What Would CNN Do?

Christmas is almost here.

Lately I've been wondering what would happen if there had been no Christmas 2000 years ago, and if a man suddenly appeared on the streets of Moline today proclaiming himself to be the "Son of God?" What would we say? What would the churches say? What would the media say?

2000 years ago, when Christ appeared in what is now Israel and preached his message, he was crucified. What if he hadn't appeared then, but appeared now, preaching his same message?

We sometimes tend to forget that Christ said certain things that were at seemingly significant
variance with what we have come to accept as his principle gospel message of loving God
and loving our neighbors as we love our selves, and caring for those in need. Many of the
teachings that we tend to gloss over have come to be called the "hard sayings" of Christ. They
are most often found in Luke's Gospel, and seem at variance with Christ's principle teachings.

Imagine for a moment that there was no Christ. No Christian gospels. No Christian faith. No Christian churches. And then imagine that all other faiths that we know today through outthe world in fact exist today. If Christianity did not exist, what faiths would predominate in the U.S.?

Now imagine that a man suddenly appears, teaching on the streets of Moline, Rock Island and Davenport. He preaches the entire message found in the four Gospels, while claiming to be the "Son of God." He says many things that appeal to his listeners, but then he also says ...

“If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

"A father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.

From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three."

"I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!"

"I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!

“No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God. Let the dead bury their dead. But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God. I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Would a 21st Century Christ be crucified? Probably not. But what would other 21st century faith
teachers say of a man with such a message? How would he be treated by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the NY Times? Would they focus on his teachings of peace and love, or would they focus on his "hard sayings." Would they make a good faith effort to understand the entirety of his teachings, or would they choose to misunderstand and say that his "hard sayings" were really the essence of his message, and that his teachings on peace and love were mere window-dressing?

What names would they call him? Lunatic? Nut? Trouble maker? Revolutionary? Terrorist?  ("I have come to set the earth on fire ...") Would they diagnose him as schizophrenic? Delusional, Manic? What if he repeatedly predicted his death? Would he be labelled "paranoid?"

Christ of the Gospels did not take explicit positions on many modern issues. So, what if instead of handing our 21st-century Christ a coin and asking "is it lawful to pay taxes” they asked him to state his views on abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the legalization of marijuana? What if his answers did not square with those of the AP, Newsweek, the Washington Post, MSNBC or CNN? What do you think they would say and write about him?

Would we even have Christmas?

I'm thankful that Christ came to us 2000 years ago. Merry Christmas to all.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 20, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Stench of a Dead Cat

Since President Trump was elected in November of 2016, the Democrats have relentlessly insisted that "he can't claim immunity for his criminal acts."

So why is it that Joe Biden gets to claim immunity for his criminal acts? Democrats indignantly answer, "Because "Fairly Honest" Joe is one of our 2020 candidates for the office of President!"

During a January 23, 2018 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden unequivocally threatened to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's "involvement" with a Ukraine gas company was fired. A classic quid pro quo! Here are excerptsfrom that taped interview:


"I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and fromYatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

"I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. ... I’m going to be leaving here in ... about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone
who was solid at the time."

President Trump has been accused by a "whistleblower" of "threatening to withhold U.S. aid to the Ukraine." What Biden did is worse. And if you don't believe there was a quid pro quo in what Biden did, then as Bret Maverick would say, "You'll believe a guy who tells you "It's "raining," as you watch him p... on your head."

The Democrats are quick to infer that President Trump wanted to "dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son so that he could use it in the 2020 Presidential campaign against "Fairly Honest" Joe." Never mind that Joe is only one of a herd of candidates vying for the Democrat nomination, with no guarantee whatsoever that he will be nominated.

The Democrats choose to presume that the President is guilty of wanting information for an illegal purpose.

But what if President Trump really had different reasons for wanting to know why Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 per month to sit on a board of a Ukrainian energy company? What experience did Hunter Biden have in natural gas? What did he know of Ukraine? What if he was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing whatsoever useful on the Burisma board? What if that $50,000 per month was being paid out of the $1,000,000,000 of U.S. aid to Ukraine that "Fairly Honest Joe" was threatening to block?

In a recent ABC interview, Hunter Biden described his “qualifications."

Amy Robach, ABC News. You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas, or Ukraine itself though?

Hunter Biden. No. But I think I had as much knowledge as anyone else on the board.

AR. If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would have been on the board of Burisma?

HB. I don't know. Probably not.


When was the last time you were paid $50K a month to sit on the Board of Directors of a giant company and do nothing? When was the last time your kid was hired to manage the affairs of a giant gas company when he knew nothing about gas or gas production? When was your kid was hired for $50K per month to work in a foreign country that he knew nothing about, and whose language he couldn't speak?

So could President Trump have had a valid reason to ask the Ukraine government to investigate how it was that the utterly unqualified son of VP Biden was being paid $50,000 per month for doing nothing?

What if "Fairly Honest Joe" was involved in a "money laundering" scheme? Joe couldn't hand $50K per month in U.S. foreign aid directly to his son. But what if the money that first went to Ukraine, then went to and was "laundered" through Burisma, and then to Hunter Biden?

But forget the "what ifs" …. It is crystal clear that Vice-President Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1B in promised U.S. aid to force the Ukraine to quash the Ukraine prosecutor’s investigation of Biden's son. By his own admission VP Biden engaged in extortion.

This Biden affair has the stench of a dead cat, and the President has every right to inquire to see if U.S. aid was misused.

So should we worry about "rich" men being elected to high office? Or should we worry abou"poor" men who, along with their family members, get rich while the "poor" man holds high office?

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 13, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

FDR Had his "Rudy Giuliani"

According to the Washington Post, William B. Taylor, Jr. "America's top diplomat to the

Ukraine," has testified President Trump's “ push to make President Zelensky publicly 

commit to investigations of Burisma and its alleged interference in the 2016 election 

showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the 

irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

The virulently anti-Trump Washington Post describes Taylor's claim as a "forceful 

blow;" something that would justify  Rep. Schiff's antics in the House intended to 

culminate in the impeachment of the President. 

The essence of Taylor's charge is that the President's appointment of Mr. Giuliani as his

"personal representative" to the Ukraine to investigate the Biden affair, "undercut" the

official foreign policy of the U.S. in Ukraine. Schiff claims that that is an abuse of power 

so egregious, that it would justify impeachment. 

It has apparently never occurred to Ambassador Taylor or Rep. Schiff that, under the 

Constitution, the President alone sets the "foreign policy" of the United States. Taylor, 

all ambassadors and other State Department employees are there to execute the 

President's foreign policy, and not their own or the State Department's. Bottom line:  if 

the "regular" foreign policy of the U.S. is "purple" on Monday, the President can 

change it to "green" on Tuesday - with or without the advise or consent of any 

ambassador or the State Department. And because the President alone is in charge of 

our "foreign policy," he can choose as his "agent" any private citizen to serve as his 

"personal envoy" without the approval of Congress. 

Presidents have appointed men they could trust as their diplomatic "personal 

representatives" since the days of George Washington.  Have you ever heard of

Harry Hopkins? "Colonel" House?

President Trump in using Rudy Giuliani is doing precisely what FDR did during the 

months before Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941).

President Roosevelt had made the unhappy choice of appointing Joseph Kennedy Sr.

as his Ambassador to England. Kennedy served from March 3, 1938 to October 22, 

1940. During Kennedy's time as ambassador, Germany forcibly annexed Austria 

(March 1938). Hitler invaded Poland (September 1, 1938). Hitler invaded Norway and 

Denmark (April 1940). Hitler began the "blitzkrieg" of the Netherlands, Belgium and 

France (May 10, 1940. 

Kennedy had supported Chamberlain's policy of "appeasement," and scorned 

Churchill's belief that Hitler couldn't be trusted to abide by his agreements. Kennedy 

strongly opposed providing military aid to England, remarking,  "Democracy is finished 

in England. It may be here." He wanted to "bring about a better understanding 

between the United States and Germany."

Kennedy's ideas were totally out of sync with FDR's. Kennedy "resigned" on Oct. 22, 

1940. Thereafter, FDR's main representative to England was not any ambassador

or other State Department functionary. FDR used a man as his "personal 

representative" who he was certain would faithfully implement his foreign policy. That 

was Harry Hopkins. 

Here is what Winston Churchill wrote of Hopkins:

"On January 10 (1941), a gentleman arrived to see me at Downing Street

with the highest credentials. Telegrams had been received from Washington

that he was the closest confidant and personal agent of the President....

Churchill relates that their first meeting came during the height of the German "blitz" 

bombing of England. He further describes Hopkins as

" ... an envoy from the President of supreme importance to our 

(national) life. ... He was the most faithful and perfect channel of 

communications between the President and me. But far more than

that, he was for several years the main prop and animator of

Roosevelt himself. Together, these two men, one subordinate 

without public office, and one commanding the mighty Republic,

were capable of taking decisions of the highest consequence 

over the whole area of the English-speaking world."

FDR knew that his "foreign policy" flew in the face of the legally expressed will of 

Congress as stated in Congress's Neutrality Acts. After Hitler's March 1939 

invasion of Czechoslovakia, FDR had asked Congress to renew and expand cash-and-

carry sales of arms. Congress refused. In November 1939, Congress passed its final 

Neutrality Act. This Act lifted the arms embargo and put all trade with belligerent 

nations under the terms of “cash-and-carry.” But the ban on "loans" remained in effect, 

and American ships were barred from transporting goods to belligerent ports.

In October 1941, FDR unveiled his Lend-Lease Program, in the face of law that banned 

loans to belligerents.  

FDR had had enough of Kennedy. He didn't fully trust the State Department to execute 

his foreign policy. So FDR sent his friend and confidant Hopkins to execute his foreign 

policy. Nobody argued that in using "irregular" channels that FDR had committed an 

"impeachable offense."

Oh, and have you ever heard of "Colonel" House? He was President Wilson's personal 

"rep." 

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 6, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

The Failure of Socialism at Plymouth Colony

The Pilgrims were English Puritans who founded the Plymouth Colony in 1620. They came to America for religious freedom, and to escape religious persecution. Unlike many other Puritans, who wished to reform the Church of England from within, the Pilgrims wanted their own church, separate from the Church of England.

In their early years at the Plymouth colony, the Pilgrims practiced "communalism" - what we would call today, "socialism." It was not by their choice.

To get to America, the Pilgrims had to obtain financing for their shipboard passage, and for all the things they'd need when they arrived in the American wilderness.

Carver and Cushman, their agents in England, sought that financing from Thomas Weston's syndicate of investors. These investors were acutely aware of the substantial losses incurred by the Jamestown investors (1607).

Carver and Cushman proposed a plan under which the Pilgrims would work five days a week for the investors, but two for themselves. After seven years, there would be an equal division of all property, their homes excepted, between the Pilgrims and the investors.

Owing to the risks involved, the investors insisted that all property — homes included — be held in common, and divided between the Pilgrims and the investors at the end of seven years. They feared that if the Pilgrims were allowed two days per week to work their "plots," they would expend all their efforts building their own wealth to the detriment of the investors. With no bargaining power, the Pilgrims yielded; the investors prevailed.

These negotiations demonstrate that the Pilgrims had no desire to practice the "socialism" of the early Christian community, described in "Acts of the Apostles."

The bargain proved a disaster. Forty-seven of the Pilgrims died that first winter. The first communal crops produced were insufficient to feed the survivors. There was no bread.

The colonists were reduced to a diet of water, fish and lobster. And while the Pilgrims hung on in misery, the investors reaped no return on their investment. Governor William Bradford writes:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried for sundry years among godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing the community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing ..."

If ever "socialism" had a fair chance to prove itself, it was at Plymouth. It started from scratch, unencumbered by so-called pre-existing "capitalist evils." Sadly, the fruits of "communal ownership" were malnutrition, starvation, sickness and death.

Bradford describes his colonists as "godly and sober men" — as were the Christians of apostolic times. Nevertheless, Plymouth's "socialism" created the very divisions that socialism has been touted to eliminate. The men who worked their fannies off in the communal plots resented the "slackers" who didn't and yet received equal distribution of the produce.

"This communalism was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

"The young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.

"The strong ... had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than the weak who were not able to do a quarter the others could. This was thought injustice.

"And men's wives, commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meals, washing their clothes, etc., deemed it a kind of slavery ..."

When the Pilgrims came to realize they had no food and necessaries, and that none were likely to arrive from England, they "began to think how they might obtain a better crop" rather than "languish in misery." After much debate, they decided "every man should set ("plant") corn in his own particular (parcel)." "Every family was assigned a parcel of land, in proportion to their number."

Bradford writes:

"This had very good success. It made all hands very industrious. Much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means of the Government, and saved a great deal of trouble ..."

"The women now went willingly into the fields, and took their little ones with them to set the corn. Before they would have alleged weakness and inability ... and thought it tyranny and oppression."

The communal parcels were still tended five days per week. But it was the "particular parcels" that saved Plymouth, and brought prosperity. The colonist didn't have to be forced to work on their own plots. The need of the colony to "police" to insure work on the communal tracts was replaced by self-policing. The industrious prospered; the slackers reaped fruits commensurate with their efforts.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 27, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Bringing Charges is Easy; Getting Convictions not so Easy

       

In perhaps the best article I have ever read in the Dispatch, Tara Becker-Gray did a superb job of explaining to the public the new plan of Rock Island County State's Attorney Dora Villarreal to use the grand jury, in lieu of the preliminary hearing, to commence felony prosecutions in Rock Island County.

Ms. Villarreal's plan, of course, is not really new. The grand jury historically has been a part of English-American law at least since King Henry II and his Assize of Clarendon (1166). The preliminary hearing is the more recent innovation.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of charging criminal conduct via a grand jury indictment rather than by the State's Attorney's information?

First, the advantages.

Ms. Villarreal argues that preliminary hearing mornings are "chaotic." She says that every Tuesday 30 to 34 'prelims' are set for hearing, but only three to six will actually go to a hearing; in the rest, defendants will waive the hearing.

That comports with my experience as presiding judge of Rock Island County's Criminal Division, where I served most of the last 10 years of my judgeship.

She further argues that a police officer is called for each of the 30 to 34 cases (to testify to establish probable cause so as to justify holding the defendant on bond or in custody until trial). Ms. Villlarreal is rightly concerned that most of the officers called to testify never do, because most defendant waive their “prelims" and thus, their time can be better spent elsewhere. 

My experience tells me she's correct.

This waste of police officer time is the only real justification for employing the grand jury (as opposed to preliminary hearings) to establish probable cause.

If each grand jury session lasts seven minutes, officers can be scheduled to appear at times certain, rather than waiting as the judge juggles 30 to 34 prelims to accommodate the schedules of defendants, defense attorneys and prosecutors.

Ms. Villarreal is also correct when she says judges, court clerks, and correctional officers are not present at grand jury sessions. But this advantage is illusory, as explained below.

Chief Judge Frank Fuhr adds, "From my point of view, (using the grand jury) actually frees up a courtroom on Tuesday mornings, so we can use it for other purposes.”

This savings is also largely illusory.

Tuesday morning prelims are scheduled for 210 minutes. But only about 30 minutes are actually devoted to hearing evidence at the three to six hearings. The remaining 180 minutes are employed in the formal arraignment of defendants. That should include reading them the charge, entering the pretrial order(s) and warning defendants they will be tried in absentia if they fail to appear for trial (this includes an enumeration of the trial rights the defendant will forfeit if he fails to appear for trial).

While the 30 minutes employed in conducting the three to six prelims will be saved, the other 180 minutes will necessarily be utilized later in conducting the formal arraignment of the newly indicted defendants.

Now, the disadvantages:

The grand jury consists of 16 jurors; 12 are necessary to make a quorum. Grand jurors have to be paid $10 per day, plus a fixed sum for mileage based on the city where they reside. It will cost the county roughly $200 for each additional session. Twelve extra sessions would cost the county roughly $2,400; 24 more weekly sessions, an extra $4,800 per year.

Transcripts cost $4 per page. If an average of 66 grand jury transcripts are prepared every two weeks, of just 6 pages each, the cost to the county will be about $42,000 annually.

There will be an offset of perhaps $7,500 as the three to six preliminary hearing transcripts will no longer be required.

My analysis is this:

Ms. Villarreal proposes to call the grand jury in every other week. That means it will have to hear 60 to 68 cases every time it meets. 

At 7 minutes per case — and that's fast — if there are 68 cases, it will take 8 hours to handle 68 indictments. That would be an 8-to-4 working day, without any breaks or delays. Calling them every week would keep the load manageable (30 to 34 cases).

The real question is whether allowing police officers to go about their jobs outweighs the additional juror and transcript costs. Does the benefit to the officers justify the plan? Arguably, it does. But the additional cost of transcripts and bringing in grand jurors weighs heavily against the plan. Arguably, the costs outweigh the benefit.

That being said, Ms. Villarreal's plan does nothing to insure a speedy disposition of cases — and disposition is what really matters.

When I surveyed the criminal docket about a year ago, I was flabbergasted to learn that a great many cases remained pending for a year or more. That is utterly unacceptable. Disposing of cases within 60 days, on average, from formal arraignment, should be the goal of every judge in the criminal division, and of the State's Attorney or candidates for State's Attorney (and their assistants).

Indicting is the easy part. Speedy and appropriate disposition is the hard part.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 15, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Bernie, Darling, Prove Socialism Works: Fix Venezuela First

Socialists always promise to end poverty by redistributing wealth expropriated from "rich capitalists." What happens when they run out of rich capitalists?

Imagine your pastor gives a Sunday homily extolling the life of St. Francis of Assisi, and his choice to lead a life of apostolic poverty. Then, in the next breath, the pastor encourages generous giving to your church's $5 million capital campaign. Do you see a problem?

If all parishioners lead lives of apostolic poverty, how can they donate $5 million to the capital campaign?


I have always wondered how Christ manged to survive during his three-year public ministry. Recall him saying, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.”

Were conditions better for his apostles? His disciples? When Christ sent them forth to proclaim the kingdom of God, he instructed them "to take neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic." He also instructed, "Whatever house you enter, stay there and leave from there."

But Christ also realized that doors might not be opened. "And as for those who do not welcome you, when you leave that town, shake the dust from your feet. ..."

So, how did Christ and his retinue survive Israel's winter nights when he and his disciples were not welcomed into homes? When they carried no money or blankets, and wore only tunics and sandals?

Around Jerusalem, the average high temperatures from December through March are 49 to 54 degrees and the lows are 43 to 46 degrees. Did Christ suspend his mission during inclement weather?

Where did Christ and his followers get their food? When their sandals and clothes wore out, how did they get replacements? How did Christ, his 12 apostles and his 72 disciples get by?

Luke's gospel gives at lest a partial explanation:

"He journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news. ... Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women. ... Mary Magdalene ... Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources."The extent of the support these women provided we don't know. We know only that the women did provide for Christ and his followers.

The extent of the support these women provided we don't know. We know only that the women did provide for Christ and his followers.


After Christ's Ascension, we know his earliest followers strove to emulate his life, and to live without private property. "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's needs."

But the incident of Ananias and Sapphira shows that some of the early converts had second thoughts about selling all their possessions and putting them into a common fund to be distributed according to "each one's needs." If socialism should have ever worked, it should have worked for the early Christians. Christ had hand-picked his apostles.

Did the system break down when all the property donated to the community was used up? Or did distribution according to need prove problematic? Acts tells us that the Greek converts complained that the division favored the Hebrew converts.

Was there a communal rule that every member must work? Did distribution according to need seem unfair to the worker who produced four times as much as his less-productive neighbor?

If all share equally, do newborn children receive distribution equal to productive workers? Wives? Other children?


Christ's mission was at least partially funded by his female followers, and by generous householders, who gave shelter to his disciples. What if Christ's female followers had had no money? What if nobody could afford to provide his disciples with shelter?

Without money for food, shelter and clothing, could Christ have carried on his mission for three years? What if Christ had starved to death that first winter?

While we have no details, we known that abject poverty, communalism and socialism were soon abandoned by the early church. If men and women who were so dedicated to the cause of early Christianity that they were willing to sell all they had and place the proceeds in the hands of the apostles couldn't make socialism work, why would we expect the socialist true believers in Congress to do better than the apostles?

Churches close when charitable giving falls below a given level. Socialist societies struggle or fail when there are no more rich to plunder.


Here's my challenge:

If Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) can prove that socialism works by going to Venezuela and fixing the mess created by Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, then they can reasonably say that U.S. voters should consider entrusting our economy to them.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 8, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Impeach Trump! Forget Due Process!

President Donald Trump argues that he is being denied due process by Rep. Adam Schiff's secret impeachment inquiry:

The rules followed in the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton inquiries are being trashed by Schiff. Nixon and Clinton had their attorneys present, members of their political party were allowed to question and cross-examine witnesses, and hearings were done in full view of press and public.

The Democrats respond that the President is making a dilatory process argument: "We control the House, Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, we get to make up the rules and to ignore precedents."

Imagine that you live somewhere other than the United States. One day you are arrested. You ask the arresting officer, why? He answers, "Eventually, you'll find out."

You spend three years in jail awaiting trial. Then, an officer takes you out of your cell, and into the bowels of the building to what appears to be a courtroom. A judge requires you to take an oath to tell nothing but the truth. The judge begins to examine you.

You: Is this some sort of trial?

Judge: Yes.

You: Am I facing imprisonment?

Judge. Yes. You can be burned at the stake. If you recant, life imprisonment.

You: What am I accused of?

Judge: Heresy.

You: I want an attorney.

Judge: Innocent men don't need an attorney.

You: If you're going to burn me at the stake, I need an attorney.

Judge: This court has taken depositions of witnesses. This court has determined there is cause to       believe the witnesses accusing you of heresy are credible.

You: What witnesses?

Judge: You are not entitled to that information. It is for the safety of the witnesses.

You: Don't I get a written charge? An indictment?

Judge: No.

You: Will I be allowed to see these witnesses in this court? Hear their testimony against me? Cross-examine them?

Judge: No.

You: How can I defend myself, if I don't know what my accusers have said?

Judge: It is not necessary for you to know what they said against you. You defend yourself by answering my questions truthfully.

You: Wait! Are you the prosecutor or the judge?

Judge: Both

You: Where is the jury?

Judge: I am your jury.

You: But you say you have already determined there is cause to believe my accusers are credible. You have admitted you are predisposed to find me guilty. I want an impartial jury.

Judge: In the court of Inquisition, there are no juries. Based on my preliminary examination of the witnesses, I have merely come to presume you guilty. If you can prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, I will acquit you.

You: Can I call my own witnesses to prove my innocence?

Judge: No. They'd probably lie.

You: Can I testify for myself?

Judge: Yes, but as you are presumed guilty of heresy, your testimony is suspect.

You: What if I refuse to testify?

Judge: I will return you to your cell. You will have 30 days to reconsider your contempt of this court.

You: And if I again refuse to participate?

Judge: You will be adjudged a contumacious heretic and burned at the stake.


Whether presidential impeachment is a criminal proceeding or not, misses the point. The Spanish Inquisition was not a criminal proceeding. Yet, upon a finding of heresy, the heretic was remanded to the civil authorities to be burned at the stake.

Impeachment carries ruinous penalties. Our Bill of Right — the Sixth Amendment in particular — was designed by the Founders to ensure there would be no Spanish Inquisition — or its like — in America.

Our Bill of Rights creates procedures designed to fairly balance the governments need to convict against the right of the innocent man not to be convicted. Those procedures have come to be know as due process.

The Sixth Amendment procedures require "fundamental fairness," aka due process, in criminal cases: speedy trial, public trial, impartial jury, specification of the nature and cause of the accusation, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses, and assistance of counsel.

Many are generally required even in civil and administrative cases. The chief justice presides at an impeachment trial to insure that the president is accorded due process consistent with the nature of the proceeding. And to ensure the proceedings appear fair.

His rulings, however, can be overruled by a majority of the Senate, from which there is seemingly no appeal to the courts. But without due process, we would have the appearance and reality of a new Spanish Inquisition.

Posted: QCOline.com   November 1, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

If the Movie Stinks, Why Make a Sequel?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team of prosecutors investigated President Donald Trump -- and everybody around him -- for 2.5 years, using the full investigatory powers of the United States government.

They found there was insufficient evidence to charge the president with conspiracy, or any other crime, relating to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

There are numerous redactions in the Mueller Report. But does any rational, neutral observer really believe that those portions would have been redacted if there had been competent evidence that the president, or those around him, had conspired with Russia or engaged in any other crime?

If the special counsel had had competent evidence to support Trump's guilt, the report would have trumpeted, "We charge that evil President Trump conspired with Russia!" And yet, there are those who still believe the Democrat fairy tale that Trump colluded with Russia. And there are those who believe that Rep. Adam Schiff and other Democrats on his House Intelligence Committee will still somehow dig up evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

NBC News described Mueller's team as the 18 "best prosecutors in the business." They had virtually unlimited subpoena power and power to haul witnesses before grand juries. Does any rational Democrat seriously believe that if Muller's expert prosecutors couldn't find competent evidence to charge the president during their exhaustive 30 months investigation, somehow Schiff will?

The phony Steele Dossier didn't get the job done. But wait! Schiff is here to save the day! And he has in hand (gasp!) a "letter" from a so-called whistleblower!


Never mind that Schiff's whistleblower has no personal knowledge of the things he alleges the president did wrong in speaking to the Ukraine president. Never mind that the whistleblower's allegations are rank hearsay. Never mind that hearsay is admissible only in kangaroo courts. Never mind that the transcript of that call utterly debunks and contradicts the whistleblower's hearsay claims.

Never mind that the whistleblower's statements were not made under oath. Never mind that neither the president, nor Republican members of Superhero Schiff's committee have been allowed to confront the accuser or cross-examine him.

Never mind that Schiff has lied about his, or his staff's, involvement with the whistleblower, or that Schiff's staff may have drafted or helped draft the whistleblower's "complaint," or directed the whistleblower to an anti-Trump lawyer to "refine" the allegations.

Never mind that the chairman is running a secret hearing -- closed to the press and public -- with only Schiff-approved "leaks" being made available to a partisan mainstream media. Never mind that Schiff repeatedly lied about having "evidence" in his possession that Trump colluded with Russia.



In case you haven't figured it out, Ukraine collusion is a sham. It is a remake of the Russian collusion sham. It's rather like the Hollywood remakes of "The Prisoner of Zenda." Hollywood first made the movie in 1922 with Ramon Navarro, then again in 1939 with Ronald Coleman, and again in 1952 with Stewart Granger: same movie, slightly updated script, new cast.


Here's Schiff's 2016 movie:

 "Trump Colludes with Russia": Evil racist, bigot, homophobe, white-supremacist Donald -- aka, Joseph Stalin Jr. -- Trump colluded with Russia to dig up dirt to steal the 2016 election from saintly Hillary Clinton. Script based on the fictional whistleblower Steele Dossier, paid for by Fusion GPS, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and sundry half-truth affidavits filed in the FISA court.


Here's Schiff's 2020 movie:

 "Trump Colludes with Ukraine” (still in production): Evil racist, bigot, homophobe, white supremacist Donald -- aka Adolf Hitler Jr. -- Trump colluded with Ukraine to dig up dirt to steal the 2020 election from former Vice President Joe Biden. Script based on a hearsay whistleblower complaint crafted by either Schiff himself, his staff, or his designated attorney, all without disclosing that the whistleblower appears to be an old crony of former-VP Biden.


The American people have seen enough. The 2016 version was garbage. The 2020 version bids fair to be even worse. With the Republicans in control of the Senate, and with 67 votes needed in the Senate to convict, Democrats know that any partisan impeachment is DOA.


The 2020 election is a year from now. If Trump is the consummate evil racist, white supremacist, traitor that the Democrats claim he is, he will be "impeached" by the voters!

Posted: QCOline.com   October 24th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Vote Democrat, GM - Get Bernie-care, and $15 an hour

You are a GM worker.

Are you really going to vote for a Democrat who is telling you that if elected he/she wants Medicare-for-All (Bernie-care) and is going to abolish all private medical insurance?

At a recent Democratic debate, moderator Lester Holt asked, "Who here would abolish their private insurance in favor of a government run health plan?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren's and Mayor Bill de Blasio's hands shot up. Warren bleated, “I’m with Bernie on Medicare-for-All.”

But how about the rest of the Democrats? Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposed legislation would abolish ALL private health insurance. Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Kristen Gillibrand are co-sponsors of Sanders’ bill. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell are sponsoring similar legislation in the House. Sen. Kamala Harris was for the Sanders' proposal before she was against it. Joe Biden says he's for Obamacare. But at least one Democrat candidate has some doubts. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar supports a Medicare public option, but as yet doesn't support Sander's Medicare-for-All bill

“I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off their health insurance in four years, which is what this bill says,” she said.


Would that include GM workers? Do UAW workers and retirees agree with Sanders, Warren, Booker, Gillibrand, Gabbard, Ryan, et al? Are they willing to hazard their GM insurance to elect a blithering socialist? Or will Sanders, Warren and the rest abolish all private insurance except that provided by the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust?

That trust provides health care benefits for current and future eligible UAW retiree members of Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford. The trust is an independent entity and not administered by the auto manufacturers or the UAW.

Medicare members can choose one of three plans: Medicare Advantage PPO, Traditional Care Network (TCN), or HMO. The monthly cost for TCN is $17 single and $34 family. There is no monthly cost for the MA PPO or the HMO options.

Non-Medicare members can have two options: Enhanced Care PPO (ECP), or HMO. Both require a monthly $17 single and $34 family payment. Due to word limitations, I am only going to discuss the primary plans. For Medicare members, the primary plan is MA PPO, for non-Medicare members, it is ECP PPO.

Here what the MA PPO provides: Deductible, $245/person; coinsurance (amount paid after deductible is met) 10%; out-of-pocket max before the plan covers 100 of covered costs, $630/person; primary care physician (PCP) office visit, $20 copay; specialist office visit, $25 copay; emergency room (waived if admitted), $50 copay.

ECP PPO provides: Deductible, $400 single, $675 family; coinsurance, 10%; out-of-pocket max, $800 single, $1,475 family; PCP office vsit, $25 copay; specialist office visit, $35 copay; urgent care, $50 copay.

Regardless of the medical plan option, the copay amounts for prescription drug benefits are the same. For a month supply: Tier 1 generics, $14; Tier 2 preferred brand, $45; Tier 1 non-preferred brand, $115.

The trust also provides hearing aid, vision and dental benefits. So what are the UAW workers and retirees going to do, play Russian roulette?

The progressives also demand the abolition of the use of fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. But with gasoline and an internal combustion engines gone, what's going to happen to auto worker jobs?

If we go to electric-powered or wind-powered cars, will auto workers even have to worry about Medicare-for-All wiping out their private health insurance? Do permanently laid-off workers still get company-provided health benefits? And if you get rid of internal combustion engines, what happens to the jobs of workers in the gasoline production industry? To their insurance?

And if you abolish all private insurance, what becomes of the jobs of workers who work for private health insurance companies? Of their private health insurance? In the past, the Democrats' answer has been to "set up new job-training classes."

A vote for any of these Democrats should mean job re-training will become the new growth industry" What, me worry?

Sanders has another brilliant plan: "Give everybody a $15 per hour government job!" That should really appeal to GM workers.

Posted: QCOline.com   October 17th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrat Leftist Mobs are the Best Gun Salesmen

The Democrats demand gun control. In particular, they demand banning AR-15-style rifles, and large-capacity magazines.

They argue that the average citizen has no legitimate reason for possessing such weapons and magazines. Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke now calls for outright confiscation.

Until recently, I had believed that most Americans were inclined to agree with the Democrats on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines. Then, within a brief period, Democrats, their street-mob allies, and their Hollywood henchmen go nuts and demonstrate that the NRA's concerns may very be well-founded.

They give Americans who rationally fear mob violence and unconstitutional confiscation of their guns (in violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments) excellent motivation to run out and buy AR-15-style weapons with large-capacity magazines for the protection of themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses against leftist mobs and government overreach.

Indeed, rather than dissuading the sale and possession of such weapons, the Democrats and their allies now seem intent on inducing every "deplorable" in America to purchase the very weapons the Democrats have been railing against.

Here are four recent incidents that illustrate the point.


1. Recently a mob of extremist leftists gathered outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Louisville, Ky. During the mob action, which was calculated to shatter the nighttime quiet of the neighborhood and to disrupt the ability of McConnell, his family and his neighbors to sleep peacefully in their homes, a female mob-member can be heard, in the video of the incident, saying “just stabs the mother f----r in the heart, please.”


2. Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro, brother of Julian Castro, has tweeted, "Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump. ... Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanics as 'invaders.' ... In 2019, these 44 San Antonio donors contributed the most allowable by federal law."

He then lists the donors' names. (Making his actions even more irresponsible, his list erroneously included people who weren't donors). Castro published his "little list of society offenders" for one reason. He wanted leftist mobs, to target Trump donors to intimidate them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to support the candidate(s) of their choice. Castro wanted their homes and businesses mobbed, and their businesses boycotted. If they were bullied in restaurants, good.

3. Then, leftist at the Universal Studio, announced a new movie, "The Hunt," in which rich, elitist leftist thrill-seekers take a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a "deeply rewarding" expedition that involves hunting down and killing "deplorables" (Hillary Clinton's term for Trump supporters). The movie glorifies hate, political violence and the mass murder of those with whom you disagree. (Universal has had second thoughts -- at least until the heat dies down).


4. Then, during the last Democratic presidential debate, socialist candidate Beto O'Rourke vowed that if elected, he would "take away" from every law-abiding citizen any gun he believes is "not needed for hunting." That would include AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles that have a cosmetic similarity to actual military weapons.


Imagine now you are one of Hillary's "deplorables." Imagine further a political climate in which a supposedly responsible members of Congress puts you name and address on a list as a "contributor to a campaign of hate against Hispanics" with the implication that you, like McConnell, deserve to be confronted by the mob in your home in the middle of the night, or when you are dining in a restaurant. Or that you deserve to have your business boycotted -- or worse.

Add to that a toxic political climate in which the Hollywood left produces a movie in which conservatives are treated as subhumans to be shot to death for sport and amusement.

And to top it off, imagine a howling mob descending upon your front door in the dead of night, led by a 21st century "Madame Defarge," who rather than knitting, encourages the mob to stab you in the heart. Or imagine that in the dead of night, 10 members of the mob kick in your front door and come for you. Would an AR-15 with a large-capacity magazine be your weapon of choice?

When mob violence is encouraged by politicians who would tear up the Bill of Rights, the mob and demagogue politicians become the best salesman for AR-15-style weapons and magazines, and the unwitting ally of the NRA.

Posted: QCOline.com   October 10th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Medicare-for-All Lesson Lurking in Your Cable Bill

If you think dealing with your local cable provider is hell, Medicare-for-All will be worse.

You call yourself a Democratic Socialist. You assure the American people that if we can only put Medicare-for-All in place, and get rid of the predatory private health insurance industry, our health-care costs will drop substantially, and the quality of care will be far better.

You are advocating creation of a health-care monopoly. It would be the biggest monopoly in the United States. Do you really believe your dream monopoly will be responsive to your individual needs? When you have a problem, will you be able to call customer assistance, and speak to somebody with willingness, power and incentive to deal with your complaint?

If you do, you've never dealt with your local internet, phone and cable provider, particularly one that has a virtual monopoly in your area.

What do you do if you are unhappy with your service? Let just imagine that you are reasonably happy paying for one of its packages. Then, one day, out of the blue, your rate is raised by 13 percent. When did your employer last give you a 13% pay raise?

When you call to see what can be done, after a modest wait, you get to speak to a "customer representative." You tell her you feel the new rate is unreasonable. She says it really isn't a new rate; they're just taking away a portion of your "customer loyalty discount."

You point out that it is still costing you $20 more per month. She says there is nothing she can do for you, but since you have been a customer for more than 30 years (you were charged $19.99 per month back in 1988), she'll refer you to a "customer loyalty representative."

After another modest wait, that representative finally picks up her phone. You repeat that you are unhappy about the price increase. She repeats that it really isn't a price increase; it's a loyalty discount decrease.

You point out that "loyalty" here seems to be a "one-way street." Your "reward" for being a "loyal customer" is being diminished. She advises that your "loyalty discount" will again decrease next month.

You ask, "What happens if I drop my phone service to save money?" She replies, "If you change your service, you can get a new subscriber promotional discount, but it will only be good for one year. After that your rate will go up $20."

It seems bizarre to you that a new customer will pay less than a loyal customer and that your rate will continue to go up until all your loyalty discount goes bye-bye.

You try again, "What about getting rid of channels you will never use in a thousand years?" She replies, "You probably lose channels that you do watch." 

You ask to speak to a supervisor. She insists a supervisor "will tell you exactly what I am telling you." You insist. She tells you all their lines are busy. You still insist. She tells you, "A supervisor's line just came open; I'll transfer you."

That line rings and rings. Eventually you get voice mail. You dutifully leave your name and number and briefly summarize the nature of your call. No one ever calls back.

Now imagine what happens when Medicare-for-All denies a drug or treatment for your 85-year-old parent. You call Medicare-for-All. And guess what's going to happen when "Bernie" answers? No, not that Bernie. This one is my cable company representative's brother.

When you create a monopoly, you destroy all competition. 

When I have called my health insurance provider, I have always been treated with respect. I have sensed its representatives want to be helpful. They know that a dissatisfied customer can go to another health insurance provider.

But with your cable provider, it's their way or the highway. And with Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-All, you probably will not even have the choice of opting out and going without insurance.

There'll be no highway.

Posted: QCOline.com   September 9th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

How about Some Reparations for Irish Americans?

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, interviewed on CNN, says that she wants a "reparations council made up of 30 to 50 people who are descendants of American slaves."

She also proposes that $200 billion to $500 billion be dispersed over a period of 20 years. Her council would decide how the money is disbursed, with the stipulation that the funds would be used for "economic and education renewal" -- whatever that is. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker have also indicated support for the concept of reparations.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a cosponsor of legislation in Congress to study and develop a reparations proposals. Sen. Bernie Sanders is a co-sponsor for the Senate version of the bill. Sen. Kamala Harris says she supports reparations.

Beto O'Rourke is "open to considering some form of reparations." Warren has gone one step further, saying that reparations for Native Americans should be a part of the reparation conversation as well.


As a former Democrat and a strong believer in "equal protection," I support and thoroughly endorse reparations for both groups -- so long as the aforementioned Democratic candidates are willing to modify their otherwise inane proposals to include reparations to the descendants of oppressed Irishmen.

That, of course, would include me, since my grandfather came from the "Old Sod." I think our government should hand out big bushel baskets of $100 bills to every person of Irish descent in America.

Furthermore, I think the government of Great Britain should also kick in. Because history is no longer seriously taught in our schools, few Americans realize the sad plight of the 19th century Irish small farmer, both before and after he came to America.

From 1846 through the mid-1850s, the Irish potato crop suffered a devastating blight. This fungus was transported to Ireland from the Eastern United States.

In 1846, three-quarters of the Irish potato crop had failed. Three million rural Irish were left to starve -- even though Ireland at this time grew abundant wheat, beef cattle and other livestock.

Throughout the famine, the British continued the export of Irish foodstuffs, notwithstanding the starvation of the Irish people. To exacerbate the situation, Irish farmers, unable to pay their rents owing to the crop failure, were evicted by their English landlords.


To escape starvation, Irish peasant emigrated to America. Coming from rural backgrounds, most lacked the necessary skills required by industrializing America. They had to take unskilled jobs, paving the streets and digging the canals, while the women were forced into menial jobs as maids and laundresses.

And there was prejudice against the Irish. America was largely Protestant. The Irish were Catholics. Many Americans believed the Irish owed their allegiance to the Pope.

Additionally, the Irish immigrants threatened to take jobs from American citizens. Fearing that they would also take political power, there was a backlash, which produced the Know-Nothing Party, whose very reason for being was anti-immigration xenophobia.

"Help Wanted" signs were modified to add, "No Irish need apply!" Then came the Civil War. As Irishmen disembarked, they were met by Union military recruiters who offered them $300 to join the Union Army. And they did.

Irish regiments were formed: the New York 63rd, 69th, and 88th and the 116th Pennsylvania. Soon they were grouped into the Irish Brigade. Over 150,000 Irish, who had never owned a slave, fought for the Union cause.

At Antietam (1862), about 60 percent of 63rd and 69th New York regiments fell; almost 600 men were killed in battle. A few months later, at Fredericksburg, 545 of the brigade’s 1,200 men were killed or wounded. Then, in July 1863, at Gettysburg, 320 of the Irish Brigade's remaining 530 were killed.

Irish losses in the Civil War and in WWI each totaled about 35,000. Irish men were "welcomed" into America to serve as cannon fodder. Unlike the immigrants crossing our southern border today, the 19th century Irish got no food stamps, no free housing and no free medical care.

And of course, once you provide people of Irish descent with reparations, don't forget the Jewish people.

I can distinctly remember as a boy the prejudice in America against people of the Jewish faith. There weren't welcomed in many of the best country clubs. A few blocks from our home, they had to build their own Jewish country club.

So, do I really believe in reparations? No. But if you are going to give them to one group, equal protection should require they be given to any group that America was not fair to at any time. But, of course, when you provide free housing, food stamps, education and medical care to any group for any prolonged period, isn't that a sort of pre-reparation?


Posted: QCOline.com   September 12th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea