To Obama, Whatever You Think You Are, You Are

On May 13 President Obama's Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education issued a directive providing "significant guidance" to schools receiving federal funding.

The directive threatens, "As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations. The Departments treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity."One activity specifically dealt with in the directive is use of school bath and locker rooms:

"A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy."

Simply put, if a boy suddenly identifies himself as a girl, he ipso facto becomes a "she" and must not be denied access to female restrooms or locker rooms.

According to the directive, neither birth, genitalia nor DNA determine whether a child is male or female. Every boy can now choose to be a girl, and vice versa. Now, all that matters is how the child self-identifies.

For the Obama's bureaucrats, gender is not something with which one is born; it is merely something "assigned at birth" and recorded on one's birth certificate. As the directive explains:

"Gender identity refers to an individual's internal sense of gender. A person's gender identity may be different from or the same as the person's sex assigned at birth.

"Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation recorded on an infant's birth certificate should such a record be provided at birth.

"'Transgender' describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth."

In Obama's mind, genitals do not determine one's sex. Sex is originally determined by the accident of what a registrar writes on one's birth certificate. A transgender female is no more than a person who some recordkeeper arbitrarily designated at birth to be a "boy," who now -- without more -- identifies as a girl. The directive specifically explains:

"Gender transition refers to the process in which transgender individuals begin asserting the sex that corresponds to their gender identity instead of the sex they were assigned at birth. During gender transition, individuals begin to live and identify as the sex consistent with their gender identity and may dress differently, adopt a new name, and use pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Transgender individuals may undergo gender transition at any stage of their lives, and gender transition can happen swiftly or over a long duration of time."

No, a sex-change operation is not required; nor is a medical diagnosis. All that's required is self-identification. If a boy standing outside a girls' locker room suddenly "identifies" himself as a girl, he she would have the right to enter.

According to the directive:

" ... there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity. Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity ... requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX.

No, today is not April Fools' Day.


 Posted, May 17, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Rock Island County Making Itself the Target of a Lawsuit

Certain Rock Island County Board members and the Public Building Commission are playing a dangerous game.

Their actions could well result in all complicit members being sued for $28 million and millions in attorneys' fees (perhaps non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) for civil rights violations.

Every taxpayer forced to pay an unauthorized tax has standing to sue -- both for himself, and those "similarly situated."


The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process. Due process means "in accordance with the law of the land" (i.e., Illinois).

A county, if authorized by Illinois law, may impose and collect a tax. But unless a particular tax is authorized by the Constitution or laws of Illinois, a county is without power to impose it. For example, if the Constitution provides that no city can impose an income tax, then no city can impose an income tax.

The same is true when a county board is by law authorized to impose a tax only after a referendum. Against that, consider the following facts, most of which have been lifted from the "friendly" little lawsuit recently brought against the Public Building Commission.

(By "friendly" I mean, why no motion for an outside judge? Why no appeal?)

The Public Building Commission was created for the sole purpose of providing "a good and sufficient jail." When a building commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for that purpose only -- for a limited purpose.

Now that commission and the county board want to use the commission to build a Justice Center Annex containing courtrooms. No additional jail cells, (other than possible temporary holding cells for prisoners who are brought to court) are part of the planned Justice Center proposal.

There is a statutory procedure for a county 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."

Illinois law unambiguously states that the county board may not expand the purposes of a public building commission without a referendum.


When the board charges ahead, claiming no referendum is needed, and levies a tax to pay for the Public Building Commission's new jail annex project, it clearly purports to be acting "under color of (some) law," and in imposing their tax, it clearly will be taking "property" from persons.

It justifies its actions claiming the courthouse annex is really just a part of the jail. Really? A jail is a place where you put prisoners. A courthouse, in essence, is a place where judges and juries try lawsuits. (A courthouse need not include a recorder of deeds, or a county clerk's office; but it always includes courtrooms).

Jails, controlled by the sheriff, are part of the executive department. A jail doesn't become a courthouse simply because clever county board members say so.

People freely enter and leave a courthouse. Except for prisoners being brought to court, people entering the courthouse are not in handcuffs, are not under guard, and wear no orange suits,

A courthouse essentially consists of courtrooms, and facilities for judges and jurors. Judges and juries work in courtrooms; not in jail cells. Courtrooms, run by judges, are part of the judicial department. Courthouses are not places of imprisonment.

When the present county jail was built, everybody knew what the resolution meant when it said: For the "sole purpose" of providing "a good and sufficient jail." The original intent was clear. It was sold as a jail. A jail was authorized. A jail was built. Not a courthouse!

Now that resolution is seen by the judges and many members of the county board as a "living document," meaning, "anything they want it to mean."


Posted: May 10, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Great Chicago to Moline Train Boondoggle

If rail passenger service between Moline and Chicago is a money-making proposition, why was service dropped in 1978? Why hasn't some railroad or entrepreneur re-instituted service during the last 38 years?

A May 12 Dispatch/Argus editorial endorsed the project.

"The overall project cost is $222 million with $177 million coming from the federal government. The state's commitment is $45 million. The Moline ... station is also being funded by the state."

It is claimed that the new Amtrak route will bring "businessmen, families and tourists to and from the Quad-Cities, and provide jobs."

"It has been estimated the Q-C route would produce as many as 200,000 (548 per day) passengers per year."

Sound good? Here's what an April 14, 2008 Amtrak feasibility study projected:


1. One-way trip from Moline to Chicago:

a) 4 hours using existing tracks; b) 3 hours, 35 minutes on hours improved 60 mph tracks; c) or 3 

hours 20 minutes on improved 79 mph tracks.

2. Estimated the annual ridership (round trip):


a) 90,000 on existing tracks; b) 102,000 on 60 mph tracks; c) 110,000 on 79 mph tracks.


3. Projected route revenues:


a) $2.1 million on existing tracks; b) $2.4 million on 60 mph tracks; c) $2.6 million on 79 mph tracks.


4. Estimated annual operating expenses:


a) $8.4 million on unimproved tracks; b) $8.4 on 60 mph tracks; c) $8.5 million on 79 mph tracks. (amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267400916/1241245669129).


In short, as per the Amtrak feasibility study on unimproved, or on 60 mph tracks, the train to Chicago will lose $6 million annually; on 79 mph tracks, it will lose a mere $5.9 million.


What if the losses are understated? Rail and Reason, in an April 13, 2013 piece captioned, "Seat mile and passenger mile costs for Amtrak," says they are.


The Hoosier State Route (Chicago to Indianapolis) computes:


-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.835;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.153. (A loss of $0.682 per mile).


The Kansas City, Mo., to St. Louis Route seat mile and passenger totals were:



-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.427;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.138. (A loss of $0.289 per mile).


Assuming 79 mph tracks (best scenario) from Moline to Chicago, a round trip would take 6 hours and 40 minutes, excluding time going to the Moline station, going from the Chicago station to the ultimate Chicago destination, returning to the Chicago station, and getting home after disembarking at Moline.


The one-way adult fare for the 280 mile trip from St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo., is $72. For the 80 mile trip from Chicago to Milwaukee, $28. Fares, therefore, are roughly 25 cents a mile. Extrapolating, the cost of a 180-mile one-way trip from Moline to Chicago: $45 -- exclusive of bus or cab fare to get to and from the ultimate Chicago destination.


Based on these Amtrak figures, the Moline to Chicago route figures to lose $6 million annually. Assuming 100,000 round-trips per year, that means each round-trip loses $60. Each one-way trip, $30. If actual ridership is less than 200,000 one-way trips per year, the losses are proportionally greater.


There are but two ways for the proposed Moline/Chicago route to break even: set one-way prices at about $75 (and assume no ridership decrease), or subsidize the route -- indefinitely.


In her 2014 report, "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger painted a bleak picture of Illinois finances. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on other liabilities. This does not include the $111 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.


Illinois is broke. To waste $45 million as capital to get a passenger train running that is projected to lose $6 million a year is nuts. In my opinion, this smells of crony capitalism.


So, who really is pushing for the train? Who's going to get the $177 million federal and $45 million state investments? The owners of the historic O'Rourke building? Construction companies upgrading the track? Who?


And the taxpayers get to make up the annual $6 million losses!





Posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea