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