable means for a black minority, riot is also be an acceptable means for a white majority.

My mother was right: "Two wrongs don't make a right." And President Lincoln was right when he said "nobody has a right to do wrong."

Since the time of Moses, the law has been, "Thou shall not steal; thou shall not covet thy neighbor's goods." If that is God's law, how do the looters justify their conduct? And if the command is "love your neighbor as yourself," how is this rioting justified?

And if someone else is killed during the rioting, will that justify more rioting?

Posted Online:  Sept. 2, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

When Will U.S. See that ISIS Is Fighting Total War?

America -- and the rest of the world -- has a problem. It has many faces: radical Islam, Islamic terrorism, Hamas, al-Qaida, the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS), etc.

Israel is presently trying to deal with Hamas -- one face of that problem.

Too many Americans seem oblivious.

The real question is how does a civilized people fight an enemy that hides and makes war, fires rockets and stores weapons among the civilians population -- an enemy that sends suicide bombers to indiscriminately kill men, women and children at weddings, funerals and in churches? And in the case of ISIS, how do we deal with an enemy that beheads Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, while seizing cities and towns, wealth and war materiel throughout Iraq and Syria? How do we counterattack a mortal enemy who brags "they are coming for us," without killing innocent men, women and children in the areas that they have captured and in which they are building their strength?

In the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel, we find a description of how wars were fought in the Middle East in the time of the prophet Samuel and King Saul, 3,000 years ago.

"Samuel said to Saul, ... Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Three thousand years have now passed, and that is the way wars are still fought in the region. Except for the case of Israel, war in the Middle East, is total war. But if Hamas rockets begin inflicting massive casualties on the Israeli civilian population, Israel will have a choice: respond with total war using overwhelming force to win (regardless of civilian casualties), or lose.

If you doubt that Mid-East war is total war, just look at the slaughter in Syria. No distinction is made between combatants and civilians. All are killed indiscriminately. Here are a few excerpts from a timeline for the Syrian Civil War to illustrate:  http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cairoreview/pages/articledetails.aspx?aid=579



"June 13, 2013: White House announces ... that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons multiple times over the past year....

"July 25, 2013: UN Secretary-General ... says that more than 100,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

"August 21, 2013: (T)housands of social media messages report a chemical attack on Damascus suburbs; Western media publish images of bodies of purported victims; opposition accuses Al-Assad regime of toxic gas attack ....

"August 23, 2013: Two car bombings in Tripoli kill at least 42 people.

"January 21, 2014: Guardian and CNN cite a report by former international war crimes prosecutors accusing the regime of the 'systematic killing' of 11,000 detainees ....

"February 1-5, 2014: Barrel bombs reportedly dropped by security forces kill at least 246 civilians in Aleppo."


And if you still have doubts, look at the utter barbarism occurring in what is euphemistically called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Here is an Aug. 11 excerpt from CBN News World  http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/August/ISIS-Swallowing-Iraq-Theyre-Beheading-Children-/


"ERBIL, Kurdistan -- Islamic terrorists in Iraq are beheading children and burying people alive, and it won't stop there. They have a message for America: We're coming for you. ... "They say if anyone (doesn't) become like Muslim, 'we're going to kill them, each one, from baby to women to old man.' ...

"ISIS was shooting the kids and people, and they were laying them on the ground and they bring tractors that they drive over them in front of their families ... They take women out of their houses so if a family had three daughters, they would take one. They are using the sword to cut off hand(s) and also beheading other(s) so I don't think this is the behavior of human beings, but wild animals do that."


President Obama has now ordered surgical air strikes to slow the ISIS advance, and to support America's Kurdish allies in northern Iraq. Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer appearing on Fox News has called the president's present strategy "a joke." Schaffer has stated his own view: "You've got to make it clear that we are in it to win. ... it has to be very overwhelming. If it were up to me, I would be using B-52s in addition to F-18s."

But it is one thing to use B-52s to attack ISIS fighters in open country; at present it would horrify most Americans to use them to obliterate innocent men, women and children in order to exterminate ISIS forces operating among them.

But now CNN has reported that Iraq's ambassador to the UN has reported to the UN sources that "90 pounds of nuclear materials" have now fallen into ISIS hands. If true, this threatens America directly. This is the stuff from which dirty bombs are made. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/world/meast/iraq-crisis/

At the minute, American public opinion will not allow President Obama to obliterate cities and towns occupied/controlled by ISIS to defeat ISIS. The American public has not been shown the justification for B-52 carpet-bombings likely to kill innocent men, women and children. But if a dirty bomb is detonated in an American city, the justification will be apparent. If that happens, like Israel, we will have a choice: (1) Use overwhelming force to win quickly and minimize long-term casualties, or (2) Fight a limited war against an enemy who is fighting total war against us.

President Obama, quite understandably, doesn't want to use overwhelming force against population centers while he has any other choice. Nevertheless, our president faces the most difficult of challenges: he needs to discern and do what must be done now, must be to avoid a worse war latter.
The hard question is this: Is there any effective way to extirpate terrorists fighting a total from among a civilian population for a president viscerally opposed to deploying ground troops?

Posted Online:  Aug. 22, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Immigration Policy Unconstitutional, Incoherent

Politics aside, I can think of only three possible reasons we are accepting 90,000 illegal immigrant children from Central America:

-- The Constitution requires it;

-- We need more children in the U.S;

-- Christian charity.

The purposes for which our federal government was established are set out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

"... to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Is there anything in the Preamble about "securing the blessings of liberty to children of Central America?" Iraq? North Korea? In the Constitutions' enumerated powers, Congress was granted no power to provide for the welfare of children of foreign nations. The only power granted to Congress related to immigration is the power "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The president is granted no power whatsoever relative to immigration. His duty is limited to faithfully enforcing the laws made by Congress.

If the U.S. has a duty to the children of Central America, it must be as an incident of the congressional power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." But Article I, specifically states Congress has power "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" -- not of Central America.

If the administration's open border policy is premised on the argument that we need 90,000 more children in this country each year, then why in the name of God have we aborted -- killed -- more than 50 million of our own children? And why are liberals demanding that the government, insurance companies and employers provide abortifacients under Obamacare so that we might kill more of our own fetuses and have fewer live births? If America needs more children, why are we killing our own?

If we admit Central American children as a matter of Christian charity our priorities are out of whack.
The liberal left in this country is apoplectic over the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. They rant that it is impossible for a family-owned corporation -- or any other corporation -- to have religious rights and/or religious beliefs. They shriek that it is utterly inappropriate for such corporations to deny abortifacients to their employees on account of the religious beliefs of owners. But how can the same people who contend that it is wrong for owners of a corporation to use the corporation to carry out their religious beliefs insist that it is right for them to use the government -- a enormous corporation -- to act upon their religious notions of "Christian charity?" How is the latter logically consistent with opposition to the Hobby Lobby decision?

Do not misunderstand. I am in favor of individuals practicing Christian charity. I believe it is meritorious for a person to use his own goods to help those in need.

I also am in favor of Congress using tax dollars to provide for the "general welfare of the people of the United States;" e.g., Social Security.

But there is an egregious double standard at work here. As an act of love -- of Christian charity -- we are told that we must accept and care for thousands of children illegally crossing our borders, while at the same time we are killing millions of American babies who are doing nothing at all illegally, and seek only to pass through their mothers' "border" to life. Where is the love for these fetuses? Where is the "Christian charity" toward them? Is it an act of love -- of Christian charity -- to kill them?

There is a grotesque intellectual inconsistency in nurturing thousands of illegal immigrant children while at the same time killing native unborn children by the millions.

Every morning on TV we hear pleas from the Wounded Warriors Project for "$19 per month" to provide funds for our soldiers who incurred horrible wounds defending our liberties and our country. If Christians insist that the government should go into the business of Christian charity, why aren't they insisting that the government do more for our horribly wounded soldiers? Why do illegal alien children have a greater claim to our nation's resources than our disabled soldiers?

We have a VA crisis. Could the dollars being spent on illegal immigrant children be better used to fix the VA? To provide timely and adequate treatment for our veterans?

And how are things going in Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit? Are the kids from Central America in any greater danger of drug violence, gang violence or being shot than the kids on the south side of Chicago? Are there more one-parent families in Central America than in Chicago, Washington or Detroit? Why do the children from Central America have a greater claim to our tax dollars (our Christian charity) than kids living in our inner-cities? Is there any truth to the maxim that "charity begins at home?"

And what about our citizens with mental and physical disabilities? Every dollar spent on an illegal immigrant is a dollar that can't be spend on an American child. The $3.7 billion that President Obama wants to take care of children illegally coming across our border, is $3.7 billion that won't go to organizations that care for Americans with special needs.

Space precludes me from mentioning the needs of our elderly.

There are 7.25 billion people in this world. If America, as a matter of Christian charity, has a duty to provide for 90,000 children who will be shipped/smuggled across our southern border this year, where does that duty stop? There are 1.35 billion people in China. If the government of China decides that it is in their national interest to ship a billion of their citizens here, do we as a matter of Christian charity have a duty to receive them, provide them with housing, schooling, medical care, cellphones and food stamps?

I suggest Congress was given power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" to "provide for the common defense, and the general welfare" of our nation; not to practice Christian charity to the world. The resources of our nation are finite.

Posted Online:  Aug. 15, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Israeli Response Purely a Matter of Self-Defense

How should Israel respond when Hamas fires 2,100 rockets into Israel from Gaza? How should Israel react when Hamas refuses cease-fire offers? Is Israel justified in bombing or shelling the rocket launchers? Rocket launching sites?

Buildings where the rockets are stored?

According to the Israeli Defense Force Blog, "Over 5 million Israelis are currently living under threat of rocket attacks. Even worse, "More than half a million Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched from Gaza into Israel. Most rockets launched from Gaza into Israel are capable of reaching Israel's biggest cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem."

But what if Hamas sets up its rocket launchers next to hospitals? Stores its rocket inventories in schools? What if it places and fires its rockets from densely populated civilian areas? From among women and children? Is Israel barred from retaliating because women and children are likely to be killed?

Two recent reports from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) -- hardly a pro-Israeli organization -- should make clear to every American the Hamas propaganda tactic of using Palestinian women and children as human shields.

On July 17, its site reported under the heading "Agency demands full respect for the sanctity of its premises in Gaza":

"Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first (U.N. documented) of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA's vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza. ...

"Palestinian civilians in Gaza rely on UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance and shelter. At all times, and especially during escalations of violence, the sanctity and integrity of UN installations must be respected."

Then, on July 22, 2 UNRWA reported in "UNRWA condemns placement of rockets, for a second time, in one of its schools. Agency demands full respect for the sanctity of its premises in Gaza":

"Today, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. As soon as the rockets were discovered, UNRWA staff were withdrawn from the premises, and so we are unable to confirm the precise number of rockets.

The school is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate 1,500 internally displaced persons."

In a July 24 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, retired U.S. Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James T. Conway wrote, "Earlier this month Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa TV and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields. They appear to have heeded the call: Israeli Defense Forces combat video has shown Palestinians rushing to rooftops after receiving warnings from Israel -- via phone calls, text messages and unarmed 'knock-knock' projectiles striking a target building -- that a missile attack is imminent.

"Since the beginning of ground operations into Gaza, the IDF has uncovered approximately 30 ... tunnels leading into Israel, in addition to the more than two dozen discovered prior to Operation Protective Edge. Hamas operatives have been intercepted emerging from such tunnels in Israel carrying tranquilizers and handcuffs, apparently hoping to replicate the successful 2006 kidnapping of IDF soldier ... for whom Israel exchanged 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in 2011."

To me, this isn't complicated. Israel has a right to act in self defense. As long as Hamas opts to make war from behind women and children, Israel has a right to do what is reasonable and necessary to protect its people from the Hamas' rocket and tunnel attacks -- even if Palestinian women and children are killed in the process of Israeli self-defense.

Hamas can stop this "collateral damage" very easily and quickly. It can end the rocket attacks, or it can move the rockets away from civilian areas -- away from schools and hospitals. And it can stop building tunnels into Israel. As long as Hamas tries to kill Israelis using women and children a "human shields," it bears 100 percent of the blame.

American news organizations which blame Israel every time a Palestinian child is killed, are intentionally portraying Israel in a pejorative light. Writing simply that "1,000 Palestinians have been killed" suggests that Israel is responsible for indiscriminately killing women and children. But if Israel was being "indiscriminate" instead of "surgical" the deaths should by now number in the tens of thousands. Gaza is small (141 square miles) and densely populated (1.8 million). If the Israelis are really trying to kill women and children, they are not very good at it.

Perhaps they need lessons from Russia's president. Comrade Putin and his henchman in the Ukraine were able to kill 298 civilian passengers aboard a Malaysian airliner in less than two minutes!

Posted Online:  Aug. 08, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

When Citizens Lose Respect for Courts, Revolutions Follow

A sizable majority of the American people have lost virtually all respect for Congress. Every day more and more Americans are losing faith with a president whose administration seemingly lies about everything from Benghazi, to the IRS scandal, to unemployment statistics.

Only one branch of the federal government retains the respect of the American people: the judiciary. And now the president and his supporters are doing their best to undermine that support by misstating the U.S. Supreme Court's holding for crass partisan advantage.

Whether you agree with the court's holding or not, it is dangerous, either intentionally or through carelessness, to misstate what the court has said. When its holdings are misstated, the court is most often portrayed in a pejorative light. That is why I have written a number of op eds quoting the court at length, to show readers what the court has actually said, and to show the care with which their opinions are crafted.

In this op ed, I discuss the Hobby Lobby decision allowing two closely held corporations to refuse to pay for four out of 20 forms of contraception that they consider to be abortifacients --— drugs that terminate conception after conception (not before). I do so because I believe you need to see exactly what the court said, and how carefully they said it. I do so because too many people who should know better are undermining respect for the court by misstating what the court said.

"Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-working business in his garage ... This company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, .... now has 950 employees ... the Hahns believe that 'human life begins at conception.' It is therefore 'against (their) moral conviction to be involved in the termination of human life' after conception, which they believe is a 'sin against God to which they are held accountable.' The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods [four out of 20] that they consider to be abortifacients.

"The Hahns and Conestoga sued the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ... under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) ... seeking to enjoin application of ACA's contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg. These include two forms of emergency contraception commonly called "morning after" pills and two types of intrauterine devices.

"Forty-five years ago, David Green started an arts-and-crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. ... the Greens believe that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. ... They specifically object to the same four contraceptive methods as the Hahns .... They have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved methods of birth control. ...

"We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) ... permits HHS to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies' owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

"In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS's argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

"Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations (1) substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price -- as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

"Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must (2) serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute (3) the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

"In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
"HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections.

"The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all (20) FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing."

Not withstanding the loss of respect for the president and Congress, our system bumbles on. When citizens, however, lose respect for their judicial system, revolutions follow.

Posted Online:  July 18, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Who Should Decide Delicate Public Policy Issues?

The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court holding in Schuette v BAMN was an affirmative action case. It was not a same-sex marriage case. But as you read the excerpts below, ask yourself why what the court said in the context of affirmative action, would not be equally applicable in a same-sex marriage case?

The issue to be resolved in Schuette was "whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?" The first section of that Michigan amendment provided:

"The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, ... and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

In further framing the issue, the court said, "The question here concerns not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions."

In sustaining the Michigan Constitutional provision, here's what the Supreme Court said:

"By approving Proposal 2 and thereby adding [it] to their State Constitution, the Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power.

"The freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.

"Yet freedom does not stop with individual rights. Our constitutional system embraces, too, the right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times and the course of a nation that must strive always to make freedom ever greater and more secure.

"Here Michigan voters acted in concert and statewide to seek consensus and adopt a policy on a difficult subject against a historical background of race in America that has been a source of tragedy and persisting injustice.

"Were the Court to rule that the question addressed by Michigan voters is too sensitive or complex to be within the grasp of the electorate; or that the policies at issue remain too delicate to be resolved save by university officials or faculties, acting at some remove from immediate public scrutiny and control; or that these matters are so arcane that the electorate's power must be limited because the people cannot prudently exercise that power even after a full debate, that holding would be an unprecedented restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common. It is the right to speak and debate and learn and then, as a matter of political will, to act through a lawful electoral process.

"The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign. Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy. One of those premises is that a democracy has the capacity -- and the duty -- to learn from its past mistakes; to discover and confront persisting biases; and by respectful, rationale deliberation to rise above those flaws and injustices. That process is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds. The process of public discourse and political debate should not be foreclosed even if there is a risk that during a public campaign there will be those, on both sides, who seek to use racial division and discord to their own political advantage. An informed public can, and must, rise above this. The idea of democracy is that it can, and must, mature. Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.

"These First Amendment dynamics would be disserved if this Court were to say that the question here at issue is beyond the capacity of the voters to debate and then to determine.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court's precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters."

But the court did warn that the right of the voters do deal with delicate racial issues was not absolute.

"These precepts are not inconsistent with the well established principle that when hurt or injury is inflicted on racial minorities by the encouragement or command of laws or other state action, the Constitution requires redress by the courts."

So, unless traditional marriage laws and constitutional provisions are found to "encourage or command" that hurt or injury be inflicted on those who would opt for same sex marriage, it is my guess that when the question reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, that that court will find that no federal question is involved, and that the matter is to be left to the judgment of the people of the several states.

This case also indicates to me that at least five justices have learned the folly of the judicial hubris, involved (40 years of unending division) in placing delicate issues of public policy, such as abortion, beyond the power of adjustment by the people and the state legislatures.

Posted Online:  July 10, 2014 at 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea