It's Time for a Little International 'Gun Control'

President Obama has just, with his pen, issued a new gun control executive order. His justification is, “I intend ... to ... stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans.”

It is hard to quibble with the proposition that guns should be kept out of the hands of those suffering from “any abnormal condition of the mind involving a loss of contact with reality.”

And it is hard to quibble with the notion that we should keep guns and other dangerous weapons out of the hands of radical Muslims, such as the two who recently murdered 14 Americans at a San Bernardino Christmas party in the name of Allah.

But if we should keep assault rifles out of the hands of the mentally ill, and out of the hands of radical Muslim religious fanatics, what about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un and Iran’s supreme religious leader, the Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei?

On Sept. 15, 2015, according to Reuters, North Korea issued a statement saying that North Korea has “been working studiously to improve the ‘quality and quantity’ of its nuclear weapons, and wouldn’t hesitate to launch them against the United States ‘any time.’”

Can you recall North Korea promising Presidents Clinton and Bush that they would not build nuclear weapons?

On Jan. 5, Gen. Mohammad Naghdi, the commander of Iran’s Basij force, told the Fars (Iranian) News Agency, “Our ideal is not centrifuges, but the destruction of the White House and the annihilation of Zionism [Israel].”

Then Iran’s Ali Khamenei added, “This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. ... This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and a need for great strides.”

Most of the Western world sees our President as the second-coming of Neville Chamberlain; the Grand Ayatollah sees Mr. Obama as an “oppressor” with “claws!” Is Ali Khamenei in contact with reality?

So why worry about assault rifles, when foreign dictators are threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons? How about a little gun control for North Koreans and Iranians threatening to nuke the American people?

President Obama is fond of telling the American people that ISIS is not an “existential threat” to the American people. Are two Muslim fanatics with assault rifles?

But what about the little megalomaniac hunkered in Pyongyang building and testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs which he proclaims are to be used to attack the U.S?

What about an apocalyptic Muslim zealot secretly building nuclear bombs and test-firing ballistic missiles in Tehran?

Is it an “existential threat” if Iran merely nukes the White House? If North Korea nukes just Honolulu? Or do we have to wait until Iran and North Korea have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all our major cities? At what point do these little totalitarians become “existential threats?”

And while Iranian threats fly, is it wise for President Obama to release $150 billion in frozen assets? Even Secretary John Kerry concedes,  “I think that some of it will end up in the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps or other entities, some of which are  ... terrorists.”

Indeed, even if this $150 billion is scrupulously used for domestic purposes, doesn’t the release allow the Iranians to reallocate $150 billion previously allocated  for domestic purposes  for weapons development?) When since the fall of the shah (1979), have we ever been able to deal with or trust Iran? When since the Korean War began (June 25, 1950), have we ever been able to deal with or trust North Korea?

Do we have to await a nuclear attack? Or can we act in self-defense to preempt any clear and present danger? Under Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter, doesn’t our country have the inherent right of self-defense?

The time has come for Mr. Obama to get out his pen and write one more executive order -- an order closely resembling an ultimatum:

“If this country perceives that North Korea or Iran is on the verge of becoming an existential threat to the U.S. people, the U.S will do what must be done to instantly eliminate the nuclear threat against the American people. That would include an attack against any part of our homeland.”

Or does it make sense to wait until the North Koreans have nuked San Francisco, or have the means at hand to do so?

It’s time for a little international gun control to protect innocent Americans. The alternative may be a nuclear World War III.

And by the way ... do you see anyone threatening to nuke Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2016 12:00 am.  QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea

RICo Needs a New Courthouse ... and a Referendum

I firmly believe Rock Island County needs a new courthouse. I held that view since long before my retirement in 2000.

On March 21, 2013, I wrote, “The once spacious offices are now chopped, cramped and crowded. And the rotunda is a major fire or murder waiting to happen. The two traffic courts -- never contemplated in 1897 -- now handle 30,000 cases per year.”

Two weeks later, I wrote, “It can’t be remodeled, reconfigured, or chopped further to provide the county with safe, adequate courtrooms, chambers, jury rooms and related facilities.There is no room!”

But as much as I believe a new courthouse is an absolute necessity, I cannot agree with the steps proposed to get the job done. The Public Building Commission came into existence under a resolution adopted by the Rock Island County Board on Oct. 1, 1981 for “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission ... to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

On June 17, the commission adopted a resolution approving a site be acquired and improved  for a Justice Center Annex to be leased to the county.

In his complaint, special prosecutor Charles Zaler, pleads regarding the commission’s recent proposal:

“6. The Commission does not plan to construct ... any additional jail cells other than possible temporary holding cells ... for prisoners  who are brought to court.

“7. The June 17, 2015 resolution and the plans of the Commission for the construction of new court facilities expand the purpose of the Commission beyond the ‘sole purpose ... of providing a good and sufficient jail,’ as provided in the 1981 County Board resolution creating the public building commission.

“8. That there is a statutory procedure for a county board to expand the purpose of a public building commission .... ‘The purpose of a public building commission created by the county board  ... may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose of the ... commission has been submitted to the electors ... at a regular election  and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question.’

“9. No referendum to expand the purpose of the Commission from one of ‘providing a good and sufficient jail’ to one of a ‘Justice Center annex project’ has been submitted to or approved by the voters”

Mike Halprin, who defended the commission, denied the 2015 “resolution and the plans of the Commission for the construction of new court facilities expand the purpose of the Commission beyond the ‘sole purpose ... of providing a good and sufficient jail,’ as provided in the 1981 County Board resolution creating the public building commission.” He admits that there has been no referendum, but “affirmatively states” that “no such referendum is needed as there is no expansion of the commission’s purpose.”

He argues, “What is being proposed is not a traditional ‘courthouse’ but instead a ‘jail annex’ to facilitate and provide secure transfer of prisoners to and from court. Proposed are courtrooms, supporting ancillary offices, transport corridors, and holding cells.

“General government offices, like the County Board, Recorder, County Clerk, Treasurer, etc., are not part of the project. ... in the 1960s it was easy to decouple general government from the courts; but the courts and the jail are forever linked because of interrelated functions.”

The argument simply put is this: We are not building a traditional courthouse; we are merely adding jail-related courtrooms. Because the jail and those courtrooms are functionally linked, new courtrooms can reasonably be viewed as a “jail.”

As much as I would like to agree, I cannot. John Q. Citizen was told in 1981 the commission was created for the sole purpose of providing a jail. When a commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for a “limited purpose.”

The law says,  “The purpose of a ... commission created by the county board may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose ... has been submitted to the electors...  and approved.”

The legislature has power to allow counties to use a commission. The legislature did not require  a referendum when this commission was set up in 1981. At that time, it gave the county two choices: set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or set up a commission for the limited purpose of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The county board chose to set up the commission for the purpose of a jail. Any  reasonable citizen would not have imagined that anything more than a jail was being authorized.

For the ordinary citizen, a jail and a courthouse are two very different things. Nobody would have dreamed the 1981 resolution authorized the commission to build a new courthouse.

To argue that the courtrooms to be built are an “integral part of the jail” is disingenuous. They are going to be used primarily for civil cases: suits for money damages, injunctions, marriage dissolution, adoptions, eminent domain, etc. None of these things have anything to do with jails.

There are already three criminal courtrooms in the Justice Center, which were completed in 2001, with a jury assembly room, and offices.

The discussion may seem academic. But it isn’t. In 1981, the county board approved the commission’s proposal to spend $4.1 million to build the new jail. Twenty years later, by stretching the original resolution, the Justice Center was built, costing $13 million more.

Now in 2016, stretching again, a new jail annex is to be built for an additional $21 million. The commission will issue bonds to pay for the project. The county will rent the facility, and the taxpayers will have the honor of paying the additional $21 million.

What started out as a $4 million dollar jail has become a $38 million jail, plus Justice Center, plus annex. While I believe it would be money well-spent, I believe a referendum is required.

I regretfully dissent.



Posted: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 12:00 am, Fri Jan 15, 2016. QCOnline.com
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Assault Rifles Didn't Destroy the Twin Towers

If you were President Obama, and you were serious about keeping the U.S free from radical Muslims jihadists, how would you go about  it? Ban assault rifles? Ban radical Muslims from entering the country? I suggest if you ban assault rifles, and let radical Muslims in, you will fail to protect America.

What  has been constant in all the radical Muslim attacks in the U.S. to date?

1. On Dec. 2,  two Muslims, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik attacked a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif., using two  AR-15-type semiautomatic rifles. Malik pledged allegiance to the ISIL leader on Facebook. Farouk and Malik fired 65-75 bullets. So, would a law banning assault rifles have made a difference? Probably not.

According to federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) officers, both weapons -- though legally acquired - had been illegally modified under California law. One had been modified to enable it to fire in fully automatic mode; the other, to allow use of a large-capacity magazine

The two flouted laws against modification; would they have obeyed laws that prohibited acquiring?

Fourteen civilians were killed. Would the attack not have occurred if Farook and Malik had been unable to acquire AR-15s? Both were also armed with 9 mm. semi-automatic pistols, and pipe bombs --  some of which were placed at the scene.

2. On Feb. 26, 1993, a 1,300-pound truck bomb was detonated below the World Trade Center in New York City, with intent to send the North Tower crashing into the South Tower,  bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.

Six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured. The attack was planned by a group of Muslim terrorists including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmed Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.

3. On 9/11/2001, 19 Muslim terrorists used box cutters and four hijacked passenger airliners, which they flew into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon; 2,977 Americans were killed, over 6,000 injured.

4. On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan, yelling "Allahu Akbar!" attacked U. S. soldiers at Ft. Hood Texas. Hasan was armed with a pistol, fitted with two laser sights. He murdered 13 and injured 32.

5. On April 15, 2013, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev perpetrated the Boston Marathon massacre using two pressure-cooker bombs. In the subsequent shootout, 9 mm. pistols were used. Three spectators were killed at the scene; 264 were injured. Later two police officers were killed by pistol fire.

6. On July 16, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez attacked a recruiting center, and a U.S. Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., while armed with an  AK-47-style semi-automatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. A 12-gage shotgun was also recovered from his vehicle. Four marines and a sailor were killed; two others, injured.

7. On Nov. 4, Faisal Mohammad stabbed four people at the University of California Merced campus, using a hunting knife. In a handwritten manifesto, Mohammad, vowed “to cut someone’s head off," and wrote five reminders to "praise Allah!"

These are seven significant r terrorist attacks that I recall. I have refreshed my memory using Wikipedia. Only two of the seven involved assault rifles. All seven involved radical Muslim terrorists. When the president focuses on assault rifles and not on the radical Muslims perpetrating these atrocities mainly on our civilian population, he misidentifies the problem.

Of the 3,020 Americans murdered in these  seven terrorist attacks, only 19 were killed in two of those attacks with assault rifles.

For every one American killed in these attacks by assault rifles, 158 were killed with other weapons. At present, airlines used as weapons by the terrorists have killed 150 people for every one killed by an assault rifle. Is the solution to ban civilian airliners? Box cutters? Pressure cookers? Pipes? Hunting knives?

Mr. Obama, and those who blithely follow, tell the American people that we will vet the 50,000 Syrian refugees Mr. Obama wants to bring into this country to weed out the radical jihadists. Compare that with the Congressional testimony under oath of Assistant FBI Director Michael Steinbach:

 “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet ... on those  individuals. ... You’re talking about a country that is a failed  state, that is -- does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets -- the police, the intel services -- that normally you would go to seek information, don’t exist.”

So is admitting 50,000 unvetted Syrian Muslims an act of Christian charity, or a game of Russian Roulette? Clearly, banning assault weapons would have saved 19 lives. But it isn't a substitute for properly vetting Syrians, when polls tell us that as many as 25 percent of Muslims worldwide support jihad.

France bans assault weapons. Did that stop the Paris attacks? Does any sane individual really believe banning assault weapons in the U.S. will stop terrorists from getting them as long as our southern border -- 1,989 miles -- remains open? The Mexican gangs smuggle cocaine and heroin in by the tons. Is it harder to smuggle AR-15s?


Updatd Post: 12:00 am, Sat Jan 2, 2016.QCOnline
By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015
 John Donald O'Shea