At Christmas, Thank God you're an American

My dad was born two years into the 20th century. One day, late in his life, before his death in the 1980s, dad told me he lived in mankind’s best times.

He said when he was born, the horse was the common mode of transportation, and that within a few years of his birth, the automobile became the universal mode of transportation in America.

Oil lamps were replaced by electricity. The telegraph and telephone provided instant communication. Flight grew from nothing to a great industry. Radio and television were invented and soon became common to every American home.

Wood heating changed to coal, then to oil and then to natural gas and nuclear energy. Central heating replaced fireplaces and stoves.

Supermarkets replaced small stores. Air conditioning became an essential in every home. And America put men on the moon.


As I have reread the histories of Jamestown, the Plymouth colony, and the French at Quebec, I marvel at how far we in America have come.

When Cartier made his second voyage to the St. Lawrence River (1534), he and his men had none of the things that Americans had when my dad was born.

That winter at Quebec, when the snow hit and the river froze, the French were trapped in their huts. Scurvy broke out. Twenty-five men died, and only three or four remained healthy enough to care for the dying.

An Indian saved those on death’s door with a “tea” (from the Aborvitae?) that provided the vitamin needed to ward off the scurvy. There were no stores, doctors, or efficacious medicines. What little food they could find came from the few animals hunted and from the river. Shelters were barely heated.


Dad didn’t live to see the computer come into common use. There were no cable networks. No email. No cellphones. You couldn’t go on FaceTime and see your daughter as you talked. You couldn’t download an app and watch virtually every Notre Dame sporting event from your phone or computer. He never knew of the internet, which today we take for granted.

The advanced batteries that we now have to power our cars hadn’t been invented in his time. The treatments for cancer and other illness that we take for granted today, didn’t exist.


There is a simple truth involved in all of this. There’s something wonderful we should be thankful for this Christmas.

We live in America. Whether we are Bill Gates’ rich, or on welfare, we still live in the greatest country in the world.

People from all over the globe opt to come here; not to Russia, China, France, Venezuela, or Cuba. Not even Sweden.

Here you can practice the religion of your choice without government interference. You can travel from Florida to Washington, from Maine to Arizona, anytime you want without a passport or government permission.

If you are arrested, you get all the rights set out in our Bill of Rights. You are presumed innocent, the government must prove your guilt to a jury of your fellow citizens (not other government officials) beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you hate the president, you can call him all sorts of vile names without fear of being imprisoned or sent to indoctrination or re-education camps. (Some 800,000 Muslims in China are presently in indoctrination/re-education camps.)

There is no nation in the world where you could enjoy greater freedom of religion, speech, association, and press.

You are free to work and grow rich. If not, there’s the social safety net. Think about it. Today, the people on welfare in America live better than virtually anybody did before the beginning of the 20th century — including kings!


Kings might have had gold, and lived in palaces. But did 19th century kings have the range of foods anybody can find in an American supermarket? The medicines? The doctors? The sanitation systems? Central heating? Air conditioning? Cell phones? TVs? Computers? Internet? Cars? Trains? Airplanes?

Were their subjects free to denounce the king on the street corner or in print? Free to practice the religion of their choice? Our country is not perfect. But it’s the best so far.


This Christmas, thank your God that you’re an American.

Posted: QCOline.com   December 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Time for North Korea to Vote itself out of Existence

North Korea came into existence in 1945 at the end of WWII. The Japanese had occupied Korea during the war. Upon Japan’s defeat, Korea was divided into U.S. and U.S.S.R. zones of occupation along the 38th parallel.

It has been a communist state for 73 years. Europe, which was also divided into Western and Soviet zones of occupation with the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republics in 1990-1991, has ceased to be divided.

So, why does North Korea continue to exist? Why, if socialism works, does North Korea remain an economic failure?

North Korea has operated under its own ideology since 1955 — “Juche.” It emphasize the centeredness of North Korea. It embodies the so-called “wisdom” of Kim Il-sung.

North Korean leadership claims it provides “a complete answer to any questions that arises in the struggle for national liberation.” It has three core principles: economic self-sufficiency, military self-reliance and an independent foreign policy.

It was originally described in North Korean propaganda as a “creative application” of Marxist-Leninism, but more recently, it has been re-described as “the only scientific thought ... and most effective revolutionary theoretical structure that leads to the future of communist society.”

In the 1980s, references to Juche eventually replaced Marxism–Leninism references. The 2009 North Korean Constitution dropped all references to communism and focused instead on the regime’s military-first policy. It also confirmed the position of Kim Jong-il. Nevertheless, today, the North Korean constitution still retains references to socialism. Today Juche provides the justification for North Korea’s spartan economy, poverty and discipline demanded by its totalitarian government.

The only reason I can see for North Korea continuing to exist is to provide Kim Jong-un, his relatives and his henchmen, with positions of power and wealth. If it’s no benefit the starving populace; there is a much easier and quicker way to get the job done. But that would involve the North Korean leadership giving up its privileged positions of wealth and power. It would involve uniting with South Korea.

The GDP of South Korea is currently estimated at 36.7 times that of North Korea. In 2013, the North Korean GDP was estimated at $33 billion. The South Korea GDP at $1.19 trillion. The per capita South Korean GDP was estimated at $33,200, but only $1,800 in the North (as per CIA World Factbook.)

South Korea’s trade volume in 2013 was $1.07 trillion. North Korea’s was $7.3 billion. North Korea runs a huge trade deficit. The opposite is true of the South. South Korean brands are known worldwide. They include Samsung, Hyundai and Kia.

North Korea does not produce enough food to feed its population. Chronic food shortages have resulted in undernourishment among the North Korean people. As a result, North Koreans tend to be smaller than South Koreans. North Korean life expectancy (69.2 years) is lower than South Korea’s (79.3 years). The infant mortality rate in South Korea is 4.08 per 1,000 live births; in North Korea it’s 26.21 per 1000 (2012 figures).

Contrary to the rules in South Korea, North Korea prohibits its citizens from freely traveling and immigrating abroad, and from using the internet. According to the 2014 Press Freedom Index, South Korea ranks 57th; North Korea, 179th.


The bottom line is this: If the North Korean leaders gave a damn about their people, the would vote North Korea and its leadership out of existence, and vote to unite with the South. Starving people can’t eat ICBMs.


The U.S.S.R. came into existence in 1922 and dissolved on Dec. 26, 1991. Its promises of a socialist utopia failed miserably. When it did, Eastern Europe, which had been dragged into communist socialism, repudiated its great “gift” from the U.S.S.R.

North Korea has existed four years longer than the U.S.S.R., and has produced even worse results. The regime’s legacy is totalitarianism and malnutrition. How much more suffering is the leadership willing to force upon its own people?

The time has come for North Korea to follow the lead of the Soviets and dissolve itself. 

And for all who want the U.S. to become a socialist utopia, take a trip to North Korea — if you can get in — and live there a while. Of course, you may not be able to get back out!

Then again, it might be safer to take a shorter educational trip to Venezuela.

Posted: QCOline.com   December 13, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Where's Coverage, Outrage over Muslim Terrorist Attacks?

Attacks by Muslim militants around the world have become so commonplace that scant mention of them is made in our local papers.

Indeed, only passing reference is made of them even on CNN, Fox, NBC, etc. Obviously, all Muslims are not terrorists. But it is equally obvious that some are.

Here are two recent examples of barbaric terrorist attacks. Were you aware of either of them?

The first was reported by Crux, a Catholic organ, on Nov. 24, as follows: “48 people died during an attack on a Catholic cathedral in the Central African Republic last weekend. The death toll from the Nov. 17 attack on Alindao Cathedral, had originally been put at 37, which included two priests.

“The bishops in the Central African Republic ... have placed the blame for the attacks on militants from the ... UPC — former members of the Seleka, a Muslim militia that briefly took over the country in 2013. Christians make up about 80 percent of the population of the Central African Republic; Muslims about 15 percent.”


The second, credited to the Washington Post, reports:

“Afghanistan reeled from an attack [in Kabul] on the nation’s highest religious body. The assault on a gathering of Sunni Muslim scholars and clerics Tuesday killed 55 people and wounded 94 .... More than 20 of the wounded were reported to be in critical condition.

“Hundreds of delegates from the Afghan Ulema Council and their followers were commemorating the birth anniversary of the prophet Muhammad when a suicide bomber, who had infiltrated the assembly, detonated a vest packed with high explosives, shattering an opening recitation of Koranic verses.”


So is the threat of terrorism from radical Islam real? Or is it just imagined? And if real, why is it largely ignored by the news media?

In the wake of two recent incidents of terror in Australia, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made clear he believes the threat to be real.

On Nov. 9, an attack occurred in Melbourne. It was perpetrated by a Somali-born Australian immigrant. Hassan Khalif Shire Ali terrorized Bourke Street, setting his car on fire, stabbing three bystanders, and stabbing to death a well-loved restaurant owner.

Speaking after the incident, Morrison dismissed mental health explanations as an excuse for the deadly actions. “He was a terrorist. He was a radical extremist terrorist who took a knife to another Australian, because he [Shire Ali] had been radicalized in this country.”

In the hope of preventing other such incidents, the PM called for a roundtable discussion with Muslim leaders to discuss what the Muslim community could do to help the Australian authorities prevent further attacks.

The Australian grand mufti responded by denouncing the PM for inferring “that the [Muslim] community is collectively culpable for the criminal actions of individuals.” He complained that the PM’s remarks expressed “the very sentiments that the Muslim community considers to be invalid and divisive.”

The Australian PM shot back, “I won’t cop the excuses. For those who want to stick their head in the sand, and for those who want to make excuses for those who stick their head in the sand, you are not making Australia safer. You are giving people an excuse to look the other way and not deal with things right in front of you.

“If there are people in ... an Islamic community, that are bringing in hateful, violent, extremist ideologies into your community, you’ve got to call it out.”


Some 10 days later, a second attack in Australia was foiled. Three Australian citizens, inspired by the Islamic State, were charged with planning a mass-casualty attack in Melbourne. All three earlier this year had had their passports canceled on suspicion that they intended to fight with extremists overseas.

According to Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton, “Whilst a specific location was not finalized, there was a view toward a crowded place,” where they could kill more victims.


So, who is right? The prime minister or the grand mufti? Obviously, all Muslims are not terrorists. But clearly, some are.

So, is the prime minister overreacting? Do terrorist attacks by radicalized Muslims remain a bona fide threat? If worshipers are being murdered in a cathedral, and scholars while at prayer, where is the outrage?


Where is the wall-to-wall coverage given to the murder of the Turkish journalist Jamal Khashoggi?


Posted: QCOline.com   December 6, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

How Did Behar Pass 7th Grade Civics?

Some of you who read my column probably wonder why I so often write about our U.S. Constitution.

I do so simply because so many people in places of influence who should be thoroughly conversant with our Constitution all too often display a woeful ignorance as to what it says, and why it says it.

On Nov. 7, Matthew Dowd, an ABC political analyst, appeared on The View, to give his analysis of the just-completed 2018 mid-term election.


Dowd: “In 2016 we had a split decision. Trump takes the Electoral College — geography; Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote. Last night was an even bigger example of that. Democrats won the popular vote last night by eight million votes. They lose U.S. Senate races in “red” areas because ...”


Joy Behar: “(Interrupting) Gerrymandering ...”


Now, if you don’t realize that Behar’s interruption displayed abject ignorance as to how U.S. senators are elected, you need to take a remedial class in U.S. government or civics.

Sister Pancratia taught us civics during the second semester of seventh grade. She taught us that the U.S Constitution divided our national government into three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judicial, and that our legislative branch was bicameral, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

She also taught us that each state’s representation in the senate was equal. Each state had two senators. Representation in the senate was not based on population.

In the House, on the other hand, each state’s number of representatives was based on population.

The arrangement is known as the “Great Compromise.”

When the convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, Edmond Randolph of Virginia, proposed a two-house legislature with membership in both houses set in proportion to its population.

The Virginia Plan was favored by the states with large populations. The less populous states feared the Virginia Plan. They feared that if voting was based on population, big states would control the new government, and the votes of all the smaller states would be irrelevant and meaningless.

To protect small-state interests, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral legislature, with each state having an equal vote.That, of course, would have allowed the little states to out-vote the bigger states, and was unacceptable to the bigger states.

The deadlock was finally broken when Roger Sherman and Oliver Elsworth, both of Connecticut, proposed the Great Compromise.

It called for a bicameral legislature, with representation in the House to be based on proportional representation according to the number of free inhabitants in each states, and with each state having equal representation (one) in the Senate.

The Great Compromise essentially blended Randolph’s Virginia Plan and Patterson’s New Jersey Plan. In further discussion, the Sherman/Elsworth plan was modified to provide that each state would have two senators (rather than one), and that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person to determine population for the purpose of representation in the House.


This compromise, together with a second compromise that left the issue of slavery to the states, made possible the adoption of the new proposed Constitution. Without these compromises, it is likely that the North and South would have gone their separate ways.


It is also certain that the large states would never have agreed to each state having an equal number of votes in Congress, and the small states would never have agreed to proportional representation.

Behar’s notion that Democrats lost Senate races in red states due to gerrymandering is evidence of an utter lack of understanding as to how U.S. senators are elected.

Senators are elected statewide. They are  not elected from "districts" that are susceptible to gerrymandering. It is only possible to gerrymander "districts" within a state. Where the election is statewide it can’t be gerrymandered.


Two other points:


— Article V of the Constitution says “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”


— The Electoral College, Dowd to the contrary not withstanding, plays no part in electing U.S senators or representatives.




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

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 29, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

This Thanksgiving, Be Thankful the US Isn't Socialist -- Yet

Can socialism work in the United States? I suppose your answer will depend on how you define work.

If you mean it will work as well as it did in the USSR, or as it is presently doing in Venezuela, then you can fairly say it will work in the United States. But do you really want to live in a 21st century USSR? Venezuela?


The Union of Soviet Social Republics came into being in December 1922, and lasted nearly 70 years, until December 1991. The USSR had its beginning in the 1917 revolution when Lenin and the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian Provisional Government.

The country became a one-party state, governed by the Communist Party. Following Vladamir Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came to power.

Stalin committed the USSR to socialism (communism), a planned economy, the abolition of private ownership, rapid industrialization and forced collective farming. Famine followed; millions died.

Those landowners who survived were sent to forced labor camps. Under Stalin, communism became totalitarianism. The “Great Purge” followed.

According to declassified secret police records, more than 1.5 million people were arbitrarily arrested in 1937 and 1938; some 600,000 of them were shot.

Atheism became the state religion. Church property was confiscated. Personal professions of religion were not officially banned, but participation was stigmatized by the government and its controlled press. Certain professions were closed to religious believers.

The government undertook to control and use the Russian Orthodox Church. During the first decade of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed some 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.

Most seminaries were closed, and the publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941, only 500 churches remained open while 54,000 where open prior to World War I. For 68 years, the communists (socialists) ruled without opposition. In 1991, the USSR collapsed.

If the one-party socialist government couldn’t succeed in the USSR where all opposition (churches, unions, opposing political parties, capitalists) had been crushed, why is there any reason to believe that the socialists will succeed here?


In 1999, oil-rich Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez, a communist-socialist to power. His successor is Nicolas Maduro. When the opposition won control of the National Assembly, Maduro caused its abolition. Constitutional rights have been suspended.

Chronic shortages of food, medicine and even toilet paper are rampant. For 2018, the inflation rate is projected at 1,000,000 percent. Savings of $100,000 on Jan. 1, 2018 will be worth 10 cents on Jan. 1, 2019.


Why do U.S. socialist believe they can do any better than USSR or Venezuelan socialists? Are things so dire in the U.S. that we are willing to entrust our economy (and perhaps our rights) to “economic experts,” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?



In the Acts of the apostles, we find that the early church adopted socialism. The faithful placed all their property into the hands of the Apostles. Squabbles ensued almost immediately over the use of the donations.

The Greek Christians complained their widows were getting less than was given to the Hebrew Christian widows. A committee (the deacons) was appointed to fix the inequality. Suddenly, we hear no more of the early Christian socialist experiment.


The Pilgrim’s tried socialism at Plymouth Plantation. They nearly starved. “Communal stewardship” failed. It was only after each man was allowed to plant corn on his own parcel of land that the colony began to prosper.

Gov. William Bradford tells us that prior to allowing each man to have his own plot of land, the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of injustice. And this among “godly and sober men”!

The industrious were forced to subsidize the slackers. The strong “had no more in division of victuals and clothes” than the weak. In other words, the productive members of the Plymouth Plantation objected to being plundered by the less productive.

They objected to sharing the hard-earned fruits of their labors with those who failed to make equal effort. The 2017 Gross Domestic Product per capita in the capitalist United States, after adjustment for “purchasing power parity,” was 54,225 US dollars — 305 percent of the world average. Adjusted in comparable dollars: “Germany: $45,229; France: $38,606; United Kingdom: $39,753.


In the USSR, the workers told a bitter joke: “The government pretends to pay us; we pretend to work.”

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 20, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

When Righteousness Gave Way to Cannon Fire

In May 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner, a Republican and abolitionist from Massachusetts, delivered an impassioned speech in the U.S. Senate, entitled “The Crime Against Kansas.” It denounced Southern efforts to bring Kansas into the Union as a slave state.

The historians Morison, Commager and Leuchtenburg write that Sumner’s speech “contained some unpalatable truths, much that was neither truthful nor in good taste, and some disgraceful political invective against Senator Andrew Butler (D) of South Carolina.”

During the course of his speech, Sumner criticized two fellow U.S. senators, Andrew Pickens Butler and Stephen A. Douglas, D-Illinois. Both were principle authors of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

That act organized the region into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and adopted the rule of “popular sovereignty,” which left the people of each territory to decide whether it should enter the Union as a slave or free state.

That latter provision repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which barred slavery in the territories north of 36º 30’. The anti-slavery forces regarded the Missouri Compromise as settled law, and its repeal as betrayal.


Sumner began by claiming that the goal of the slave-holding South was to extend slavery throughout the free states.

“But the wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. ... It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave State, the hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government. ... When the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, ... here in our Republic, ... FORCE ... has been openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power.”

Sumner excoriated Butler, saying,

“The senator from South Carolina has ... chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery. ... Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea ... is all surpassed.

“The asserted rights of slavery ... are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy ... full power in the national Territories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block — then ... the chivalric senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight! Exalted senator! A Second Moses come for a second exodus! “

Sumner accused Butler of labeling abolitionists as fanatics when, in fact, he and his fellow Southerners in their embrace of the crime of slavery were the true fanatics.

Sen. Douglas, shocked by Sumner’s words, turned to a colleague and said, “this damn fool Sumner is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool.”


Abolitionists understood Sumner’s remarks as attacking Butler’s position on the immorality of slavery. But Rep. Preston Brooks construed Sumner’s remarks as a personal attack upon his cousin.
Three days later, as Sumner sat at his desk in the nearly empty Senate chamber, Brooks assailed Sumner with a gold-headed cane, nearly beating him to death.

The episode exposed the growing polarization in America. Abolitionists viewed Sumner as a martyr; the South hailed Brooks as a hero.

The Cincinnati Gazette wrote, “The South cannot tolerate free speech anywhere, and would stifle it in Washington with the bludgeon and the bowie-knife, as they are now trying to stifle it in Kansas by massacre, rapine, and murder.”

The New York Evening Post asked, “Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters? ... Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?”

The Richmond Enquirer expressed the Southern view that Sumner should be caned “every morning,” praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denouncing “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.”

Sumner and the abolitionists were right. Slavery was an unconscionable moral wrong. The South was right. The Constitution had been born of a compromise without which there would have been no Union — a compromise that left to each state whether it would be slave or free.

The voices of “righteousness” on each side became more shrill, until they were drowned out by roar of muskets and cannons.

Posted: QCOline.com   November, 8, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What's your Immigration Policy?

It is midnight. You are a widow, who lives alone in her home. Your ringing doorbells awakens you from a sound sleep. You warily answer the door.

A woman and a teen-age boy are on your doorstep. The woman says to you, “My son and I have illegally crossed the Texas border into your country. We need a place to stay. Can we sleep in your house tonight? Can we live with you until we can find jobs?”

What do you do?


What should President Donald Trump do when thousands of illegal aliens show up in a caravan at our southern border?

You’ve just become president. What’s your policy?

An article that recently appeared in this paper explains, or at least attempts to explain, why aliens continue to illegally cross our southern border. In it, the ACLU quotes two-thirds of the parents who have sent their children across the U.S. border (those they have been able to find and speak with) as saying, as much as they would like to have their children with them, it’s too dangerous in their home country because of gangs.

But sometimes explanations raise further questions. So what conclusion would you draw?

Is the ACLU misquoting the parents? Is there is no gang violence in their native countries?

Is the ACLU exaggerating? If there is gang violence in those countries, is it really that bad?

I assume the ACLU is accurately quoting parents, and that gang violence is a serious danger to their children. But if the children sent into the U.S. should not be returned to their native countries, what conclusion would you draw from that?

If we keep our borders open, only good, law-abiding children will cross into the U.S. The violent gang members who imperil those children in their own native countries would never illegally cross into our country.

If we keep our borders open, the vicious gang members, from whom the children are escaping, will also illegally enter the U.S. and bring gang violence here.

Consider the murder of Mollie Tibbetts of Brooklyn, Iowa. Was Mollie murdered by a U.S. citizen or a vicious alien who had illegally entered the U.S.?

If Tibbets was murdered by an illegal alien, what conclusion would you draw?

If the illegal alien who murdered her had not been able to enter this country, Mollie would still be alive.

If he had not been able to enter the country, Mollie might have died from some other cause.


Finally, do we need to know who is coming into our country? What’s your position?

It doesn’t matter who comes in; they are all God’s children.

Most aliens entering the U.S. illegally are good people, coming here to escape gang violence in their own countries. If a few vicious gang members also sneak in, the evil they do will be outweighed by the good that we do in accepting those escaping violence in their own countries.

A wall would let us monitor who is entering our country. It would be useful in allowing us to vet, so as to at least bar entry to some gang members and dangerous criminals.

A wall should never be built. It is better to accept all God’s children without vetting. Why should Americans demand to be safe, while gang members are killing children south of our border?

Rather than turn away Central American children who may be at risk in their homelands, we should be willing to accept the risk that what happened to Mollie Tibbets will not happen to our own children.


You’ve just become president. You’ve taken an oath to “preserve and protect.”

How do you do that?


By the way ... did you let the mother and son into your home?

Posted: QCOline.com October 25, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Who wants to live in Alinsky's America?

How far will the radical left go to gain power? To keep power? To win?

If you know where to look, the answers are there. There is a playbook.

In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a little book called Rules for Radicals. No man has ever written a book which has more clearly and succinctly expressed his beliefs. Alinsky begins by stating the purpose of his book:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky minces no words as to what that involves. “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution.”

But does he really mean revolution? Yes. For Alinsky, any means that the Have-Nots employ to seize power that will work to achieve that end are acceptable.

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

But do truth and morals in any way limit the acceptability of the means? For Alinsky, they don’t. For Alinsky, there is no such thing as objective truth.

“An organizer ... does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.”

Alinsky’s radical dismisses all concerns of personal morality, conscience of the individual and personal salvation. This is a world “where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”

“One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”

So, does Alinsky admit to the existence of a good? Yes. It’s whatever the Have-Notes want to get.

“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”

Does the radical leader admit the existence of any form of objective good or truth? Yes. He assumes his cause to be perfect — even if he knows his assumption to be a lie. “A leader,” he said, “must assume that his cause is 100 percent positive and that the opposition 100 percent negative.”

But if the radical’s ends are achievable and worth the cost, does Alinsky give us any examples of what he means by workable means.

Yes: “Pick the target; freeze, personalize it, and polarize it.”

So is personal destruction or character assassination a permissible means so long as it is workable?

Here’s what Alinsky says to that point: “Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100 percent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’? This becomes political idiocy.”

But if character assassination fails, if the target isn’t destroyed, can the next obvious step be taken? If the end in revolution to seize power for the Have-Nots, if morality and conscience place no limits on the choice of the means, and if murder is workable, what objection can their be to using murder as the means?

In 1925, eight years before he became the German chancellor, Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf and set out his future plans for Germany.

Most people in the West didn’t read it. Many of those who did read it, refused to believe Hitler really meant what he said.

Do your really want to live in Alinsky’s America?

An election’s coming.

Posted: QCOline.com October 18, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Do You Want to Live in these Democrats' America?

I consider U.S. Sen. Susan Collin’s speech in support of the Kavanaugh nomination to be the finest speech delivered by a member of Congress in my lifetime.

Collins eloquently and persuasively discussed every point that needed to be discussed. Only in one respect do I dissent.

I believe that before any American’s life or reputation is destroyed at any public hearing by an allegation of criminal misconduct, the accuser has the burden of proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In every criminal proceeding, the judge is required to instruct the jury as follows:

"The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

"The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the state throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence."Our U.S. Supreme Court has held that the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to our system of justice and essential to due process.

Now a substantial wing of the Democratic Party would rewrite that rule to read that in any case where a woman charges a man with sexual misconduct

"The accused is conclusively presumed guilty of the charge against him.This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during deliberations on the verdict and cannot be overcome. You should disregard all witnesses and all other evidence that the accused presents to establish his innocence because it is easy to imagine why the accused might be lying.

"The accuser’s credibility must be afforded greater credibility because it is far more difficult to come up with any plausible reason any woman might be lying. Indeed, the accuser’s credibility may not even be questioned."

Is it really better that 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man escape? 

If you are man, is this fundamentally transformed America in which you wish to live?

If you’re a woman, is this the shining new America in which you want your father, your husband and your sons to live?

If a man whose testimony is corroborated by three witnesses, has less credibility than a woman whose testimony is utterly uncorroborated, how many additional witnesses does the man need? Two? Twenty-five? Five-thousand?

How many more witnesses are needed before he can overcome the presumption of guilt? Or is it an irrefutable presumption? 

If women never lie, and if men never tell the truth, why waste time on trials?

If this is the sparkling new order that the progressive left wants, I want no part of it. I want a system of due process where everyone criminally accused is presumed innocent. Where accused and accuser start out equally in terms of credibility.

Where no one should be found guilty unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where accuser, accused and all witnesses face each other, and  equally face rigorous cross-examination. And I am not willing to gut any clause of our Bill of Rghts to favor a particular class of accusers or accuseds, or for reasons of political correctness, or to appease any mob.

Our traditional criminal justice system reaches its conclusions on evidence, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Sympathy, passion, raw emotion, bias, and hatred have no place in the system bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.

Our Supreme Court has held that not every hearing requires all the safeguards deemed essential to a criminal trial. The full due process required during a criminal trial may not be required in a hearing for a zoning variance. But the court has held that the due process commensurate with the proceeding must be accorded to each hearing.

At a minimum, due process requires a neutral judge (or hearing officer), notice of what the proceeding is about, and the right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses.

Since 1215, people have fought not to be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process. Is a man’s good name and reputation not part of his life and property? Or are they subject to destruction for perceived “greater good?”

In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. ... He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

Is that the America you want to live in? If the destruction of a good man is the means to your end, is that OK?

Posted: QCOline.com October 11, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

I Believe Ford was Abused, but not by Kavanaugh

I have now listened to the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I carefully listened to both the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Many of the senators conducting the hearing correctly said that a woman’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted deserves to be afforded careful consideration. I agree.

That being said, once such an allegation has been made, both sides deserve due process. After listening to Ford’s testimony, I am convinced that she was abused in the 1980s. But I am still troubled by the fact that it was only in 2012 that she first named Kavanaugh as her assailant (in a therapy session).

I am also convinced that Kavanaugh’s testimony of innocence was truthful. What I am saying is that I think Ford was abused by someone — other than Kavanaugh.

Ford has claimed that she and four others attended a small party at which she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh and two of those people, P.J. Smith and Mark Judge, under penalties of perjury, have denied any recollection of attending any such party.

Kavanaugh has also sworn before his God that he is innocent. The fourth person, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school, has also denied attending a party with Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh maintained a calendar/diary back in 1982 which he produced and referred to at the Senate hearing. His notes, made at the time, about parties and other events, together with his explanations relative to those notes, tend to support his testimony, and do nothing to support Ford’s testimony.

Character witnesses from Kavanaugh’s high school, college and law school days, and from all the years he has spent in his professional life, a period of some 40 years, all believe that the man Ford describes, is not the man they have known and been close to.

I fully realize the proceeding before the committee is not a criminal proceeding. But when career and family-destroying allegations of criminal violations are made against any man or woman, there has to be a presumption of innocence, and a requirement that the allegation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anything else, where there is an allegation of criminal misconduct, is not consistent with American notions of due process.

As I said, I am convinced that somebody assaulted Ford when she was in high school. I am even more convinced that it was not Kavanaugh. His denial was at least as firm as her accusation. Importantly, he was corroborated by three witnesses — one was Ford’s friend. She was corroborated by no witnesses, and no physical evidence.*

Additionally, his calendar, and the people who have known him best, tend to corroborate Kavanaugh.

I don’t think Ford is lying about Kavanaugh, I just think she is mistaken. The fact that it took her some 30 years to recall who her assailant was, and 38 years to make her allegation, does not add credibility. It might not hurt her credibility, but it certainly doesn’t enhance it.

I feel sorry for what Ford and her family have suffered. I am also deeply troubled by what Kavanaugh and his family have suffered.

Once you decide that anybody facing an allegation of criminal misconduct should be presumed guilty, and should have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, you’re not talking about American justice.

If you are willing to demand that of Kavanaugh, then be willing to have the same rules applied to you. Or don’t you believe in “equal protection?”

* (I do think the committee should have called the three witnesses. But I think their absence probably hurt the judge more than it did Ford. Assuming they testified consistently with their sworn statements, I think testimony in open court is normally more persuasive than evidence via affidavit or deposition.)

Posted: QCOline.com October 4, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

America's Version of Spanish Inquisition?

In the year 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was put on trial for treason.


The indictment charged that Raleigh had conspired to kill King James I, raise a rebellion with intent to change the nation’s religion from Protestant to Catholic and subvert the government.


It further alleged that Raleigh had listened to Spanish bribe offers, and conferred and conspired with Lord Cobham to use Spanish gold, to put Lady Arabella Stuart on the English throne. Raleigh was tried by a jury of 12 knights.



His trial was conducted by a special commission, which consisted of four judges and seven laymen, with Chief Justice Popham, of King’s Bench, the English criminal court, presiding. It had been the job of the commissioners to ferret out the evidence of Sir Walter’s guilt.


Cobham was Raleigh’s sole accuser. The prosecution never produced Cobham in open court. Cobham’s testimony, instead, was produced in the form of unsigned written confessions.


Walter’s judges were plainly part of the prosecution. When Cobham was taken into custody, the commissioners had questioned Cobham to get his confession.


In 1603, what we today know as the “presumption of innocence” and the rule that the prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” had not yet become part of due process in English criminal cases. But unlike cases tried before the Spanish Inquisition, an indictment, charging a crime, began the proceedings.


Without an indictment, there could be no trial. By 1603, the requirement of a written charge, a jury trial, and protection against double jeopardy had become part of what passed for due process in English criminal trials.


Raleigh pleaded that Cobham be produced in open court, so that Raleigh could confront his accuser face-to-face and cross-examine him. His request was denied. Raleigh might open gaps in the prosecution’s evidence and thereby escape conviction.


Raleigh, because he had been charged with treason, was presumed to be guilty, just as he would have been before the Inquisition. He had no right to subpoena Cobham or any other possible defense witness to compel his witnesses to come to court.


Even worse, Raleigh, because he was a defendant, could not testify under oath on his own behalf, nor could he have the services of an attorney. He was allowed to question the only witness the prosecution produced, a sailor who testified to second and third-hand hearsay — what people in Spain had told other people who told him.



Raleigh was allowed to argue his own case to the jury. The prosecution went first, called its witness and produced written confessions and deposition. Raleigh was not required to put on his defense before he heard the prosecution’s evidence.


It was largely because of trials such as Raleigh’s that we have our Bill of Rights. In the 180-year period between Raleigh’s trial, and the adoption of our Bill of Rights, Englishmen on both sides of the ocean came to realize that “due process” (a fair trial) required certain procedural safeguards.


They include written notice of the charge, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers. The right to compel one’s own witness to give testimony in court, and the right to testify under oath as to one’s innocence.



In recent days, we have seen Democratic U.S. senators shamefully attempt to turn the clock back to 1603 in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. They would presume him guilty, and require him to prove his innocence at least beyond all doubt.


They start with the presumption that if a woman accuses him, the woman must be telling the truth and he must be lying. “Bring in the burglar; we’ll give him a fair trial — and then hang him!”


Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of criminal misconduct that she alleges occurred some 36 years ago. She has done so in an unsworn letter and in an unsworn op-ed. Both are hearsay.


In America, prosecutions are commenced only after sworn evidence is heard and an indictment is returned. To date, there’s no sworn complaint. Ford’s attorneys have insisted that Kavanaugh testify first, without a sworn charge specifying Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct!


Next, they insist that he put on his sworn defense before his accuser accuses him under oath, before he can confront her face-to-face, before he can cross-examine her, and without his own attorney.


That is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition did to its victims. If Democratic senators and representatives really want a return to the practices of the Spanish Inquisition, they should have the guts to unequivocally say so. If they don’t, then even a judge is entitled to due process.


And in America today, due process and fair trial are thought to require at a minimum — by every thinking man — the rights that are guaranteed to every American by the 5th and 6th Amendments to our Constitution, together with the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that the state/accuser prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted: QCOline.com September 27, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Civility is Dead, even at Memorial Services?

What are we becoming as a nation? Is hatred an appropriate sentiment at a funeral?

Sen. John McCain has died. Aretha Franklin has died. Both have had memorial services. And at the memorial services, those who were there to eulogize the lives of McCain and Franklin felt compelled to attack President Donald Trump.

McCain I believe was properly eulogized as a man who believed in reaching across the aisle, and who believed in civility in public discourse.

When Franklin passed away, Trump was gracious and non-political: “The Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, is dead. She was a great woman, with a wonderful gift from God, her voice. She will be missed!”

When McCain died, the president tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

The president’s gracious and non-political tweet came not withstanding his very public differences with McCain. Compare what the president said with what was said by some of the people who spoke at the two memorials.

At the Franklin memorial service, one speaker could not limit himself to eulogizing the deceased. Instead, he felt compelled to verbally assail the president: “You lugubrious leech, you dopey doppelgänger of deceit and deviance, you lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator, you foolish fascist, she ain’t work for you.”

Jesse Jackson took the opportunity to urge Democratic voter registration. “We have long lines to celebrate death, and short lines for voting. Something is missing. If you leave here today and don’t register to vote, you’re dishonoring Aretha.”

At the McCain memorial, the senator’s adult daughter also found it impossible to engage in the very self-restraint that her father had demanded of the president.

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege. The America of John McCain does not need to be made great again, because America was always great.”

Again, what are we becoming as a nation? Are we no longer able to draw a line as to what is appropriate behavior at a memorial service or funeral?

Is their no longer a consensus at to what constitutes appropriate etiquette at a funeral? At a memorial service? Is hatred ever an appropriate sentiment at such a service? Is a funeral the appropriate venue for a political rally?

I have always thought that a funeral or memorial service was an appropriate time to recall our best memories of the deceased. A time to recall the good things a man has done and tried to do, the times we have shared together, and perhaps, in a warm, humorous way, the foibles of the deceased.

At least that’s the way I’d like my service to be conducted ‘’ with perhaps, in the background, a little Irish music and music from the older Broadway shows and operettas that I have loved.

I would not want to go to my grave hating anybody. If I had a political “enemy,” I would hope I might have forgiven him or her before I passed.

The time for a man to fight with his “enemies” should come to an end before he breathes his last and goes to face is God. Once ended, the fight should not be resurrected by his surrogates.

I am afraid that God might discern a modicum of hypocrisy if my friends were to pray for the repose of my soul, while hating my old adversary.

Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Majority Rule? Yes, within Limits ....

Do you believe that in America the majority should rule in all cases?

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Do you believe she should be president?

In November of 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, and all but three Democrats voted to change the filibuster rules of the Senate. The change reduced the majority required for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes. Fifty-two Democrats and “Independents” voted for the change. No Republicans did.

At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the Democrats, “You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, warned, “I think the minority will rue the day that they broke the rules to change the rules.”

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, both former senators, applauded Reid’s decision.

Do you believe super-majorities should ever be required, or are you adamant that the majority should always rule? If you believe the latter, then you have no appreciation of the reason why we have a Bill of Rights.

It was added to the Constitution for the express purpose of putting certain matters beyond the will and vote of the majority. It guarantees every American religious liberty. It guarantees your choice to worship as a Catholic, or as a Baptist. Or not to worship at all.

Should the majority be able to make a law that says, “Everybody shall faithfully sacrifice to the Roman deities?” Or a law that says, “No American shall practice the Catholic faith?”

If Republicans are in the majority, should they be able to pass a law by majority vote that says, “All Republicans are exempt from paying the federal income tax, and all Democrats shall pay income taxes at a 50 percent rate?”

If the Democrats become the majority, should they by majority vote be able to pass a law that says, “All persons who voted Republican in any of the last five presidential elections shall forfeit citizenship, be reduced to slavery, and work for a Democrat slave-master for seven years?” Or that all Republicans shall attend Maoist-style “re-education camps” to be taught the virtues of socialism?

If you don’t see the danger of majority rule degenerating into mob rule, you’re blind. Our Constitution, as drafted, had no Bill of Rights.

It was the Massachusetts, Virginia and New York state ratifying conventions that insisted one be added to the Constitution.

Those Americans who insisted on a Bill of Rights were hard-headed practical men. They had seen England go from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic to Protestant at the will of the monarchs’ majority in Parliament during the consecutive reigns of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary and Edward VI (1485-1553).

And they watched the Civil War between Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, as Puritanism became ascendant, and then the Restoration of Charles II and the High Church (1688).

Our founders didn’t want the religion of this country changing with each new president or Congress. They outlawed establishments of religion, and guaranteed the free exercise thereof. They put the question of religion above the will of the majority.

Reid’s decision to eschew the 60-vote rule and approve judges by a majority vote has come back to haunt the Democrats; first with Neil Gorsuch, and now Brett Kavanaugh.

In the movie, “A Man for All Seasons,” the importance of laws is made magnificently clear.

William Roper: “So, now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law?”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake?”

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted: QCOline.com September 6, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Papal Death Penalty Update; a Respectful Dissent

Recently, Pope Francis announced, that “the death penalty is now inadmissible,” and that the church’s teaching on the death penalty, as set out in section 2267 of the church’s catechism, has been updated.


Here are the five changes, and my comments.


1. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”


If the state, after a full and fair trial, and exhaustive appeals, can’t impose the death penalty because of “the inviolability and dignity” of the murderer’s person, how can other agents of the state be permitted to kill?

How can a police officer kill a terrorist who is threatening to execute hostages? How can an officer shoot the armed robber who first shoots at the officer? After Pearl Harbor, how could our soldiers and sailors kill Japanese soldiers and sailors?

If the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, aren’t the responses of our police officers, and our soldiers and sailors also inadmissible as attacks on the inviolability and dignity of the terrorist, the armed robber, and the Japanese soldiers and sailors?

Or are such killings permitted out of necessity?


2. “The dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
What exactly is “the dignity of the person?”

It cannot be the same thing as the life of the person. Does the act of murder extinguish the dignity of his victim’s person, or only terminate his victim’s life?

“Dignity” is defined as the “quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” Does the murderer deprive his victim of being worthy of honor or respect? Does the murderer forfeit his own right to be deemed worthy of honor or respect?

Or is the pope saying that human life is sacred?

Is not God alone sacred? Worthy alone of adoration? Is man sacred if there is no God? Without his connection to God? Does not the power of life and death belong to God? Doesn’t the murderer usurp God’s power over life and death?

The church has always taught that murder is mortal sin, and that the mortal sinner loses God’s friendship. If man is sacred only by virtue of his connection to God, what becomes of that dignity when man severs his relationship with God?

But, then, if you deny the existence of God, is anything sacred?


3. “A new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. “

Exactly what is this new understanding?

In the years when I was on the bench, sentences were imposed to protect the pubic, punish the defendant, deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes, and rehabilitate the criminal.

Additionally, sentences were required to be “proportionate” to the severity of the offense.


4. “More effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens.”

A murderer is serving three life sentences without the possibility of parole for murdering and dismembering three children, ages 3 to 5. The murderer then murders a prison guard, and while he is awaiting trail for that murder, he murders a second guard. If the death penalty cannot be imposed, what meaningful penalty is there which “ensures due protection of citizens” — including guards?

Whether additional life sentences are served concurrently or consecutively, isn’t every life sentence after the first meaningless? How are four more meaningless life sentence “proportionate” to the four additional murders?

Where the only meaningful and proportionate sentence is a death sentence, then the death sentence is both reasonable and necessary to protect the public.


5. “More effective systems of detention have been developed which do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Is he referring to the murderer asking God for forgiveness? Statistics show that in Texas a murderer spends an average of 15.6 awaiting his execution. Isn’t that sufficient time for a murderer to ask God’s forgiveness?

Or by redemption, is the pope referring to rehabilitation? Richard Speck raped, tortured and murdered eight student nurses. Is the pope saying that if the parole board decided Speck was rehabilitated after 10 years he should have been paroled?

I have never believed that the death penalty should be the sentence in all cases of murder. I believe, however, it should be the penalty where it is the only sentence that is “necessary” and “proportionate.” In that, I am entirely consistent with Section 2266 of the church’s catechism. I suggest, the church’s catechism is now inconsistent with itself.

If only the death penalty is “proportionate” to the crime, then it must be “admissible,” and the now-repealed Section 2267 had it right.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 23, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Was JFK Right About Tax Cuts? If so, so Is Trump

When candidate Donald Trump promised 4 percent growth for the U.S. economy in September of 2016, CNN scoffed, “Trump promises 4 percent growth. Economists say no way.”


In an Oct. 11, 2016 op-ed, CNN continued, “No chance, say 11 economists surveyed by CNNMoney. ‘No, pigs do not fly,’ says Robert Brusca, senior economist at FAO Economics, a research firm. ‘Donald Trump is dreaming.’


“So what’s realistic? The San Francisco Fed estimates the ‘new normal’ for annual economic growth to be 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.”


Once elected, President Trump promised that if his tax plan were enacted, although taxes rates would be cut, there would nevertheless be an increase in federal revenues and a decrease in the deficit.


This increase in revenues would occur because the economy would grow, and businesses would see greater profits and pay more in taxes, not withstanding the lowering of the tax rates.


Now, the president’s first prediction, that the economy would take off, seems to be coming true to anyone with an open mind.


On July 27, the Department of Commerce announced that the “U.S. gross domestic product advanced by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018.” CNN now dismisses that 4.1 percent growth rate, trotting out economists who now claim that it is “unsustainable.” Probably the same 11!


Trump disagrees and says the 4 percent growth rate is sustainable and promises “it will get even better.” So who are you rooting for, the President or CNN?


But assuming that the President’s first prediction that economic growth would take off if his plan were approved is coming true, what about his prediction that the deficit would be reduced?


The belief that a decrease in tax rates could result in increased federal revenues, and a decrease in the deficit, is not an original Trump idea. President John F. Kennedy made the same prediction 56 years ago.


On December 14, 1962, Kennedy in an address to the Economic Club of New York laid out his case for a cuts in individual and corporate federal income taxes rates.


Kennedy explained, “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.



“Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.


“I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe ... this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”


Kennedy believed that high tax rates stifled the economy. He believed that lowering the tax rates would, in the short run, decrease tax revenues. But in the long run, lowering tax rates would unshackle the American economy.


He believed that if the government took less money from the private sector, the private sector would have more money to invest, expand, and hire workers. He believed in the long run that an expanding economy would produce far greater profits and far greater tax revenues sufficient to cut the deficit and even balance the budget.


To put this in concrete terms, the George W. Bush Presidential Center in 2013 projected that a 4 percent growth rate for 10 years would produce an additional 10 million jobs, $3 trillion in revenues, and a 30 percent reduction of the deficit. (And that does not take account of repatriated dollars.)


Trump is using Kennedy’s playbook. I have always believed Kennedy was right. If Kennedy was right, Trump is going to come out of this looking of a lot smarter than CNN’s gaggle of dismissive economists.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 16, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Trump a Free Trader, Not a Protectionist

Last week President Donald Trump, at a joint press conference with the European Union’s senior trade representative, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced a trade deal with the EU.


“This was a very big day for free and fair trade, Trump said. “We agreed today ... to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soy beans. ... The EU will begin almost immediately to buy a lot of soy beans from our farmers .... The EU also wants to import more liquefied natural gas from the U.S. .... They will be a massive buyer.”


What the president said was confirmed by Juncker: “I had an intention to make a deal today, and we made a deal today.”


So, is the president a free-trader or a protectionist?


Trump has taken on two issues, the U.S. trade deficit, and tariffs. The issues are related, but distinct.


Here’s a simple illustration of a trade deficit:


A sells Chevy automobiles. B sells snowblowers. B buys a Chevy from A and pays $30,000. A buys a snowblower from B at a price of $500. B has a trade deficit of $29,500. A has a trade surplus of $29,500.


Kimberly Amadeo of balance.com writes, “The United States ... [total] deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. Imports were $2.895 trillion and exports were only $2.329 trillion. The U.S. trade deficit in goods [excluding services] was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. The biggest categories were commercial aircraft, automobiles, and food. It imported $2.361 trillion. The largest categories were automobiles, petroleum, and cell phones.”


The U.S. has its largest trade deficit with China. We import about $505 billion worth of goods from China. China imports about $130 billion worth of goods from us. The U.S. deficit is therefore about $375 billion. China’s trade surplus is $375 billion.


There is some good, and some bad in that relationship. The relationship is good for American consumers. They might be able to buy an American-made TV for $500. They, however, may be able to buy a comparable Chinese-made TV for $400.


But the relationship is bad for U.S. workers. If American consumers are buying enough Chinese-made TVs, American TV manufactures may go out of business for lack of sales, or relocate their businesses to China, or Mexico where labor is cheaper and where they can build TVs for the American market to compete with Chinese imports.


Furthermore, buying all our manufactured goods from foreign countries may be very bad in the case of a national emergency.


We won WWII largely because our auto manufactures adjusted their assembly lines to build planes, ships and tanks. If there are no American manufacturers, that won’t be possible in the case of the next national emergency.


That situation is exacerbated when the foreign country imposes a tariff on U.S. goods entering their country. If a Canadian consumer can buy a gallon of U.S. milk imported into Canada at $2 per gallon, he may not be able to afford buying that same gallon of milk if a 200 percent Canadian tariff raises the price of that milk to $6 a gallon.


The U.S. dairy farmer gets no benefit from the $4 added to the price of his milk by the tariff. And worse, if the price of milk is $6 rather than $2, the U.S. dairy farmer will sell less milk to Canada. It’s the Canadian dairy farmer who benefits. He can sell his milk at $5.90 per gallon, and beat the $6 price of U.S. milk.


The agreement with the EU demonstrates that when the president says, “I want free trade, not tariffs,” he means it.


For the president, U.S. tariffs are a tool to force the reduction of foreign tariffs. He wants free trade; reciprocal trade.


If a trade war develops, China, by raising tariffs, can keep $130 billion of U.S. exports out of China. We can keep $505 billion of Chinese exports out of the U.S.


If that happens, U.S. consumers will pay a little more for U.S. goods. U.S. manufacturers will find it easier to compete.


U.S. exporters will be hurt, unless our government protects them during the war. (U.S. farmers export about $12.4 billion of soybeans to China.)


China’s economy will face depression.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 2, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Original Intent vs. Everything Else

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court because the president believes Kavanaugh will construe our Constitution consistently with the “original intent” of the men who wrote it.


I came to Rock Island County in September 1966 to work as an assistant state’s attorney. Shortly after I came, one of my fellow assistants told me of his uncle, a former justice of the peace, who had proclaimed, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what they mean.”


I was appalled. His uncle was saying that under the guise of interpreting the law, he would rewrite the law to say what he wanted it to say, rather than what the people’s representatives who wrote it, meant it to say.


The United States is a democratic republic.


We are a democracy because we elect the people we want to represent us and make our laws.


We are a republic because the people we have chosen make our laws on our behalf. That is the first principle of our U.S. Constitution. Article I provides, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”


Note, it says “all.” It does not say “some” or “most.” If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then none is vested in the president or in any judge.


Article II provides, “The executive power shall be vested in [the] president.” He takes an oath to “faithfully execute” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”


Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are judges; not members of Congress. They are not elected to make our laws. Under our Constitution, no power has been vested in judges to make or rewrite our laws.


Under Article III of the Constitution, they are vested with judicial power.


Article V provides two alternative methods to amend our Constitution. Neither the president nor any judge has any role in the amendment process.


This tripartite process — Congress making our laws, the president executing those laws, and the Supreme Court judging what our Constitution and those laws mean — is known as the “separation of powers.”


Our Constitution is a product of experience, not logic.


The experience of the American people living in the 13 English colonies was the force behind Article I. The colonists had grown used to electing their own colonial representative assemblies. Those assemblies made their laws, and taxed them.


When the English King and Parliament asserted a parliamentary right to impose taxes on the colonies in an end run around their colonial assemblies, we fought and won a Revolutionary War, largely over the principle of “no taxation without representation.”


During the constitutional cConvention, it quickly became obvious that the American people would accept no king. The men who drafted our Constitution were well aware of the kingly claims of royal prerogative.


To insure that the American president could have no basis to claim a divine right to make laws or rule by decree, the founders vested ALL legislative power in the House of Representatives elected by the people, and a Senate by state legislatures.


The executive, the president, was vested only with power to execute those laws, not make, amend or repeal them.


The notion that judges can make laws or amend the Constitution by their decrees is even more undemocratic and unconstitutional than a president ruling by decree.


The president, at least, is elected by the people through their electors. We did not boot out a king who wanted to rule by decree to replace him with nine guys in black robes who would do the same.


The canard that a judge, who construes the Constitution consistently with the intent of the men that wrote it, is somehow a far right-winger or out of the mainstream is either a lie, stupidity, or the ranting of a lunatic with a superiority complex who wants our Constitution replaced with one that embodies his more enlightened notions of what a better constitution should say.


Once Supreme Court judges abandon construction of our Constitution in accordance with the founder’s original intent, then every judge's notion of what the Constitution should mean is equally valid. There is no anchor.


Every judge's new rule of construction becomes, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what the laws mean.”


My liberty is secure under James Madison’s construction of our Constitution. I don’t want to risk it with the more enlightened 21st century constructions.

Posted: QCOline.com July 26, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is it Evil to Disagree with the Pope?

Two disparate groups of people who are convinced that man-made climate change is a scientific fact have a new champion: the pope!


The first group has a genuine respect for the pope. When he indicates he is speaking infallibly on a matter of faith or morals, they take what he teaches to be religious truth.


Where he does not indicate that he is speaking infallibly, as is the case when he is speaking of man-made climate change, they generally regard his teaching as, at least, highly persuasive.



For a second group, the pope will remain their hero only as long as his pronouncements can be used to demonize the president and other “climate-change deniers.”


Saul Alinsky taught, “Marginalize and demonize your opponent, so that others will disregard his opinions.” The marginalizing process proceeds like this:


The president is deaf to the pope’s teachings on climate change. He cannot be persuaded and is therefore invincibly ignorant. He’s self-centered. He’s an evil billionaire. He has spent his entire life in pursuit of worldly success. By way of contrast, the pope has spent his life caring for the poor. The pope is good. The president is evil.


For the second group, as long as the pope’s religious teachings on climate change coincide with their beliefs, they will treat his climate-change pronouncements as infallible.


They use the papal pronouncements to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the president and anyone else who dares to doubt, or deny that climate change is man-made.


Their syllogism is straightforward. The pope and his position on man-made climate change is good. The opposite of good is evil. Therefore, President Donald Trump, who holds the opposite view, is necessarily evil. But even if the president is wrong, does it necessarily follow that he is evil?


When the pope speaks on man-made climate change is he speaking infallibly? Obviously, no.


Canon 749 spells out when the pope speaks infallibly: “By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful ... he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”


So, assume, for argument’s sake, that when the pope speaks of man-made climate change he indeed is speaking on a matter of faith or morals. Does that mean that he is speaking infallibly?


No. In fact, almost everything the pope says or writes touches upon faith or morals. But that does not mean he is speaking infallibly.


Before a pope speaks infallibly, he must indicate that he intends to do so, by proclaiming unequivocally that he is speaking infallibly and that the doctrine of faith or morals which he is teaching must be held to be true.


What is disingenuous about all this is that many in the second group who treat the pope’s pronouncements on climate change as if they were infallible, utterly reject other papal teachings they find objectionable.


How many of those who approve the pope’s teachings on global warming, utterly reject the pope’s views and his church’s official position on abortion?


The pope believes his church is the”one true church.” To suggest the pope speaks infallibly on climate change while denying that the pope speaks infallibly when he says the Catholic Church is the “one true church,” seems somewhat inconsistent.


Doesn’t that touch on faith? Morals? If the pope is infallible on any issue, shouldn’t his expertise be greatest here? The selective adulation suggests that many of those who are lauding the pope for his position on climate change are covering themselves with the papal robes to demonstrate the moral superiority of their position and the moral bankruptcy and depravity of any one who disagrees.


So is the pope your moral beacon? Or is he merely your tool of choice when you need a cudgel to silence those with whom you politically disagree?


Today the pope teaches that man is causing climate change.


Not very long ago, the church was certain the earth was the center of the universe. So, was Galileo evil?

Posted: QCOline.com July 19, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Stop Demonizing - Pass Rational Immigration Policy

It is currently fashionable for those on the left to compare President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler.

I can understand young people with little knowledge of WWII and German history from 1930 through 1944 engaging in that hyperbole on the immigration issue.

I cannot understand any adult who lived through those years equating our president to Hitler.


On June 30, 1934, Hitler ordered the summary execution of the leaders of his own SA (Sturmabteilung, translated literally, Storm Detachment).

He personally arrested Ernst Roehm, the head of the SA, conveyed him to prison in Munich, and executed Roehm in his cell without trial. Roehm had been Hitler’s best friend.

Gregor Strasser, the No. 2 man in the Nazi Party who had crossed Hitler, was arrested in Berlin and murdered in his cell. Former Chancellor Von Schliecher and his wife were shot dead in their home by Hitler’s men. Von Schliecher was Chancellor Hitler’s predecessor. Hitler crushed his own storm troopers to win the support of the German army.

Then there was the “final solution.” Over six million Jews were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis. Jews died of starvation, disease, and poor living conditions. They were shot down in the streets, and sent to gas chambers in extermination camps. Children were reunited with their parents only in death.

Hitler raped Austria, devoured democratic Czechoslovakia in two bites, made war on small peaceful Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and Greece.

He savagely unleashed his military on Poland, France, England and the USSR. Some 26 million Russians, and 5.8 million Poles died. German military casualties are estimated at 5.3 million, including Austrian conscripts.


Anybody opposing Trump’s immigration policies who compares Trump with Hitler is nuts. Mr. Trump has not arrested and murdered without trial a single political opponent, or his critics in the media.

Hitler invaded his neighbors. Our president hasn’t invaded anybody. And to compare placing children who cross our border illegally into detention facilities for 20 days with children sent to Auschwitz or Treblinka for extermination is absurd.


On Feb. 24, 2017, before the present furor, the Chicago Tribune wrote that “Nearly 60,000 children came across the border without their parents during the fiscal year ending in September.”

Were they to be allowed to roam free? Unless detained, how would they ever be placed? Reunited? Calling the president’s immigration policies racist or him Hitler is, at best, a puerile diversion from the real immigration issues that Republicans and Democrats should be discussing.


Isn’t it about time these issues, and others, are calmly, conscientiously and publicly discussed?

1. How many immigrant laborers does our country’s workforce need each year?

2. What level of skills should the immigrants have?

3. How many immigrants should we accept for humanitarian reasons?

4. What is the true cost of providing immigrant children with an elementary and secondary education (including salaries and pensions of teachers, administrators, etc., as well as school supplies and busing)?

5. What is the true cost of providing housing assistance for illegal immigrants? Foster care? Medical care? Meals?

6. What do illegal immigrants pay in federal and state income taxes? FICA?

7. How many illegal immigrants commit felonies? Serious misdemeanors? What is the cost of incarcerating these individuals? Probationary services? Parole services?

8. How many illegal aliens are driving without financial responsibility? What are the costs to others from accidents caused by uninsured illegals?

9. How many total dollars will we spend providing services for illegal immigrants? Would these dollars be better spent on the elderly, veterans, the disabled, inner-city schools, our infrastructure, etc.?

10. Out of every 1,000 illegal aliens who enter our country, how many have felony records in their own country? How many are drug dealers, mules, cartel enforcers, gang members, Islamist terrorists, medical doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists?


How do we keep bad people out? Calling Trump names will solve nothing.

It is, however, a lot easier, and perhaps more politically expedient, for Democrats and anti-Trumpists to engage in name-calling than it is to fix the mess.

There are many good reasons to admit aliens into our country, but admitting them to gain votes is not one of them.

Posted: QCOline.com July 5, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Campaign Spying Another Watergate?

On May 17, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.’

“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”

Watergate, if you weren’t around in those days, was a major political scandal during President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. It was the Congressional investigation of the June 17, 1972 burglary by five Republican operatives at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.

Facing impeachment for covering it up, Nixon resigned. Based on an interview with Jeb Magruder (then deputy at the Committee to Re-Elect the President), the New York Times wrote that the purpose of the break-in, was to have the White House operatives wiretap Democratic Headquarters.

Nicknamed “the plumbers,” their intent was to plug a potential leak. They feared that Democratic campaign chairman Lawrence O’Brien possessed information concerning an illegal gift from Howard Hughes to Nixon, the disclosure of which might complicate the president’s re-election.

The wiretap was designed to dredge up political dirt useful in sealing potential Democratic leaks.

So is history repeating itself? Is Trump’s Watergate analogy reasonable? Not according to President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John O. Brennan.

Brennan, not unexpectedly, immediately accused Trump of lying and “mischaracterization” for saying his campaign was spied upon by the FBI. Brennan argues that the operative the president labels a spy was in reality a “confidential human source.”

Brennan then narrowly defines his terms to support his charge:

“A spy is someone who is recruited. Usually it’s a foreign national who is going to work on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies to provide information about issues related to our national security. A confidential human source is what the FBI uses in order to have some insight into what may be going on that could involve criminal activity.”

But is Brennan’s definition consistent with the commonly understood dictionary definition of a spy?

The Apple Dictionary defines one as “a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.” 

Merriam Webster Dictionary says it’s “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.” 

The Oxford Dictionary defines spy as “a person employed by a government or other organization to secretly obtain information on an enemy or competitor.”

Trump’s May 17 tweet was entirely consistent with its common dictionary meaning. More importantly, to call the president a liar, Brennan had to intentionally engage in his own mischaracterization.

The president did not simply tweet that the FBI spied on the campaign. He added the FBI used an “embedded information” or a “confidential informant” to spy on his campaign.

To have any rational basis for calling the president a liar, Brennan had to pretend that the president didn’t say the spy used by the FBI was an embedded informant or a confidential informant.


Indeed, Brennan seems to be saying that the FBI didn’t spy, it merely used a “confidential human source.”

So who is mischaracterizing? Trump or Brennan? Or is Brennan merely obfuscating? Is a spy usually a foreign national? Does a spy usually work on behalf of U.S. intelligence? Does a spy usually deal with national security?

What is a confidential human resource working on behalf of Corporation X who goes to work for a company for the purpose of stealing trade secrets but a spy?

"Spy" equals “confidential informant,” equals “embedded informant,” equals “confidential human source.”

If the real purpose of inserting the confidential human source was to protect the integrity of the election process, why wasn’t one inserted into the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Did FBI leadership insert a confidential human source into the Trump campaign? Why? The president believes it did, and that it was for partisan political purposes. If he’s right, how does this differ from Watergate?

The Mueller investigation goes on without end in sight. Congressional Democrats call for full disclosure. The president should oblige them. It is time for the president to order the FBI to provide Congress with every document Congress has requested — in unredacted form.

If FBI leaders defy the president, they should be fired.

Posted: QCOline.com June 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What's the Fairest Tax for Illinois? You Decide

You have just been appointed “supreme dictator” of the state of Illinois, and authorized to rule by decree. So, what’s your tax policy?


Sadly the state’s last governor and the members of the Legislature have left you with a god-awful mess.


Illinois has five major pension funds. As of June 2017, Illinois’ unfunded pension liability reached $137 billion. Each Illinois resident owes about $10,500.


In 2017, unpaid Illinois bills reached just under $17 billion. The law requires the state to pay 12 percent interest on bills unpaid after 90 days. A $6.5 billion bond issue was used to pay a portion of those bills. In April of 2017, Illinois still had $7.4 billion worth of bills to pay. Of course, principle and interest also will have to be paid on the bonds.

So Mr. Dictator, where do you start? You have two good friends — principle advisors. One’s a raving Clinton/Sanders progressive (CS). The other, a trumpeting Trumpist (TT).


CS: “The whole reason for this fiscal mess is that Illinois does not have, unlike the U.S. and many of our neighboring states, a progressive income tax.”


TT: “Hogwash!”


CS: “If only we had a graduated income tax, we could solve all Illinois funding problems. Illinois presently has a flat-rate income tax which was increased from 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent on individuals, effective July 1, 2017. Even so, the flat-rate income tax simply does not generate enough revenue to meet the state’s financial problems.”


TT: “Illinois has plenty of revenue. The problem is that the political hacks in the Legislature choose to spend more than they collect in taxes. You can’t blame Republicans for that. They’re virtually extinct in Illinois!”


CS: “It is also a fact that a progressive income tax (aka, graduated income tax) is fairer. Under a flat-rate tax, if a rich guy has net income of $100,000, he’d pay $4,950 in Illinois personal income tax. The poor guy with a net income of $10,000 would pay $495. That simply isn’t fair.”


TT: “Rich guy has 10 times the income; he pays 10 times the tax. What’s unfair about that? Does rich guy consume 10 times the public services? Is rich guy’s vote weighted so as to count 10 times as much as poor guys? What would be fair for you? Should rich guy pay 10 percent while poor guy pays 4.95 percent? Or 20 percent while poor guy pays nothing? Or is that too fair?”


CS: Illinois’ lack of a progressive income tax has contributed to Illinois budget deficits!


TT: “You just told us that the U.S. has a progressive income tax, and you claim a progressive tax would allow Illinois to avoid deficits. Are you unaware that during President Barack Obama’s eight years, the average federal deficit was $816 billion?


CS: “Illinois has woefully funded its public education! This has forced school districts to continually raise property taxes to make up for deficits!



TT: “Forced? We could give the schools a blank check, and they’d still want more money! Have your forgotten the recent 1 percent school tax increase you touted last fall?” Then assuming the offensive, TT queries, “Once we get your progressive tax, what stops the poor from exploiting their political power so as to increase taxes on the rich while lowering or abolishing their own taxes?”


CS: “That will never happen! You’re fear-mongering!”


TT: “Really? The United States government has had a progressive tax system since 1913. Are you aware that the top 1 percent of federal income taxpayers pay 39.5 percent of all individual income taxes, and that the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of all individual federal income taxes? Are you aware that the bottom 50 percent pay 2.8 percent? That over 76 million U.S. households — 45.3 percent of all households — pay no federal income tax? What’s fair about that? And even worse, to get votes, pandering politicians exempt the poor from paying any federal income taxes. How is that fair?


“We had a war over ‘taxation without representation.’ Representation without taxation is even worse! It encourages class warfare. The poor don’t want to pay any income tax, so they tell their friends in the Legislature, ‘tax the rich! The top 5 percent paying 50 percent of all income taxes aren’t paying enough! It isn’t fair’!”


So, Supreme One, what’s your tax policy?

Posted: QCOline.com June 13, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

‘