What Happens When We Are All "Gods?"

Why do we have mass murders in our schools?

Over the last few years, I have written a number of pieces on guns. In that regard, I have discussed the pre-existing right to self-defense, the Second Amendment, and the need to have a last line of defense against gunmen in our schools.

I have not, however, set out my beliefs as to the causes of school shootings. Here they are.

When I was a boy, knowingly or intentionally eating meat on Friday was a matter of grave sin. In more recent times, eating meat on Friday is permissible, except in Lent.

But I have heard no one, in nearly a half century, warn that transgression of the Lenten regulation is a one-way ticket to Hell. Now, the Pope has reportedly said that there is no Hell. At death the person unworthy of eternal life simply ceases to exist.

Whether the statements attributed to the pope are genuine or apocryphal, is a matter of profound concern. If there is no Hell, then one of the principle underpinnings of societal morality vanishes.

During the Christian era, the human concern over spending an eternity in the fires of Hell has deterred countless millions (but not all) from engaging in anti-social conduct that the church taught was deserving of damnation.

So, did God give the Ten Commandments, or did Moses falsely claim divine authorship to give his own work-product divine authority, knowing that such laws would be needed to govern the incipient Jewish nation, and a fractious Jewish people?

The question of whether God truly gave us moral law raises related questions. Is there a God? Did God give us the Ten Commandments, or did Moses perpetrate a well-intentioned fraud?

If God did give us a moral law via the Ten Commandments, did God commission anyone on earth, to authoritatively interpret and explicate his moral law? If there is no God, then he could not have given us a moral law. And if God does not exist, Moses, the pope and all others who claim to speak in his name are frauds.

If God is debunked, then what passes for morality is manmade, either by the state, some other assemblage of men, or sundry individuals.


When I was a boy, there was near unanimity that abortion was immoral and a grave sin. It was premised on the belief that all human life was sacred.

Then the Supreme Court decided that the right of the woman “to choose” trumped the right of the fetus to live. The right of the fetus to “life” was not an “unalienable right.”

The Supreme Court authorized every woman to choose to be “God,” and gave her the near-absolute power of life and death over her fetus. But there is an unintended consequence: When fetal life is divested of sanctity, when it is no longer “unalienable,” the sanctity and unalienability of all human life is brought into question.

Since Roe v. Wade, liberal orthodoxy has supplanted church dogma on more and more issues that were heretofore deemed moral issues. But there is a danger. As each individual gets to decide what is moral, each individual becomes God.

Those who perpetrate mass school shootings take god-playing only one step further.

Early abortion is now a matter of personal choice. For many, so is late-term abortion. So why not “post-birth” abortion?

To be clear, I think school shooters have one thing in common. They don’t believe that perpetrating mass murder will result in spending an eternity burning in Hell. That implies that they do not believe in the existence of a God who justly punishes evil. They recognize and fear no law above their own self-made law.

They recognize no divinely appointed spokesman. There is no objective moral law. For them, what passes for morality, is entirely subjective.

Now take our little “gods” and immerse them in a culture (a cesspool?) of violence. One which portrays killing other humans as “cool.” Create video games that make killing other humans the way to win; that make killing others “fun.”

Portray human victims as targets or as “the enemy.” Saturate them in movies and television that glorify shootings. Desensitize them. You have created strange and deadly little “gods.”

Posted: QCOline.com April 26, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Constitutional Law 101 - for Beginners

Where do the rights of Americans come from? From Congress? From the Constitution?

Thomas Jefferson believed they were God-given. He said so in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If Jefferson was correct—and the framers of the Constitution proceeded on the belief that he was—then our federal Constitution is not the source of our rights.


For those who have forgotten, our Constitution was not the first American Constitution. First came the Articles of Confederation. It was a treaty—a confederation of the states—under which “each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Our present Constitution was ratified (1788) “in order to form a more perfect Union.”. That is, to remedy defects and omissions of the Articles of Confederation. But like the first Constitution, the present Constitution specifically enumerates the powers delegated to the federal government.

By implication, powers not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states and/or the people. When the time came for the people of the states to ratify the new Constitution, opponents argued that there was no Bill of Rights attached.

They feared the new government would encroach on the rights and liberties that Americans had enjoyed during the colonial period. They feared the new Congress might regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc.

Proponents of the new Constitution argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because no where in the enumerated powers was Congress given any power to regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc. Opponents weren’t persuaded.

They distrusted that rights were sufficiently protected by implication. They feared the new federal government would engage in what we now call mission creep, and abrogate the undelegated sovereignty of the states and the pre-existing rights of the American people.


In order to get approval, the proponents had to agree to the immediate addition of a Bill of Rights. But that was not a grant of rights. It was meant to be a second guarantee—a codification that guaranteed the reserved rights of the states and the people would not be abrogated by the new federal government.

The first guarantee was present because Congress had been granted no enumerated power to prohibit or regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc. The same is true of the 2nd Amendment. From earliest colonial times, guns were essential for self-defense and defense of the family on the frontier. There were no police. But there were robbers, murderers and many hostile Indians.

Then, as well as today, that right of self-defense and defense of family is a God-given right to defend one’s own life and family; a right not to be murdered. The right to self-defense is the most basic of all rights.


You can’t practice religion or speak if you’ve been murdered. When you are confronted by someone with a gun, willing to kill you to achieve his goal, your unalienable right to life becomes virtually meaningless unless you have a gun.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant the right to have a gun. Rather, it does two things: It guarantees the preexisting right of the people to “keep and bear arms,” as well as the preexisting rights of the states to keep their militias, as in colonial times. Therefore, the right of the “people to keep and bear arms” also has double protection.

First, Congress was granted no general power of gun control. Second, the 2nd Amendment guarantees and codifies the preexisting right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

In D.C. v. Heller, 2008, Heller admittedly conceded that the 2nd Amendment preexisting right, like the First Amendment preexisting right of free speech, was not unlimited.

Machine guns have been prohibited in interstate commerce under the Congress’ power of regulating commerce. Given the holding in Heller, while the court can be expected to sustain some gun control, it is clear that no regulation will be allowed that regulates out of existence the preexisting right of a person and his family to possess a weapon or weapons reasonably suited and necessary to assure defense of home and family.

Posted: QCOline.com April 12, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Does Schiff Memo Rebut Nunes Memo? You Judge

President Trump has declassified the memorandum prepared by the Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also known as the “Democrat” or “Schiff Memo.”

The Schiff Memo is designed to rebut the three key points set out in the Republican Nunes memo. On Feb. 22, I wrote that the Nunes memo “suggests that the FISA process was abused.”

The purpose of this op-ed is to set out the Republican memo’s three key points and the Democratic responses thereto, to allow you to judge whether the Democrats have succeeded or failed in rebutting:


Nunes Memo, Point 1:

“That the Steele dossier was compiled by (Christopher) Steele on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia. ... That information, although known to the FBI and DOJ, was not disclosed to the FISA Court.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: The Department of Justice disclosed that Steele (Source 1) “was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source No. 1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired identified U.S. persons to conduct research regarding Candidate No. 1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia. They identified the U.S. Person and Source No. 1 as having had a longstanding business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired (Steele) to conduct research. ... The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1’s campaign.

Nunes Memo, Point 2:

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to (the DOJ’s Bruce) Ohr that he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s ‘bias’ was recorded at the time, but not disclosed in any application made to the FISA court to surveil (Carter) Page.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: “Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, ... the DOJ repeatedly informed the court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias. DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI and the likely political motivation of those who hired Steele.”

Nunes Memo, Point 3:

“Deputy Director (Andrew) McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information.”

Schiff memo rebuttal:

I can find no attempt to rebut the Nunes’ memo’s third point.


Witnesses testifying in every U.S. court take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A half-truth is not the whole truth. Affidavits for search warrants must set out facts, not conclusions.

They must describe with “particularity.” Had I been the judge, asked by the FBI and DOJ to issue a FISA warrant to spy on Americans involved in a political campaign, I would have demanded the specific facts—as opposed to conclusions. I would have wanted the whole truth, not half-truths. Particulars!

That Source 1 was approached by an identified U.S. person was “conclusory.” Were I the judge, I would have wanted the particulars that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had sent Clinton Campaigm law firm attorneys to hire Steele to dredge up damaging information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia” to undermine his presidential campaign. I would have wanted to know that Steele composed the dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and that they paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm.

I would have wanted to know that the FBI knew—rather than “speculated”—that the Clinton campaign and the DNC—rather than “identified U.S. persons”—were obviously looking—rather than “likely looking”—for information useful in taking down the Trump campaign.

And I would have wanted to know the full extent of Steele’s anti-Trump bias that made him desperate and passionate that Donald Trump not get elected president. Obvious bias and likely motivation are two very different things.

Would the FISA judge, had he been presented with the detailed facts set out in the Nunes memo, have issued the warrant? Or would he have concluded that Steele’s opposition research, paid for with 160,000 Democratic dollars, and created by an operative with a visceral hatred of Trump, wasn’t trustworthy?

As a judge who issued numerous search warrants in my 26 years, I would not have issued the warrant(s) had I been provided with the matters set out in either memo.

How about you?



Posted: QCOline.com April 5, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea