Iran's Conduct Justifies Nuke Deal Withdrawal

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced his reasons why the U.S. was withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal.

“The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and al-Qaida.

“Over the years, Iran and its proxies have bombed American Embassies and military installations, murdered hundreds of American service members, and kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured American citizens.

“No action taken by the regime has been more dangerous than its pursuit of nuclear weapons — and the means of delivering them.

“In theory, the so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from ... an Iranian nuclear bomb. ...

“In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and — over time — reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.

“At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

“Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations, including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.

“Finally, the deal does nothing to constrain Iran’s destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism.

“Since the agreement, Iran’s bloody ambitions have grown only more brazen.”

Is President Trump’s assessment of the facts accurate? If not, where is he wrong?

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, threatened that “the Jewish state [Israel] could face destruction, if it continues to challenge Iran.” Then, while speaking on state television, he became more specific:

“The holy system of the Islamic Republic [Iran] will step up its missile capabilities day by day, so that Israel ... will become sleepless and the nightmare will constantly haunt it if it does anything foolish. We will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”

According to the Associated Press, Khamenei’s “remarks drew chants of ‘Death to America’ from those gathered for Friday holy prayers.”

Khamenei’s threat to raze two of Israel’s principle cities followed Israeli air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria. Those strikes, according to the Telegraph, “followed a barrage of some 20 rockets fired by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard into Israel’s Golan Heights. ... Israel carried out its air strikes, according to Israeli sources, striking around 50 Iranian military bases, supply depots, and intelligence sites, as well as Syrian regime air defense batteries.”

So, if Israel attacked 50 Iranian bases in Syria, why does Iran threaten to attack two cities—civilian populations centers—in Israel? Why doesn’t Iran just attack 50 Israeli military bases in Syria? The answer is simple: There are no Israeli bases in Syria.

This, of course, raise the question, why were there 50 Iranian bases in Syria? Did the Iranians set up these bases to encircle Israel with rockets? No? Then why has Iran provided Hezbollah in Lebanon with rockets that Hezbollah has been firing into Israel year after year?

In December of 2016, the Washington Times reported that Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, while speaking in Tehran, said that were President-Elect Trump to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration, Iran would destroy the State of Israel.

The Islamic regime also threatened to destroy the Gulf kingdoms and start World War III. Consider also Iran’s other recent activities in the Middle East.

Recently, Sarah Huckabee Sanders listed them. “Already this week, the IRGC has fired rockets at Israeli citizens. Iran’s proxies in Yemen have launched a ballistic missile at Riyadh. Iran is backing the Shiite Huthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war.”

I think everything Present Trump said about Iran is entirely accurate. I take Iranian threats seriously. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace. History both affirms and belies that statement.

The evidence since the fall of the Shah suggests that in the hands of the leaders of “holy system of the Islamic Republic,” Islam is anything but a religion of peace.

Why if you want nuclear power only for “peaceful purposes” do you build your nuclear facility under a mountain? Why are you testing ICBM? Why are you threatening to raze Jewish cities? Why are you abetting proxy wars throughout the Middle East?

Posted: QCOline.com May 17, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

How to Put the Stake through Gerrymander's Heart

If a congressional district is gerrymandered to favor one group, it necessarily discriminates against every other group.

Elbridge Gerry, who served as governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812, was the political force behind the original gerrymandered congressional district. That district, if his political foes are to be believed, was shaped like a salamander. They therefore christened it “the gerrymander.”

If a district is gerrymandered to favor the white population, it necessarily discriminates against blacks, Hispanics, Asians and every other group. If a district is gerrymandered to favor the black population, it necessarily discriminates against whites, Hispanics, Asians and every other group, etc.

Similarly, a district drawn to favor a rural populace necessarily disfavors suburbanites and urbanites included within the district.

I am just cynical enough to believe that whoever draws a district’s lines will draw them for the benefit of his political constituents and cronies. If Democrats draw the district lines, they will favor Democrats. If Republicans draw them, they will favor Republicans. If a Bernie Sanders supporter draws them, socialists will benefit.

And I don’t believe that nonpartisan, blue ribbon reform committees are as nonpartisan as they claim to be.

So do you really want to drive a stake through the heart of the gerrymander?

Here is my simple suggestion for redistricting:


A. SHAPE OF DISTRICTS


All districts shall be square, or if that is not possible, rectangular. No district shall have more than four sides. No exceptions.

All four sides shall be straight lines, unless one of the four sides of the square or rectangle is an irregular state border, or is formed by a river or other geographical or boundary feature that is not a straight line.

Where the state boundary line is a straight line, a congressional district shall be a square, or if that is not possible, a rectangle. In no event shall any district have five or more sides.

A district at the confluence of two state border rivers, at the south end of Illinois, may have only three sides, with the two rivers joining, each constituting one side.

B. ONE MAN, ONE VOTE

Because of differences in population density, the square or rectangular districts will vary in geographical size. But they shall be equal, within 1 percent, in population.

C. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The only factor that may be considered in setting the size of the squares or rectangles is population.

Race, creed, color, national ancestry, religion, urban/suburban/rural considerations or any factor other than population may not be considered in creating the squares or triangles.

Population means U.S. citizens eligible to vote.


D. USE COMPUTER TO DRAW LINES

The squares or rectangles shall be created by a computer, subject to the rules set out in paragraphs A, B and C. The computer shall be programed to create squares or rectangles containing approximately 710,000 U.S. citizens eligible to vote.

The population difference between the largest district and the smallest district shall not exceed 1 percent.

If you want competitive congressional districts, do it my way.

If you’d prefer to rearrange the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic, then take into account one or more factors other than population.

You can see Gov. Gerry’s gerrymander at columbia.edu/~so33/SusDev/Lecture11MinorityExample.pdf.

Posted: QCOline.com May 9, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Old Courthouse: What will we be saving?

Should the courthouse be demolished? Saved? I have previously opined that if it is to be demolished, the decision should be made by the elected county board, and not by a commission created for “the sole purpose” of providing “a good and sufficient jail.”

That being said, I see no sufficient reason to save it. The main argument is that it is an historical building worthy of preservation. In the autumn of 1966, I came to Rock Island to work as an assistant to the then-state’s attorney Richard Stengel.


At that time, the exterior walls of the courthouse were substantially in their original condition. But the six domes had all been removed, including the magnificent great central dome (replaced with the ugly metal box we still see today.)

If the exterior walls are worth preserving, the box, utterly devoid of beauty and historical value, isn’t. The interior of the courthouse, bears scant resemblance to the original, with the exception of the rotunda and hallways.

By the time I arrived in 1966, the original circuit court courtroom, a rather prosaic two story-high rectangular courtroom, was gone. A ceiling had been installed to provide additional fourth floor space for the state’s attorney’s office, as well as for a new law library.

In lieu of the original courtroom, a new courtroom, a new hearing room and three new judges’ chambers had been constructed. Nothing of the original remains.

When I arrived, the old county court courtroom was still extant at the north end of the second floor. It was an utterly unimpressive, dreary courtroom. The oak bench and bar were commonplace.

The original county courtroom was entirely replaced years ago by a new courtroom. Nothing of the original remains. The original probate court courtroom occupied the southeast corner of the first floor. It was an even drabber, uninspiring room with a plain oak bench.

Across the hall, at the southwest end of the first floor, there was a large chamber for the probate judge. Only the barrister bookcases made the room interesting. Nothing of the original remains.

The fourth floor has been altered over the years to the point that nothing remains of the original fourth floor. Three North has also been altered beyond recognition. The north end of the second floor bears no similarity to the original. Nor does first floor north.

Only two courthouse offices bear minimal originality: the small sheriff’s office on the first floor near the front door, and perhaps the office of the Recorder of Deeds.

The Circuit Clerk’s offices have been chopped, re-chopped, and re-re-chopped so many times, as to be unrecognizable. The county clerk’s and treasurer’s offices are now across the street.

If the building were gutted to remove all temporary walls and ceilings, I suspect the empty rooms would look much like the original unfurnished rooms. But the original courtrooms, etc., would still be gone.


And what would the cost be just to get down to the original bare walls? How many millions of dollars would it cost to restore the original courtrooms and offices? Is there asbestos? Would it not have to be professionally removed? Could the building be used for any new use without asbestos removal?

What of the open rotunda? If the building were to be renovated, would codes allow it to remain as an open five-story chimney? What would it cost to close off the rotunda to comply with codes? Wouldn’t that obliterate more of the original?

When I became a judge in 1974, the thermostats were already “decorative.” The heating system was ancient. Would that be upgraded? Or would there be an attempt to replicate the original? At what cost?

Don’t get me wrong. With the expenditure of $22 million (as per Judge Walter Braud’s estimate), I could see the building being restored to its original condition. But would that cover replacing the six domes?

I’m sure uses could be found for it. But beginning in 1948, Rock Island County taxpayers began rejecting referenda to restore/repair the courthouse. Does anyone really think they will approve a referendum to restore it now?

Can the preservationists come up with $20 million? If it is not demolished, is it just going to be allowed to sit and deteriorate?

Posted: QCOline.com May 3, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea