Medical science is not infallible

Should Facebook and Twitter ban postings recommending certain drugs for the treatment of Covid, but not endorsed by Dr. Tony Fauci? The CDC? The government?

Recently Dr. Fauci, the face of the Biden administration's war on Covid, told the world, if they criticize Tony Fauci, "they are really criticizing science, because I represent science."

Fauci's claim is not new. It is a claim of "eminent doctors" over the centuries to silence any doctor — or lesser person — who dared to propose alternate treatments to those endorsed by prevailing "medical science."

In 1537 in France, the masters of the medical profession were the physicians of the teaching faculty of the University of Paris. They were certain they were the medical "science" of their day. Gun shots were to be treated by pouring boiling oil on the wound. If the arm or leg received a serious wound, it was to be amputated as quickly as possible. To stop bleeding, you sealed the blood vessel with a white hot iron.

In those days, amputations and cautery were considered beneath the physician's dignity. They were left to surgeons, or to their barber assistants. One such barber was Ambrose Paré. He served France as a military surgeon in its 1537 campaign in Italy.

When he ran out of oil to boil to apply to the soldiers' wounds, he used what he had — a compound of turpentine, rose oil and egg yolk. He soon learned that those treated with his compound did far better than those whose wounds were treated with boiling oil.

Paré next began tying off blood vessels following amputation rather than using cautery. He found the amputees fared far better, not withstanding that the use of the white-hot iron was prescribed by medical "science."

Louis Pasteur was not a medical doctor. He was a chemist. In the 1850s, while dean of sciences at the University of Lille, he began analysis of the process of fermentation — the process by which grape juice changed to wine. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that fermentation was the result of an unstable body decomposing. After years of experiment, Pasteur proved that fermentation was not the result of an unstable substance dying, but of a wildly active multiplication of living cells. His "ferments"were microscopic living beings. Each type of fermentation was produced by its own specific ferment. These ferments were not spontaneously "born" within the fermented matter, but were introduced from the outside. Pasteur further deduced that microscopic beings might also be the causes of human sickness and death.

But at the time, the medical profession — "medical science" — attributed sickness and death to "morbid spontaneity," and not to a specific invading microorganism. Time and further scientific experimentation once again proved France's keepers of "medical science" wrong, and Pasteur right.

Pasteur begged doctors to use clean bed sheets in hospitals, to sanitize their instruments by flame, and to wash before treating a patient after performing a post-mortem dissection. "Medical science" of the day scoffed. His work to create an immunization for anthrax drew ridicule from doctors and veterinaries alike. But mere chemist Pasteur was right.


In the mid-19th century, while Joseph Lister was practicing surgery in Edinburgh, he noticed that 43% of the hospital's surgery patients there died. In Paris, 60% died; in Munich, 80%. The pattern was always the same. The operation went well, but then slight swelling developed followed by inflammation. Lister observed that simple fractures which were set, healed well; gangrene and septicemia occurred only in compound, open fractures. Lister concluded these infections were not the result of "spontaneous generation" or even the air. They were caused by tiny organisms in the air.

To kill these organisms, Lister began to use carbolic acid as a disinfectant. Instruments, bandages, ligatures were all bathed in carbolic acid. Lister set aside the traditional surgeon's black frock coat and wore a clean white apron. Acid was sprayed into the air. The result was an 11 year-old boy with a compound fracture came through the operation without infection.

Lister continued his experiment and kept detailed records. But while deaths dropped dramatically in his ward, his hospital colleagues followed the established "medical science" in their wards. For eight years, they ignored Lister's papers in The Lancet, as well as the morbidity in their wards, and the lack thereof in Lister's. It wasn't until 1877 that Lister's critics grudgingly admitted that he was right. That recognition came not from Edinburgh, but from London where he was made a professor at London's King's College.

Dr. Fauci has to know that medical science is not static. Best medical practice is nothing more than considered judgments based on observations, questions, hypothesis, experiments, interpreting results and making conclusions. Some medical judgments pass the test of time; others don't.

The most any doctor can say, is that "I am following what are judged to be today's best practices." Indeed Fauci has told the American people as much. He's said scientists need more information before drawing conclusions about omicron's severity.

Had Facebook and Twitter been around in the days of Paré, Pasteur, Lister, et al., would they have been blocked for proposing treatments not approved by the leading physicians of their day? Probably.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 10, 2021

Stephen Colbert: "We should change the law."

 Are you part of the mob criticizing the verdicts of the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial? President Biden was.

"While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken ....," he said.

Biden then added, "I didn't watch the trial." Of course, the jurors did.

And then there was Stephen Colbert's inane criticism. 

"Cards on the table, I am not a legal expert so I can't tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law. But I can tell you this, if he didn't break the law we should change the law."

OK, Mr. non-legal expert. Since you don't know "whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law," why do you want it changed? And exactly what do you want changed?

Perhaps we should begin by abolishing the right to self-defense? Or maybe just the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense? Or the right to use a gun in self-defense?

Or maybe we should change the procedures of trial?

Perhaps instead of the "presumption of innocence," all persons charged by the government with serious crimes, should be presumed guilty? After all, if the President or one of his U.S. Attorneys thinks you're guilty, don't they have solid evidence to back that up?

If a grand jury finds probable cause to indict you, aren't you probably guilty?

And if you are probably guilty, shouldn't you be presumed guilty?

Perhaps the requirement that the defendant be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should be abolished. Many defendants who are probably guilty are found not guilty because of that rule. And when grand jury has found that the defendant is "probably guilty," shouldn't the defendant have to prove himself not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Or at least prove himself to the jury's satisfaction that he is not guilty.

Or maybe we should abolish the rules of evidence? Why shouldn't the government be able to use a little hearsay if that will help convict a defendant who has already been found "probably guilty" by the grand jury's indictment, or the prosecutor's information?

In America, the judge is the sole judge of the law, and the jurors are the sole judges of the facts. The judge is a government official; the jurors aren't. And until twelve jurors – your fellow citizens – find you guilty, no judge can deprive you of your life, liberty or property.

Perhaps comedian Colbert would like to see that changed? How about allowing a simple majority of the 12 jurors to find you guilty? How about giving the judge the right to disregard the jury's verdict, and pronounce guilt himself?

How about allowing the judge to direct the jurors to enter a verdict of "guilty?"

How about abolishing the jury altogether? Why not get rid of an "independent judiciary?" Allow the President to appoint any of his officials to preside over your trial, even if the President, as in the case of Rittenhouse, used his photo in a 2020 campaign ad, claiming President Trump supported white-racism?

Or maybe an indicted man should be required to face trial without an attorney?

If you think such "improvements" could never be a part of American law, you are woefully ignorant of the history of Anglo-American law.

We have a record of the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for treason. During that trial, the judges considered themselves part of the prosecution. They helped gather statements from witnesses to be used against Raleigh. They deemed it their duty to see that an indicted man was found guilty. Raleigh was denied counsel.

Because the judges believed a man on trial for his life might lie under oath, he was denied the right to testify under oath on his own behalf. Given the grand jury indictment, Raleigh was presumed guilty. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was at the time, unknown. Hearsay and hearsay upon hearsay were admitted into evidence against Raleigh. He was not allowed to confront and cross-examine his accusers. He was not allowed to call Lord Cobham into court to allow Cobham to testify that his deposition gathered and used by the prosecution against Raleigh was made after one of the judges told Cobham that he could face the rack if he would not testify against Raleigh.

Add to that the fact that the jurors knew that they could be punished by fine or jail for "perjury" if they returned a "false verdict" – if their verdict displeased the King.

So which of these improvements would funnyman Colbert opt for? It is easy to criticize a jury when in Biden's words, you "did not watch it." But that jury sat and heard all the evidence the prosecutor could adduce against Rittenhouse.

It watched numerous videos of the shootings. And then deliberated for three days before rendering its verdicts.

It is good that President Biden said, "we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." But for him to be "angry" with the jury without having seen nor heard the evidence that the jury did, is disgraceful. For Colbert to want to change the law with no specification of what he would change, is bizarre — not funny.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 3, 2021

When Partisan Politics Trumps Public Duty

In big America's cities, run by "woke" Democrat mayors who called for "police defunding," gun-violence reigns — not unexpectedly.


On Nov. 2, Minneapolis voters had a chance via the ballot to get rid of their police department and replace it with a new "Department of Public Safety" (DPS). The Washington Post reports that voters in the Minneapolis, where the "George Floyd Movement" began, soundly rejected a proposal to replace the city's police department."

"City Question Two would have amended the Minneapolis charter to allow the police department to be replaced by a Department of Public Safety."

The new DPS "would have taken a 'comprehensive public health approach' to public safety, including dispatching mental health workers to certain calls and more investment in violence prevention efforts."   The new DPS "could include" police officers "if necessary."


But was "Question Two" really soundly rejected? Fifty-six percent of the voters rejected it; 44% took stupid pills and voted to abolish the police department.


Activist Abou Amara, interviewed by KARE 11 in Minneapolis, explained the election result saying, "young people are clamoring for change. ... we know from earlier polling that those who are younger tended to vote 'yes,'"


So who voted 'no?' According to Abou, "You had communities of color — predominantly the African-American community — voting in high numbers for the 'no' campaign. And in addition to that, you had ... more affluent voters turning out to vote 'no'....."

Abou further explained those "no" votes.

"['Progressive Democrats'] were having an abstract conversation about the role of police, but those folks in north Minneapolis — Black elders, others — know that this is not an abstract conversation; [their] lives are on the line. When someone talks about a carjacking or a shooting, it's not an abstraction; it's the life they live each and every day."

In the wake of the George Floyd movement, with its demands to "abolish the police," crime rates had soared in America's large, Democrat-controlled cities.


According to Reuters, Minneapolis [population, 430,000] recorded its 79th homicide this year on Halloween. Minneapolis homicides were up more than 17% through the end of September, compared with the first nine months in 2020. Robberies and aggravated assaults also have increased. "North Minneapolis, a poorer area where more Black residents live, has seen the brunt of the violence. Nearly half of all murders in the city have taken place in Precinct 4, where residents complain of nights filled with shootings, carjackings and out-of-control petty crime."


Things are even worse in the American war-zone known as Chicago.


The Chicago Sun-Times reports that for the 12 month period ending on Nov. 1, 790 people have been shot to death in Chicago. The Chicago Police Department reports that through Oct. 31, 2021 there have been 3,030 shooting incidents.


Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who called for a $59 million cut from the police budget in October of 2020, now says the violence was driven by people who "have absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life." Now Lightfoot admits residents of Chicago neighborhoods that are "under siege," and calls for cooperation with the police to "stem the tide on his violence."

The Sun-Times labels West Garfield Park district, in which 95.58% of the residents are Black, as the "city's most dangerous community. ... 62 shootings [have occurred] in a single, eight-by-five block section of West Garfield Park." West Garfield Park, the newspaper reported, has experienced a per capita rate of shootings nearly 20 times higher than downtown.


An open-minded person might reasonably ask, how many of those shootings were done by cops?


Then there's Portland, Oregon [pop. 661,419] — the poster child for "defund the police," and "autonomous zones devoid of police?" As of early October 2021, over 1,000 people have been shot and 73 killed; 948 had been shot through Sept. 30, compared with 607 in 2020. In 2020, Portland, suffered an 83% increase in homicides. According to US News, Portland has had twice as many homicides in 2021 as Seattle, its larger neighbor.

The first duty of government is to protect the law-abiding citizens. Portland's mayor and the other idiots who run the city acted otherwise. Portland's KGW8 describes the resulting chaos:

Jacqueline Valenzuela was home with her family and baby when shots rang out "We were in the living room watching TV, five minutes before everything happened," she said. A bullet went through their home. "Our living room was where it struck." [Police] found the street littered with 57 casings and four live rounds. Two homes, four cars, one mailbox and one fence had been hit by bullets. The Valenzuelas "no longer feel safe in the neighborhood and hope to move out soon."

On Nov. 4, Portland's super-woke mayor finally removed his rose-colored glasses and surveyed the mess he, his comrades in city government and his fellow-traveling antifa-ites have masterminded. The mayor belatedly admitted, "Many Portlanders no longer feel safe in their city. Business owners have closed up shop, for fear of doing business in high risk areas. Commuters fear for their safety, whether taking public transport or going by foot. Parents are scared to let their children play outside."

The first duty of government is to protect the law-abiding citizens. Any voter who was stupid enough to vote for these idiots, deserves to live in the shambles they've created. The enabling woke mayor who made this mess possible should be required to live deep within the ruins of the neighborhoods that he allowed to be destroyed — and be required to send his children to public schools therein.


Did they know better? Certainly. But embarrassing Donald Trump and winning an election was a higher priority than protecting the public.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 19, 2021

Closing one's eyes to science - to the humanity of the fetus

Texas Senate Bill 8 bans abortions after an ultrasound can detect a fetal "heartbeat."

"A fetal heartbeat" is defined as "a cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac." Such activity can be detected by ultrasound as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Dr. Nisha Verma, a prominent obstetrician and gynecologist, who provides abortion services, argues that describing what ultrasound detects as a "heartbeat" is misleading. The term is misleading because embryos don’t possess a heart at that developmental stage. She argues that the activity measured on an ultrasound in early gestation is electrical impulses, not a true heartbeat.

"When I use the stethoscope to listen to a patient’s heart, that sound that I hear ... as the heartbeat is created by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves. And at six weeks of gestation, those valves don’t exist."

But is that the real issue here? "Electrical impulse" rather that the sound created by he opening and closing of the cardiac valves?

Or is the real issue whether the embryo/fetus is truly a human person? That is what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott believes: "Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion."


So who is doing the misleading? Who is obfuscating? The Texas Legislature? Or doctors like Dr. Verma?

For any person of good will, who believes in acting upon the true facts, and who isn't a "science denier," I would highly recommend a five-minute visit to WebMD, at: https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development.

That video describes "Fetal Development" as follows:

Development at 4 Weeks. At this point the baby is developing the structures that will eventually form their face and neck. The heart and blood vessels continue to develop. And the lungs, stomach, and liver start to develop. A home pregnancy test would show positive.

Development at 8 Weeks. The baby is now a little over half an inch in size. Eyelids and ears are forming, and you can see the tip of the nose. The arms and legs are well formed. The fingers and toes grow longer and more distinct.

Development at 12 Weeks. The baby measures about 2 inches and starts to make its own movements. You may start to feel the top of your uterus above your pubic bone. Your doctor may hear the baby's heartbeat with special instruments. The sex organs of the baby should start to become clear.

Development at 16 Weeks. The baby now measures about 4.3 to 4.6 inches and weighs about 3.5 ounces. The baby's eyes can blink and the heart and blood vessels are fully formed. The baby's fingers and toes have fingerprints.

Development at 20 Weeks. The baby weighs about 10 ounces and is a little more than 6 inches long. The baby can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon — if you haven't already — you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening."

An ultrasound is usually done for all pregnant women at 20 weeks. ... You can see the baby's heartbeat and movement of its body, arms, and legs on the ultrasound. You can usually find out whether it's a boy or a girl at 20 weeks.

Development at 24 Weeks. The baby weighs about 1.4 pounds now and responds to sounds by moving or increasing their pulse. You may notice jerking motions if they hiccup. With the inner ear fully developed, the baby may be able to sense being upside down in the womb.

Development at 28 Weeks. The baby weighs about 2 pounds, 6 ounces, and changes position often at this point in pregnancy. If you had to deliver prematurely now, there is a good chance the baby would survive.

Now, if you still doubt that the fetus is a human being with the same right to life that you enjoy, go to the WebMD site and look at the ultrasound images.

The Democrats — liberals and progressive alike — delight in calling anybody who disagrees with them on climate change, or the efficacy of wearing a Covid mask, "science deniers." And yet, when confronted with the heartbeat or electrical activity of a baby in its mother's womb, they cover their ears, and claim to hear nothing.

When confronted with ultrasound images of the child's undeniable development in the womb, they close their eyes and pretend to see nothing human. "It's merely a 'part of its mother' — just like her appendix or a wart on her finger." It is merely a "part of its mother" even though the embryo/fetus undeniably bears not only its mother's DNA, but its father's as well.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 26, 2021

A solution for Alleman

On June 30, Barb Ickes' article about Alleman High School appeared on the Dispatch-Argus' front page. The article included criticism of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria, and Alleman Principal Sara Stroud. Ickes reached out to Stoud for comment. Stroud did not respond.

Ickes wrote, "Enrollment at Alleman has decreased from 443 students in 2018-2019 to 381 last year. Enrollment for the upcoming years is at 330 students."

A number of my friends, close to Alleman, had told me that (1) the 2021 freshman class would number about 60; (2) 38 students expected back would not return; and (3) 17 Illinois families would be sending their children to Davenport's Assumption High School instead. More recently, I have been told that total enrollment this year is at about 280.


In an effort to verify what I had been told, I emailed Stroud, asking, "Are the following facts substantially true?

1. The 2021 freshman class will number 60; only 10 are boys.
2. 38 students expected back are not returning.
3. 17 families are sending their children across the river to Assumption HS.
4. The former Alleman School Board was dissolved around the time Ms. Gau was terminated."

She replied:

"We have 70 students in our freshman class with 37 boys and 33 girls enrolled. More applications continue to come in; as of today. ... 5 students transferred to Assumption this summer."

I followed-up with a fifth question:

"What will Alleman total enrollment be this year?"

Mrs. Stroud replied:

"Our enrollment is still in flux but we are very pleased with welcoming 14 new students to our school! We are also very excited to partner with Partners in Mission to write our strategic plan this year where enrollment is one of 8 domains of focus, with academics being one of our most common topics of conversation amongst families most recently. The future is bright for Alleman and when we are positive, optimistic and rely on truth while allowing the Holy Spirit to flow, only greater progress will be evident!"

Since that non-answer, I have been told by three sources that attendance this year is "about 280.'


On Oct. 7, I wrote to Stroud telling her that, and asking, "Is that true? If not, please correct me."
I have received no reply.


From 443 students in 2018-19, Alleman's enrollment for the 2021-22 year appears to be somewhere between 330 and 280.

So, why are numbers important? Because fixed costs must now be paid by fewer student families. And because numbers are important for all extracurricular activities from football to theater; good programs draw students.


After the Ickes article, Bishops Jenky and Tylka wrote a July 3, 2021 letter, advising the Catholic community that a "strategic planning process" was being initiated, and "The strategic planning process will allow the school communities to provide the 'valuable feedback' needed to develop goals and objectives for the future sustainability of the schools...."

They further advised that they have hired a Boston-based consulting firm, "Partners in Mission," to provide "'valuable feedback' needed to develop goals and objectives for the future sustainability of the schools."

It is one thing to develop a long term strategic plan for the future sustainability of the schools in the diocese. It is an entirely different thing to deal with complaints that the Alleman leaders appear to have lost — or perhaps never earned — the confidence of a substantial number of donors and parents paying tuition to send their children to Alleman.

If the goal is to deal with the problem, rather than conduct a post mortem, the solution is obvious: Involve the Alleman community.

There are many distinguished Alleman graduates — men and women — who have proved their worth — both in their parishes as well as in the larger community: doctors, veterinarians, CPAs, lawyers, teachers, bankers and business owners, parents, etc.

Let the Alleman community pick its own lay board from among these Alleman grads. Trust the dedicated Catholic men and women chosen to act in the best interests of Alleman and the church. Reject the unsupportable notions that Peoria is infallible and that the Alleman community lacks competence to educate its own children.

Allow that board to run the school, to hire and fire all Alleman personnel, to raise sufficient funds to run the school properly, and to exclusively control all Alleman funds raised. Funds donated for Alleman must be entirely free of diocesan invasion.

I would suggest that a model can be found in my high school, Notre Dame College Prep, Niles, Ill.

In 2006, the Congregation of Holy Cross ended their sponsorship of Notre Dame. Ownership was assumed by a board of lay people on Jan. 1, 2007.

The Archdiocese of Chicago placed the Catholicity of the school under the oversight of the Notre Dame Education Association, an Association of Christian Faithful, composed of the lay board and other members. Under this new leadership, Notre Dame continued to grow and prosper.

If this diocese wants to climb out of its self-dug hole, the quickest and most permanent way of doing so is to treat the loyal Catholic laymen as full-partners in the education of their children. Follow the NDCP/Chicago Archdiocese model.

For me, writing this op-ed is not a journalistic exercise. My daughter was Alleman's 2004 salutatorian. I am a donor, and a great admirer of Father Mirabelli. I cared enough to serve at Alleman from 2002 to 2018 as a volunteer theatrical director. I don't want to see Alleman fail. I believe that fine Catholic high schools are more critical today to the welfare of American society that at any time during my lifetime.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 15, 2021 

Fearing the reckoning

Many of my friends tell me they now turn off the news. They find it too dishonest, too upsetting. Everything they value is being attacked. Perhaps because of my upbringing, and perhaps because of a project I began some 30 years ago, I have not yet reached that point. I still see a safe path for America's future.


I have written before of how my mother taught me, even before I was in school, not to lie. "If you tell one lie, you will have to tell more lies to cover it up." She also taught the "Golden Rule." Dad taught tolerance. When I used the N-word, when I was just four or five, Dad told me, "I don't ever want to hear you use that word again; it's meant to hurt." When as a child, I began to lecture an adult friend of his on the superiority of Catholicism over Episcopalianism, Dad cut short my discourse with a simple question: "Are you a bigot?"


Then there was the ethical and moral training that I received in the Catholic grade schools and high school, at the University of Notre Dame and at its law school — "the ends don't justify the means."


Then, about 30 years ago, I began collecting the stories of what life was like in America during the Great Depression of the 1930s from people who lived through it. I am not quite sure why I began collecting. Perhaps it was the realization, after my mother's death, that what she and Dad had taught me about the Great Depression was passing with them.


One day, about five years ago, I suddenly realized that all the people who had personal memories of the Depression would soon be gone and would take their memories with them. It was then that I seriously began collecting enough additional stories to write my first book. About a year ago, I signed a contract with Crosslink Publishing, a smaller Christian publishing company, to publish my "Memories of the Great Depression — a Time Forgotten." That process — collecting additional stories — has become a labor of love. At this point, I have enough for a sequel, but I still wish to save more.


In my book, I include the story of a friend and neighbor, the Rev. Charles Willey. The underlying values found in his story, and how they contrast with "modern values," have prompted this op-ed.


"I can clearly recall an incident, when a family had their little eight-year-old girl die from a ruptured appendix and peritonitis. The family had absolutely nothing. They didn’t even have enough money to bury her. The expenses of the funeral were more than they could stand. It was at this point that the whole neighborhood stepped in. When I say the neighborhood, I mean our small rural community—a community where the rural church served as the community center and the cohesive factor that bound people together.


"I can distinctly remember how the church got together and "held ice cream suppers. And how they assembled and held what they called 'pound suppers' or 'jitney suppers.' At a jitney supper, everything was a nickel! A scoop of potatoes was a nickel, and a piece of beef was a nickel. You’d buy a whole meal for twenty-five cents. ... It was a fundraiser; that’s what it was."


"The proceeds of these suppers went to help the family with no strings attached. There was no attempt on anybody’s part to take advantage of the charity. It was rather a symbol of people pulling together to help someone who had a genuine hardship— a hardship that they couldn’t help and couldn’t survive without the cooperation of a community. There was a sense of community which we’ve lost now in the age of the nuclear family. Then, we felt a sense of responsibility for each other and for the people we knew. We weren’t just acquaintances; we were friends. And I guess, maybe human need is the only thing that brings that kinship out."


Perhaps I'm an old fool, but I prefer that America where families, neighbors and communities come together and practiced traditional Christian values to help each.


Certainly major disasters require help from the national government. But where traditional Christian charity or local governments can meet the problems, neighbors and local governments should still be the "first responders."


I am leery of a progressive government which chooses to step in as the first responder in matters traditionally reserved to families, neighbors and units of local government.


Today, our federal government is providing cradle to grave benefits: "Free" food, housing, education and medical care. And for those who don't wish to work, "free" money.

And all this is being done without increasing taxes. Banks, great automobile companies, and state governments awash with pension debt are all bailed out with a few keystrokes of the computer. Hundreds of billions of dollars are magically credited to the account of the Federal Reserve, and made available to support otherwise unfunded government programs.


The progressives believe they can engineer the "Great Hallelujah Day." A few of us old curmudgeons await and fear the reckoning.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 30, 2021 

The Illinois Reapportionment System. An Absolute Disgrace!

The Illinois General Assembly is the Illinois Legislative body. It consists of a House and a Senate. The House has 118 members elected from 118 "Representative Districts." The Senate has 59 members elected from 59 "Legislative Districts." Each Senate ("legislative") district is divided into two House ("representative") districts


In the year following each Federal decennial census year, the General Assembly is required by law to redistrict both the Legislative and the Representative Districts.


Article IV, Section 3 of The Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides, "Legislative Districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. Representative Districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population."

No similar Illinois provision governs the drawing of Congressional Districts.


The average citizen's definition of "compact" would be roughly akin to the dictionary definition: "closely and neatly packed together; dense ... neatly fitted into a small space.


But in 1895, Illinois legislators and judges "defined" the requirement of "compactness," which was found in the Illinois Constitution of 1870, out of existence. In approving a gerrymandered map drawn by the legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court did so by defining "compactness" in a way to render the term meaningless.


"[W]e are of the opinion that as used in the constitution ... the provision that districts shall be formed of ... compact territory means that [they] ... must be closely united, territorially."


Under that definition two intersecting road could be deemed "compact." Certainly where they intersect, they are "closely united, territorially." But nobody except a political hack in the legislature or on the bench would say that I-80 and I-74 are "compact" because the are "closely united" at their point of intersection.

The drafters of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 were fully aware of what the 1895 Illinois

Supreme Court had done when they reinserted the "compact" requirement into the Constitution of 1970. But they again failed to define "compact!" So the legislature, and the court following its their earlier precedent, have once again ignored the plain meaning of the word — just as they did in 1895.


Nevertheless, the drafters clearly understood the importance of the "compactness" requirement. The Report of the Legislative Committee which proposed the language adopted by the 1970 Convention. It stated:


"Perhaps no standards for drawing legislative district boundaries possess a longer history than the traditional standards of compactness and contiguity. In our present Constitution, these standards are found in both Sections 6 and 7. These standards directly reflect the objective of improving legislative representation through seeking to insure that districts are not gerrymandered."


Presently the Illinois Senate consisted of 41 Democrats and 18 Republicans. The House consists of 73 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Democrats therefore have absolute control of both houses. The Republicans are utterly irrelevant. In Congress, the Democrats hold 13 of 18 seats.


You can see the results of Democrat gerrymandering — with judicial approval. Just look at the 2011 maps. Or look at the new 2021 maps the Democrats have just trotted out. [Of course, the Republican would do the same thing if they had the power.]


Proposed Illinois Senate Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewerll=40.08707930358038%2C88.48127570835499&z=8&mid=1X9lSD13vTX_-4oIyWqstGk8e1VFGJ_i2

Proposed Illinois House Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=1L7I2r4gat9nRWx9wfaizpn7XkA7i1qL4&ll=39.79510521942542%2C-89.50414500000001&z=6



To see what the Illinois Democrats perceive to be "compact," simply look at the present Illinois Congressional map. Can any sane man honestly describe existing Congressional districts 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, as "compact?" This map reduces the redistricting process to crass political cynicism.

https://www.ilga.gov/CongressionalDistrictMaps/Statewide%20View.pdf


As a result of the Democrat gerrymandering in Illinois has been ruled by one-party government for the last 10 years. This map is designed to guarantee that elections are non-competitive. It succeded.

So what's my solution?


As I have no confidence the Illinois Supreme Court will construe the word "compact" as the drafters who wrote our constitutions intended, I see only two possible solutions:


(1) Elect holy angels to draw the map; or (2) amend the Illinois Constitution to provide:

All districts shall be compact — squares, rectangles or triangles. No district shall have more than four sides. All sides shall be straight lines, unless one or more sidesor the sides are the state boundry lines. No arcs, no curves, no squiggles. The only factor, beyond shape, that may be considered in drawing the district's lines is population equality.


Or if the politicians would choke on my solution, they might check out Iowa's. Iowa's Congressional Districts are pretty darn "compact." Copy the Iowa system!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa%27s_congressional_districts


In Iowa there are only four Congressional Districts. Indication that the Iowa system works, is that from the 2014 election until the 2018 elections, Republican held 3 of 4 seats. In 2018, Democrats grabbed 3 of 4 seats. In 2020, Republicans 3 of 4 seats back.




Democracy works best when the voters can "throw the bums out"— whether they are Republican bums or Democrat bums.



Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 14, 2021 under the caption "Level the Playing Field."

Biden's contradictions undermine his message

Once upon a time, journalist were taught to give the "who, what, when and where" when writing their news stories. But it is increasingly difficult for even the most conscientious journalist to get those questions answered when they seek answers from high government officials and bureaucrats. President Donald Trump said one thing; Dr. Anthony Fauci contradicted him. Then Fauci went on a flip-flopping binge. President Joe Biden says one thing today, and the opposite tomorrow; and even worse, says one thing, and does the exact opposite. After all the "little sidesteps," how can any American have trust in what any government official tells them?


On Aug. 4, the Dispatch-Argus published an article from Capitol News Illinois by Jerry Nowicki. When I finished reading it, I found myself asking the question, "Is this really useful information?"

I have never attended journalism school, but had I written the piece, I would have tried to answer the following questions.

A. New Covid hospitalizations in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the Delta variant?



B. New Covid cases in intensive care in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois placed in intensive care with the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the Delta variant?


C. New Deaths from Covid in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois died from the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois died from the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois died from the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois died from the Delta variant?


I suggest that if the above twelve questions were honestly answered, the readers of the Dispatch-Argus would have the information they need to make rational decisions for themselves. They would not have to rely upon the changing and contradictory statements made from day to day by their elected officials and the bureaucrat "experts."


It seems incredible to me that the government would not keep such statistics.

And if the government doesn't keep such statistics, why not? If not, how can any government make intelligent decisions without the answers to these 12 questions?

If a democracy is going to work, the citizens have to be given full and honest information. Voters can't intelligently vote if they are fed gobbledygook by their elected officials and the bureaucrats.

Do I blame Jerry Nowicki for writing an article that raises more questions than it answers? No. I blame government officials, the CDC and the Illinois Department of Public Health for failing to provide straight answers to really important questions that every American needs answered.

I understand viruses can mutate, and what was good advice yesterday may not be good advice as the virus mutates. But it is the height of irresponsibility for Biden to restrict travel to the U.S. from the U.K., Ireland and 26 countries in Europe, as well as South Africa, to slow transmission of COVID-19, while throwing our Southern border open to Covid-infected migrants, and releasing 1500 Covid-infected migrants into McAllen, Texas, to infect anybody they come in contact with.

In the words of the Wall Street Journal, "If the president wants the public to defer to public-health officials when it comes to masking and social distancing, he can't expect people to ignore these same officials when they tell us that large numbers of recent migrants may be contributing to the crisis."

The president's pathetic double standard undermines every sound part of his message.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 19, 2021

So Why is the U.S. Closed to Cuban Immigrants? — Another Biden Double Standard

Do you still believe what the Biden administration tells you? If so, wake up!

On March 3, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to increase "refugee admissions" into the U.S.

It reads:

"It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin.


"The United States Refugee Admissions Program embodies America’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable, and to stand as a beacon of liberty and refuge to the world. It’s a statement about who we are, and who we want to be. So we are going to rebuild what has been broken and push hard to complete the rigorous screening process for those refugees already in the pipeline for admission."

The executive order was consistent with his pre-election promises. Since the day Donald Trump was elected, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, the "Squad," and virtually every Democrat have been proclaiming — or perhaps bellowing — that our Southern border must be open to refugees seeking to escape persecution in their native countries, that this country must take all comers, and that they must be released and given a date in the future when their claims of persecution will be adjudicated.


But now when the people of Cuba take to the streets to protest their government's one-party rule, incompetence, brutality, and violation of human rights, suddenly our country's doors are slammed shut by Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. They will not be allowed entry here, even if they demonstrate genuine fear of being persecuted, imprisoned or tortured on their islands.

"If individuals make, establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture, they are referred to third countries for resettlement. They will not enter the United States."

"Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States,"

"The time is never right to attempt migration by sea. To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking."

Fleeing from Cuba to the U.S., across 90 miles of unpredictable open sea, via small boat is undeniably a dangerous venture. You have to be absolutely desperate to do it. The gamble that Cubans take risking their lives in small boats should say to any open-minded American that life in millionaire-socialist Bernie Sanders' Cuban socialist paradise is a delusion of a deranged mind. No sane man would put his family in an open boat and cross 90 miles of open sea without calculating that living in Cuba is worse than dying at sea. Taking the trip is presumptive evidence of a good faith and genuine fear of being persecuted, imprisoned or tortured by Cuba's communist government.


Moreover, any country that gives a damn about the welfare of its people wouldn't force people who wanted out to cross a small ocean in a small boat. If Cuba was a free country, like Marxist Bernie and "the Squad" contend, it would allow its dissatisfied citizens to emigrate to the U.S. or elsewhere via safe ocean-going ships, or by airplane.


And if Mayorkas really fears the dangers of the trip across 90 miles of open-water, why doesn't he, assuming that he is a reasonable man, have a similar fear for the safety of families, women and children making the trek from Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Or is a 90-mile voyage across open-water really that much more dangerous than a 1,323 mile trip from Guatemala City to the Texas border? Are women and children really safer traversing deserts in the hands of drug cartels and across Covid-infested lands than they'd be in open boats? At least women and girls traveling in small boats with their families don't get raped.


Now, re-read President Biden's executive order. Is their any exception for "Cubans who show up in small boats?"


Bottom line. You're welcome if you risk your life and pay the drug cartels to bring you 1,500 miles to the U.S. You are not welcome if you risk your life in a small boat to come 90 miles without enriching the drug cartels.


So why are our shores closed to Cubans? I am just cynical enough to believe it is because Cuban refugees have the effrontery to vote Republican. Their experiences in the affairs of life have taught them never again to vote for socialists, Marxists or totalitarians.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 6, 2021

Solutions to reduce street crime

Not long ago, I was playing golf, and got chased into a gazebo by a passing shower. Three other men, all Black, also took shelter. I didn't know them; they didn't know me. They talked, and I just listened. One of the men said he had worked as an Illinois prison guard. A second, indicated that he had taught in the Chicago school system for 20 years. Both began talking about "gangs." The man who worked at Thomson said that if you wanted to survive in prison, you had to pick your gang. The teacher said that the same was true in the minority neighborhoods of Chicago.


Their point was that, either in Thomson prison or the minority neighborhoods of Chicago, trying to survive without joining a gang was to invite retribution of all the gangs. The teacher put much of the blame on crack cocaine. He said it destroyed families and minority neighborhoods which had previously been safe places to raise a family. Why the men chose to discuss these matters in front of me, I don't know.


But from my experience on the bench, what they said had the ring of truth. Then, one of my retired colleagues sent me an article that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 6, entitled, "Chicago's most violent weekend of 2021: 104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded."


The Sun-Times states that, "Through July 4, ... 2,019 people have been shot in Chicago this year, an increase of almost 13%, compared to the year before, and a 58% increase in shootings compared with 2019.

• " ... a 15-year old boy was critically hurt in a drive-by shooting...."

• That followed an attack when "two people were killed and four wounded, including a 12-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy in Washington Park on the South Side."


• "That happened around the same time that a 6-year-old girl and a woman were shot in West Pullman, and about four hours after an 11-year-old boy and a man were shot in Brainerd on the South Side."

• "A 21-year-old man, shot twice in the head, and a 26-year-old man, shot in the torso, were pronounced dead ...."

My colleague asked me, "What's the solution?"


I would begin by asking, "Who do we want to run the prisons? The guards or the inmates? Who do we want controlling the streets of Chicago? The gangs or the police?


The statistics cited by the Sun-Times provide the obvious answer for any rational person: We want the guards to run the prisons; we want the police to run the streets. But America is a democratic republic, and the voters can choose to live in cities without police protection. They can do that by electing idiots as their mayors and members of their city council. Once in office, these idiots can defund the police, strip away their immunity, prohibit the use of force by policemen and prohibit "stop-and-frisk."

That is what is happening in Chicago, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, etc.


In defunding and defanging the police, these idiots create a vacuum, which is quickly filled by the gangs. The results are always predictable. Over the 4th, in Chicago the result was "104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded." How many of these were shot by gang-bangers? Were any shot by police officers?


So what is my solution? My solution would include at least the following:


1. Adequately fund the police;


2. Hire enough police officers to do the job;


3. Train them to be high-quality, color-blind policemen — to judge by character.


4. Keep [or reinstate] "qualified police immunity." If an officer is going to face personal liability and jury trial every time he uses force, or intervenes in good faith, no officer in his right mind will risk using force.


5. Reinstate the use of "stop-and-frisk." No citizen likes to be stopped and frisked by an officer who believes he has reasonable grounds or a reasonable suspicion for doing a pat-down search. But gang members don't buy guns the way law-abiding citizens do. They acquire their guns via theft or the black market. A pat-down search is only a slight, albeit unpleasant, inconvenience for a person not carrying a gun. A cop cannot find what isn't there. But to the gang member carrying a gun illegally, it poses a grave risk of jail or prison. Illegal possession is an easy crime to prove. It is the most effective means of gun control for those who would illegally acquire guns. The choice is clear: brief, unpleasant inconvenience, or "104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded."


6. When officers go beyond the "qualified immunity" accorded them by the U.S. Supreme Court, prosecute them to insure public confidence in the justice system.


7. And perhaps most importantly, don't vote for idiots. Judge candidates by their character.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 22, 2021

AdChoices

Sponsored

A Formula to Stop Violence

The Dispatch-Argus wrote last month of "an altercation among large groups of people," during which nearly 80 shots were fired in Davenport's Redstone parking ramp. "No one was known to be injured" but windows in the Figge Art Museum and the Davenport Sky Bridge were damaged.

An "altercation?" Really? I thought an "altercation" was a "noisy argument or disagreement." When 80 shots are fired it's a hell of a lot more than an argument.

Davenport's police chief, the NAACP and Davenport Peace decried the violence.

Decrying violence and/or praying for peace isn't going to get the job done.

The city has asked for help from Gov. Kim Reynolds and Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst. The city wants federal help and has asked the governor to send in Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation personnel to help with the forensics.

My mother used to say, "God helps those who help themselves."

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with getting forensic help from the Iowa DCI, the FBI or ATF. Careful gathering of evidence at a crime scene, and carefully analyzing evidence is always sound police practice. Getting help from experts is a good idea. But the prosecution of crime in Scott County is primarily a local issue. That means the job of prosecuting Scott County criminals is primarily the job of the local (Davenport) police, and the Scott County Attorney — and not the governor, the U.S. senators, the NAACP, social workers, BLM or President Joe Biden. And crime isn't a matter of black or white. When 80 shots are fired in a downtown parking ramp, it is a matter of miscreants wantonly endangering human life — including entirely innocent human life — and property.

The age-old purposes of having criminal laws are straight forward:

(1) Protect the public — the decent law-abiding families in the community.  

(2) Punish the offender with penalties commensurate to the crime.
(3) Deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes.
(4) Place the criminal in the facility best suited to his rehabilitation, taking account of the nature and circumstances of his crime.

If you want a formula to stop this armed violence? Here it is:

(1) When there has been an arrest, set the bond at a level commensurate with the intentional, wanton or reckless harm — or threat of harm — to the public. Pre-trial release is generally a worthy goal, but it must be balanced against the need to protect the public — especially, if the evidence of guilt of a wanton, dangerous crime of violence is great. Strike the balance.

(2) If you are a prosecutor, prosecute. Think open plea or trial, rather than plea bargain — unless you get almost exactly what you want. A criminal who wantonly sprays the neighborhood with gun fire deserves to be hammered. Your primary job is to protect the public from such miscreants. The punishment must be such that it will guarantee the defendant will not again have the chance to repeat his crime in the near future. And it must be sufficiently severe to deter every other gang-banger in the city. They have to fear that if they commit a like crime and get caught, they will lose their freedom for a substantial period. Eschew any plea bargain that does not accomplish this end. And, very importantly, if trial is required, bring the case to trial within 60 days. The longer the case sits, the greater the chance of witnesses disappearing or being intimidated.

(3) If you are the judge, give the guy a fair trial, but remember that you can undo all the good work of the police and the prosecutor by imposing a sentence not commensurate with protecting the public, punishing the wanton act, and deterring the defendant and others. Where the criminal acts, like those in the present case, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly endanger the lives not only of the intended victim(s), but every other innocent man, woman and child within the range of the gun shots, make your record to show that in the case, on balance, protecting the public, punishing the criminal and deterring the defendant and others are substantially more important than worrying about the possible, and perhaps illusory, rehabilitation of the defendant. In cases of this sort, there are few good excuses for not bringing the case to trial within 60 days.

No continuance should be for more than two weeks.

This sort of crime won't be stopped by well-meaning social workers, or insane schemes to "defund the police." The choice is clear: make criminal activity too dangerous to engage in, or become the next Portland.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 8, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

When the "Marketplace of Ideas" is Shut Down

In 1919, in Abrams v. U. S., Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes tried to explain to the American people why the Founding Fathers opted for freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment, rather than censorship.

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe ... that the ultimate good desired is better reached by the free trade of ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." 

In 1953, another great Supreme Court justice, William O. Douglas, echoed Holmes in United States v. Rumely in 1953:

"These tracts may be the essence of wisdom to some; to others their point of view and philosophy may be anathema. To some ears their words may be harsh and repulsive; to others they may carry the hope of the future. ... Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.

"The aim of the historic struggle for a free press was 'to establish and preserve the right of the English people to full information in respect of the doings or misdoings of their government.' ... Censorship or previous restraint is banned. ... The [First Amendment's] command that 'Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press' has behind it a long history. It expresses the confidence that the safety of society depends on the tolerance of government for hostile as well as friendly criticism, that in a community where men's minds are free, there must be room for the unorthodox as well as the orthodox views."

When I was in law school at Notre Dame, one of my professors, Robert E. Rhodes, Jr., opined that our U.S. democracy functions best when small "bureaucracies" vie with each other to gain the public's attention.


If you are not worried about America's direction, you should be. Monopoly is once again rearing its ugly head. Monopoly, the deadly enemy of free enterprise and of the American consumer, is also the mortal enemy of free thought, speech, press and religion


There are certain things our government is barred from doing by our Bill of Rights. It cannot shut down or censor free speech, consistently with the First Amendment. Nor can it establish its favored religion.


But what if, instead of shutting down all criticism itself, it encourages and allows its cronies in the media to do the shutdown or engage in censorship on its behalf?


For over 200 years the American press has wrapped itself with the First Amendment and gloried in printing discordant ideas. Now suddenly in the age of "woke," all ideas and speech that might undermine its own cherish dogmas must be suppressed. The marketplace of ideas is being shut down. The swamp knows best.


But when Facebook, Twitter, the major TV networks and the newspapers deny discordant opinions space on their respective platforms, what does that do to the free speech rights of the American people? Is there a practical difference to our free speech rights if, instead of the government telling the press it cannot print certain stories or opinion, the press voluntarily engages in "conscious parallelism" to suppress the very stories the government would choose to kill?


That "contest of idea" is less likely to exist when the Nexstar Media Group owns 197 TV stations, and controls numbers of others. Or when in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, when "Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time. It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users .... Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means."


During the newsboy strike of 1899, Joseph Pulitzer is reputed to have said, "If it's not in the papers, it never happened." When "disfavored" Americans wrote that the Covid virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and/or implied that Hunter Biden and those around him were on the payroll of Communist China, Twitter and Facebook deleted those allegations from their platforms. The mainstream media refused to air them on their TV networks, and refused them space in their newspapers. The justification was that they were "false news" or "denials of science." Very similar justifications were used by Hitler, Stalin and Mao used to destroy free press in their countries.


In 1868, when the first Memorial Day celebrations were held on Arsenal Island — two local little "bureaucracies" — provided very different coverage. The Rock Island Union commended the proceedings. The Rock Island Evening Argus bitterly denounced them. When I was a boy in Chicago, my parents subscribed to the Tribune, the Daily News, the Herald American and the Sun Times. They rarely agreed on anything.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 22, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Leaders are willing to do what they require of their people

In the United States, government officials normally enjoy either "absolute immunity" or "qualified immunity" against being sued personally for money damages.

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the president enjoys "absolute immunity," and cannot be sued for money damages in his personal capacity for his official acts as president.

Members of Congress engaged in the legislative process enjoy similar "absolute immunity."

Without this immunity, they could be sued, like any other citizen, for money damages for their negligent acts. If a jury found that they had failed to use "reasonable care," they could be ordered to pay damages out of their own pockets. Every time they exercised their discretion, even in the best of faith, believing they were acting "reasonably," they could be second-guessed by a jury.

Strip away that immunity, and the president and every member of Congress would be paralyzed out of fear of losing their homes, savings and income.

The Supreme Court has granted them absolute immunity, because without it, every one of them would probably be sued every time they exercised executive or legislative discretion. National laws and executive orders, while they may benefit someone, almost always aggrieve someone else.

So while enjoying "absolute immunity" themselves, President Joe Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Rep.Karen Bass, D-California, support legislation which would abolish "qualified immunity" for police officers.Their justification for this insanity, is that America is a "systematically racist country" and systematic racism is rampant in our nation's police departments.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine of "qualified immunity." It protects police officers "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Police officers have been granted "qualified immunity" because it is impossible to write a statute governing every aspect of police conduct — such as an officer's right to use of deadly force. It is impossible to specify exactly when the officer can use deadly force, and how much force he can use.

For that reason, the relevant statute in Illinois in pertinent part reads:

"A peace officer ... is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person ...."

The statute clearly and necessarily vests the officer with great discretion.

He can use deadly force if he has (1) a reasonable belief (2) based on the totality of the circumstance that (3) such force (4) is necessary.

But without "qualified immunity" his exercise of discretion as to each of the listed four elements, is subject to second-guessing, or de novo review by jurors — every time the officer exercises his discretion. To put it bluntly, without "qualified immunity" police officers will be sued every time they exercise their discretion.

But if you are a policeman, why would you intervene in a situation where you might be required to exercise your discretion and use deadly force, if you know that if you act, you may lose home, savings and reputation?

Without "qualified immunity" it is open season for suits against police officers — even those who did everything perfectly. Whether the officer's use of force was "reasonable" or "necessary" is always a jury question, as is the question, "did the officer take account of all relevant circumstances?"

Years ago, when I was in basic training, a drill sergeant told us that a leader does not ask his men to do things he is unwilling to do himself.

In 1951, the "11 Principles of Leadership" were first published in an Army Field Manual. Here are a few germane excerpts:


    Leaders ... are willing to do what they require of their people.

    Leaders share hardships with their people.

    Set the example — people want and need their leaders to be role models.

    Telling your people you care about them has no meaning unless they see you demonstrating it.


If the principles of leadership mean anything, and if Biden, Pelosi, et al., really believe the police should be stripped of "qualified immunity," let them lead the way and give up their "absolute immunity."

Don't ask your men and women to face personal liability, unless you are willing to risk your own personal wealth.

If this country is "systematically racist," as claimed, fix the problem at the top as well as the bottom. If you believe that every cop — black and white — is a racist, do you really believe Biden and Pelosi, et al., aren't?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 8, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Which vision to you choose?

By public law, Congress has directed the president by proclamation to annually designate the first Thursday in May as a "National Day of Prayer." This year President Joe Biden became the first known president to issue the required proclamation without mentioning God in it. Was that omission a mere oversight? Is there a God? If not, why pray? Without God, is there any objective good? Or is all "good" relative?

Two Americans have had diametrically opposed views on these matters. Read their words. You decide which road America should take.

American #1 was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

"We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

"We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

"We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.

"We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only.

"I have a dream that one day ... the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

"I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi ... will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

"I have a dream that one day down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

"I have a dream that one day ... the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

American #2 is Saul Alinski, who has become the Apostle of the Left.

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

"In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution."

"An organizer ... does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. ... We live in a world where 'good' is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get."

"Life and how you live it is the story of 'means' and 'ends.' The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of 'means' and 'ends' in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem. He thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of 'ends' only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."

"[The Have Nots] hate the establishment of the Haves with its arrogant opulence, its police, its courts, and its churches. Justice, morality, law, and order, are mere words when used by the Haves, which justify and secure their status quo."

"One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both
with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must
always be for the latter.

"Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrafices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them.”

"It is a world ... where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles."

"A leader ... must assume that his cause is 100 percent positive, and that the opposition's is 100 per cent negative."

Which dream is yours? Is there a God? Has he told us what is "good?" Or is "good" "relative?"


Does whatever we "want" become "good?"


What do you choose? Brotherhood? Hatred? Personal corruption for the mass salvation? Do the ends justify the means? Is the opposition always 100% wrong?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 21, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea