Merry Christmas to All

Something is missing in my neighborhood this year. There are few outdoor Christmas lights and decorations. In other neighborhoods, many houses are still brightly decorated, but not in mine.

It wasn’t terribly long ago that most homes in my neighborhood were decorated. But not anymore.

As I drove down a dark street near my home the other evening, my thoughts recurred to a Christmas in a suburb just North of Chicago. We moved there in December of 1948. I was in second-grade at the time.

I can still vividly recall my mother’s younger brother, Dan, coming to our home, at mom’s request about a week before Christmas. He came to put up multi-colored outdoor lights on the evergreens in front of our front bay window, and up the trellis that supported the roof over our front porch — in the zero-degree weather. Mom had noticed that our home was the only home on our block without lights. She loved the lights. It was her way of saying “Merry Christmas!” to our neighbors, including those down the block that we had yet to meet.

A couple nights later, the weather grew milder and mom decided we should all see the lights in the more affluent section of our village, on the other side of Cicero Avenue. I can still recall the avenues with bumper-to-bumper traffic. It looked as if everybody on the northside of Chicago had the same idea. Some homes seemed to have 1000 of the old 9-volt colored lights.

The streets of “the Towers” were vibrant and beautiful.

Near the end of our tour, we came upon the Allgauer Home — the home of Gustav “Gus” Allgauer of restaurant fame. His home was ablaze with lights. The large two-car garage had been converted into a living Nativity set. Mary and Joseph and the shepherds were neighbors in costume. Sheep and a donkey, if I recall correctly, and a camel played themselves. Christmas carols played softly in background.

In the years that followed, my brother Tom and I replace Uncle Dan as mom’s outdoor Christmas light putter-uppers. I loved putting the lights up and seeing the house and our neighborhood homes decorated for Christmas. We did it every year as long as we lived there.

And so did the neighbors. I can still recall colored lights shining through the 18-inches of snow, dumped by the “Great Christmas Eve blizzard” of 1950.

The Allgauers also continued to decorate, but a bit more modestly. The animals made no return appearance. It seems there were complaints from the various neighbors — or perhaps the Grinch — about the animals partying and celebrating into the wee hours of the night, and even until the dawn.

Since buying my first home in the Quad Cities, I have maintained mom’s custom of outdoor Christmas decoration. It’s been our way of saying, “Merry Christmas” to the neighbors I know, as well as those whom I have never met.

May our lights, and the others, remind you of the real reason we celebrate Christmas.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 18, 2022. 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

The Mainstream American Press — a Press Unworthy of its Name

I always trusted that American newspapers, radio and TV would be our foremost and staunchest defenders of our First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. It appears that I was terribly naïve.


I always thought that American press hated the thought of government censorship and prior restraints. Here again, I was dead wrong!


I always thought that the American press would scream “bloody murder” at any government attempt to suppress coverage of news unfavorable to the government or a particular political party. It appears, I was a fool.


Instead, a huge segment of the American press — including this newspaper — seems to be operating on the premise that “If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen!”


By way of background, in 2020, Twitter admittedly, and Facebook and Google, in all probability, at the urgings of agents of the U.S. Government conspired and colluded to deny the American people information about the “Hunter Biden laptop story” — information that could possibly have changed the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Had that now admittedly truthful information been made public, and further and fully investigated by an honest and vigilant press worthy of its name, a few thousand voters in three key states might have voted for Trump instead of Biden. Sadly, we will never know.

Would it have made a difference to the voters had they known that in Hunter Biden’s dealings with Communist China, that Hunter was demanding 10% for the “Big Guy?” Who else other than candidate Joe Biden could the “Big Guy” have been. What else could “10 held by H for the big guy” have meant?


The New York Post reported on the story. Whether the New York Post’s story was truthful was for the American people to decide; not for political operatives in the U.S. government to decide.


This information was suppressed on numerous dishonest, make-weight premises: it was hacked, it was “Russian election meddling,” “it was disinformation,” “it was misinformation,” “it was false,” etc.


The problem with all these justifications,” is that the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The determination of whether a story is “hacked, Russian meddling, disinformation, misinformation or false” is left exclusively to the American people — not to the U.S. government!


The government of the United States has no power to censor political speech. Censorship is not one of the “express powers” granted to any of the three branches of the U.S. Government.


Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has long ago held that all three branches of the government are expressly prohibited by the 1st Amendment from abridging freedom of speech or the press.


In the 1857 Dred Scott case, the U. S. Supreme Court held that if Congress lacked constitutional power to do something, it could not delegate that non-existent power to any creature of government., such as a territorial government or agency.


I know of no federal court case that states that where the U.S. government is expressly forbidden to do something under the 1st Amendment — such as abridging free speech or free press — that it can evade that 1st Amendment’s prohibition by acting through private individuals or private corporations. If that’s the law, the 1st Amendment is a dead letter.


And that brings me to the crux of this op ed — the refusal of the mainstream media — including this newspaper — to report on the release of Twitter’s internal emails by Elon Musk — emails that Musk has given an independent journalist, Matt Taibbi, relative to the Hunter Biden laptop.


Remember, that at this point in time, even the NY Times has conceded that the Hunter Biden laptop story it true.

On December 2, 2022, Taibbi released the first thread of Twitter emails. You can read them yourselves — but sadly not in this newspaper.


The First Amendment grants the government no power whatsoever to impose a ”prior restraint” to prevent the American people from seeing a story, and from forming their own judgment as it’s truth or falsity. It is for the American people, and not the government, to decide whether the account is Russian meddling, disinformation, misinformation, or utter falsehood. In America, given our First Amendment, whether the information is meddling, disinformation, etc., is a question to be determine in the “public forum” — the “marketplace of ideas.” The premise of the First Amendment is that if the people hear all sides of the issue, they will come to the correct judgment. There is no other rule consistent with the operation of a democratic republic.


The suppression of speech — especially political speech — is the hallmark of totalitarian government — of Hitler, Stalin, the Castro brothers, the Chinese Communists ….


The mainstream media has a duty to let the American people see what their government and its agents have done to emasculate the 1st Amendment. So does this newspaper.


And what is more chilling, is that this may be but the “tip of the iceberg.”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on December 11, 2022. 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

The appearance of impropriety causes polarization of the parties

Tuesday, November 8, 2022, was “mid-term election day.” On November 17, the Republicans finally won seat number 218 to give them control of the U.S. House of Representatives, when Mike Garcia was finally declared the winner of a seat in Northern Los Angeles County.

As I write this piece, 10 days after the election, five House seats are still undecided. 25% of the ballots unbelievably still remain uncounted in California District 22!

The Rules of Ethics, governing the conduct of judges, mandate that it is not enough that a judge acts with “propriety.” The judge’s action must also be free from the “appearance of impropriety.” Judges have been sanctioned, even though they committed no wrong, in cases where their actions have given rise to an “appearance of impropriety.”

If our elections are to have the confidence of the American people, that same rule must be equally applicable to our national elections — they must be free of the appearance of impropriety.

When an election takes place on November 8, and when the “counting” of ballots continues on into November 18, it gives the appearance that whoever is counting ballots is committed to continue counting until he “finds” enough ballots for his candidate to win.

When an Arizona Secretary of State, charged with the duty of conducting the election and counting the ballots, continues to count ballots a week after the election, there is an “appearance,” even if not a “reality,” that she is continuing to count until she finds enough ballots to guarantee her own election as governor.

When an operative of either political party goes to a nursing home, provides the residents with blank ballots, assists the residents in filling them out, “harvests” them, and then delivers them to a “drop off box,” that also creates an appearance of impropriety.


In 2004, the Commission on Federal Election Reform was created by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican, in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. The Commission’s Report began, 

"Elections are the heart of democracy. They are the instruments for the people to choose leaders and hold them accountable. At the same time, elections are a core public function upon which all other government responsibilities depend. If elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.

"Americans are losing confidence in the fairness of elections, and while we do not face a crisis today, we need to address the problems of our electoral system."

Sadly, since that date, we have had three major crises.

1. After the 2016 election, when the Democrats and Mueller investigated President Trump, culminating in Trump’s first impeachment for “Russian Collusion.”

2. Stacey Abrams claimed she was the winner of the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election, and that the election was stolen from her.

3. President Trump still claims that he won the 2020 election, and that Democrats stole the it from him.

The result of the “major crises” is that a great many people do not trust the results of our elections. Even worse, the country daily grows increasingly divided.

All three of these “major crises” are premised on the belief that our elections are/were not secure.

You’ve heard the claims: “There was Russian tampering!” “The ballots were filled in by the ballot harvesters!” “The voting machines are programmed to undercount Republican/Democrat (take your pick) ballots!”


The CFER proposed the following reforms, which still make sense:

• A universal system of voter registration in which the states, and not local governmental units, would be responsible for accurate voter lists. Voters would register only once during their lifetimes. The lists would be inter-connected to allow for easy removal of duplicate registrations and for easy updating.

• To ensure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, states would provide free photo IDs. To make acquisition of the free ID easy, States would increase the number of registration sites.

• Provisional ballots would be provided for voters without a photo ID during a transitional period, which would be counted upon signature verification.

• Voting machines and the software would be pre-tested by independent testing-providers.

• An auditable paper backup system would be used to give confidence to voters using electronic voting machines that their votes will be counted accurately.

• State election management bodies would be reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis to seek to insure independence and effectiveness.

Florida and Georgia required photo IDs in the 2022 election. Have you heard a single claim the requirement disenfranchised voters? Minorities? Caused long lines? What important thing can you do in your life without a photo ID?

The CFER made no recommendation concerning “ballot harvesting.” It didn’t exist in those days. But the solution is simple. Permit ballot harvesting only where a representative of each major party is present to ensure that there is no undue influence by the other party, and that the vote harvested is really the voter’s, not the harvester’s, and video the “harvesting party.”

The appearance that elections are entirely fair eliminates one major justification for the polarization of the two political parties.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 27, 2022. 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

Legislatures cannot tell judges to ignore the most material facts in setting bail

Beginning in 2023, Illinois will have a new law governing pretrial release on bond. Prosecutors are decrying the new law, labeling it “cashless bail.”

While the new law is hardly a model of clarity, I am not sure that it mandates “cashless bail.”

As a starting point, let’s look at the bail law that was in effect during my judgeship.

In the 26 years when I was on the bench, bail in Illinois criminal cases was governed by the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 38, Sections 110-1 thru 110-17.

While other forms of bail were provided for, the two forms that were almost exclusively used were 10% bonds and Recognizance Bonds. The two most important conditions of those two bonds were (1) that the defendant should appear for trial and for all court hearings and (2) that the defendant should not violate any criminal laws while released on bond.

The difference between the 10% bond and the recognizance bond was simple. If the judge set a cash bail for the pre-trial release of the accused, if the bond was set at $5,000, the defendant had to post $500 to be released. If the judge allowed the defendant to be released on a $5,000 Recognizance Bond, the defendant merely signed his name and was not required to post any money. Regardless of the form of the bond, if the defendant violated his bond, the bond could be forfeited and a judgment entered against the defendant for the full amount of the bond (in this example, $5,000).

In those days, the legislature provided in 110 §2:

“When from all the circumstances the court is of the opinion that the accused will appear as required …, the accused may be release on his own recognizance. 

 

“This Section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of relying on criminal sanctions instead of financial loss to assure the appearance of the accused.”

Between 1990 and 2000 when I was Presiding Judge in Criminal, release on recognizance, as shown above, was the expressed legislative preference. For a Class 4 felony cannabis offense, if the defendant had no prior record, the state would almost always agree to the defendant’s bond being a recognizance.

On the other hand, if the defendant was already on bond, probation or parole when the new felony offence was committed, or if the defendant’s record suggested that he was unlikely to appear for trial, or likely to commit additional offenses if released on bond, the 10% bond was used. That was also true in more serious felonies such as burglary, robbery and larger thefts.

My rule of thumb as a judge was to release the accused on recognizance if asked to do so, unless his record suggested that he (a) was likely to jump bond, or (2) his pre-trial release would create a danger to law-abiding citizens and/or their property.


The new Senate bill, begins by stating:

The General Assembly recognizes that the promotion of public safety and protection of crime victim rights are two of the main focuses of our State's criminal justice system; it further acknowledges that protecting the rights of the accused is central to the integrity of our State's criminal justice system.

“… bail but shall instead focus on a person's threat to public safety or risk of failure to appear before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

The new section 110-5 provides:

“In determining the amount of monetary bail or conditions of release, if any, which will reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of bail, the court shall, on the basis of available information, take into account such matters as (some 20 factors are listed).

“There shall be a presumption that any conditions of release imposed shall be non-monetary in nature and the court shall impose the least restrictive conditions or combination of conditions necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant for further court proceedings and protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings from a specific threat to a witness or participant. Conditions of release may include ….”

I read the paragraph immediately above as doing nothing more (a) that creating a presumption or 

preference for “non-monetary” bail, and (b) providing that whether the release is monetary or non-

monetary, that the court shall impose “the least restrictive conditions … necessary.” In short, I read it, just as I read the applicable statute during my years on the bench.

What is bizarre about the paragraph is that legislature inexplicably ignores what it just said earlier in the introductory paragraph to the legislation:

“The General Assembly recognizes that the promotion of public safety and protection of crime victim rights are two of the main focuses of our State's criminal justice system….”

If in weighing the evidence whether to release the accused on “non-monetary” bail, the court cannot consider one of the two legislatively stated “main focuses of the State’s Criminal Justice System,” then the legislation is absurd. But where one interpretation of the law renders it absurd, and a second makes sense, courts opt for the latter result. An absurd process falls short of due process.

Imagine a statute that provided in imposing a sentence for murder, the court could not consider the danger the murderer posed to the public.

The courts of Illinois have jurisdiction over all “justiciable matters.” The legislature cannot tell a court how a case must be decided, or that clearly relevant evidence isn’t.

A statute that tells a court it can’t consider evidence that any reasonable judge would find material, and which the legislature itself says is a “main focus” in the matter, is an unconstitutional as an interference with the “inherent powers of the court” to provide a just result in the matter before the court.

For that reason, to avoid declaring the statute unconstitutional, it must be construed to allow judges to consider evidence that has been found by the legislature itself to be a “main focus,” and to set a mone-tary or non-monetary bond as the obviously material evidence dictates.



First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 13, 2022
Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

Begging the Saudis — Biden’s “dog and pony show”

  

                       

 

In July 2022, President Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia. While there, he asked the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salam (“MBS”) to increase oil production to help reduce the price of oil and gasoline in the United States. This week, the Saudis and their OPEC allies announced that they would, instead, cut oil production by two million barrels per day!

Compare this seeming kick in Biden’s face with Saudi/U.S. relations during the Trump Presidency.

On May 18, 2018, Reuters reported

“Saudi Arabia welcomed President Donald Trump’s decision … to withdraw the United States            from [President Obama’s 2015] … nuclear agreement with Iran and to reimpose economic sanctions on its arch-foe Tehran.

 

 “[Saudi Arabia] said it would work with the United States and the international community to address (a) Iran’s nuclear program, (b) its ballistic missile program and (c) its support of militant groups in the region. 

 

“[The Saudis claim that] Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destabilize the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region.” 

  

“Trump has frequently criticized the Iran accord because it does not address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its role in conflicts in Yemen and Syria, its nuclear activities beyond 2025, and the terms under which international inspectors can visit suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

So why are the Saudis cutting production rather than raising production?

Could it have anything to do with:

1.     The fact that the Saudis detested President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran? His removal of the economic sanctions the U.S. had imposed upon Iran? The U.S. giving to Iran, as part of the deal, billions of dollars which have been used to fund Iran’s proxy wars against the Saudis?

2.     The fact that then-candidate Biden, in a Democratic Presidential debate, following the assassination of opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi said,

“I would make it very clear we were not going to in fact sell more weapons to them. … We were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are … there is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia, and, … would end the sale of material to the Saudis where they’re going in and murdering [Yemeni] children.”

3.     Would it be in the interest of the Saudis to see oil prices decline? Is it better of the Saudis to sell oil at $130 per barrel or $40 per barrel?

4.     Might it have something to do with Biden’s attempts to revive Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran? Is it in the interest of the Saudis to see Iran with nuclear weapons? Ballistic missiles? Funding proxies? Shooting missiles into Saudi Arabia?

5.     Does “MBS” know that if the U.S. wants more oil all the U.S. has to do is turn on its own spigots? Become oil again“self-sufficient,” as it was in the Trump years? 

                                                       Or,

6.     Do the Saudis know Biden really wants insanely high gasoline prices to force the American people to buy electric cars? Regardless of cost?

Is this whole kerfuffle is “dog and pony show” created to allow Biden escape blame for his own “bughouse” oil polices? To gull an all-too-gullible American public into finding a new villain to blame for high prices. First, Biden blamed the oil companies. Then Putin. Now, “MSB” and the Saudi. And now, rather than pumping cleaner American oil, he wants of buy dirtier Iran and Venezuela oil — from our enemies! It appears that when Biden pledged “I would transition away for the oil industry,” he meant only away from the U.S. oil industry.

To become King of France, Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism: “Paris, is worth a Mass!” To become President, Biden belatedly “converted” to “The Green New Deal Religion.” He has said his goal is to force Americans to drive electric cars. Driving the price of gasoline up to $10 a gallon is the means to his end. 

One related thought: Three foolish Democrat Congressmen have now proposed legislation to punish the Saudis. “We see no reason why American troops … should continue to provide [weapons and protection] to countries that are actively working against us. If Saudi … want to help Putin, they should look to him for their defense.” 

This proposal is abject stupidity, comparable to Biden’s stupidity in forcing high gas prices. How is it to our benefit to have the Saudi, along with Iran, ally with Putin? 

The Saudis are clearly imperfect friends. But as between them and Iran, I choose the Saudis. Iran hates us. They were responsible for most of the IEDs that killed Americans in Iraq. They fund proxy wars throughout the middle east. The last thing we need to do, is force the Saudis into the arms of Russia or China. We allied with Stalin in WWII. The Saudis pale by comparison to Stalin’s regime. Obama proved we could shower the Iranians with $50B, and that they’d still hate our guts.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 16, 2022 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

 

 

 

 

Are you one of President Biden’s extremists?

Are you an extremist? A threat to our democracy? If you voted for President Trump and supported his policy of “Making America Great Again,” according to President Biden, it seems you are.

On September 1, 2022, at Independence Hall, President Biden charged,

"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic." "MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of the law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election."

The following Thursday, Biden added in a tweet, "Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."

On Thursday, prior to Mr. Biden’s speech, his spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre, explained the President’s view of Trump voters:

“The way that he sees it, is the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party. This is an extreme threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our rights.”

Who exactly are the Make America Great Again Republicans? In both the 2016 and 2020 elections, Mr. Trump’s platform was: “Make America Great Again!” In 2020, 74,223,369 Americans voted for Mr. Trump. Weren’t his voters, at the same time, voting for and endorsing Trump’s MAGA platform?

So, who exactly is Mr. Biden labeling as “extremists” when he charges MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution? They do not believe in the rule of the law?

Is he referring to the 74 million voters who voted for Mr. Trump? Or is he referring to the relative handful of January 6th fools who broke into the Capitol?

Note Jean-Pierre’s “explanation” of the president’s remarks “the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party.” Was she talking about the Capitol rioters? If so, aren’t almost all of them at the present either in jail awaiting trial or in prison? If Mr. Biden is indeed referring only to the January 6th fools, why not explicitly say so? Why label 76 million people who voted to “Make America Great Again” as “extremists?” “Semi-fascists?”

But then, criticism of Trump’s supporters has a long history. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton used the phrase "basket of deplorables" to describe “half” of Trump’s supporters.

But Donald Trump and his supporters are not the only extremists. Mr. Biden would include the six Supreme Court Justices who voted to overrule Roe v. Wade. Following the Dobbs decision, Mr. Biden condemned the six-judge majority and their ruling, labeling it as “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error. … This is an extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.”

And, of course, if the six justices who returned the abortion question to the states are “extremists,” it must follow that Americans who oppose all or some abortions” are also “extremists.” Jean-Pierre faithfully jumped in, and broadened the attack to include pro-lifers:

“When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

But if a May Gallup poll, and recent PEW poll are accurate, under Jean-Pierre's definition, it would seem the pro-abortion side is the minority, and therefore, the “extremists.”

Nor are parents who oppose school board policies spared being labeled “extremists.” Indeed, their fate is worse. The Heritage Foundation, in a commentary by John Malcolm, details how even parents of school children have been labeled “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” for opposing mask mandates and the teaching of “critical race theory.”

“In a Sept. 29 letter to President Biden, the president and the interim executive director and chief executive officer of the National School Boards Association claimed that “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.”

Citing a spate of disturbances at school board meetings, "by individuals who were upset about mask mandates and critical race theory curricula, … and stating that such incidents were impacting the delivery of educational services to students and families,” the letter requested Biden to deploy the Justice Department, the FBI (including its national Security Branch and Counterterrorism Division), the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service (including its National Threat Assessment Center) to combat the supposed threats.

The letter stated, without providing support, that “extremist hate organizations” were showing up at school board meetings, and that these protests should be characterized as “equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The letter demanded that “federal law enforcement authorities should employ the full array of tools at their disposal, including the Patriot Act, against these perpetrators of ‘domestic terrorism.’”

President Biden’s platform was that, if elected, he could heal the nation; bring Americans together again. He was a man who would work “across the aisle.” Were those just “campaign promises?” With all his name-calling, it’s as if he has forgotten that he won the 2020 election, and as if he is still running against Donald Trump? If indeed he has had a stellar two years as president, why isn’t he ballyhooing his triumphs?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 9, 2022 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

                               “Fentanyl killed 22-month-old.” 

That’s today’s lead headline in the Dispatch-Argus and Quad-City Times.

The article sets out the police affidavit, which alleges that the child’s mother and father

 “did knowingly use and sell controlled substances at/from their residence, which would create substantial risk to the well-being and physical safety of the victim, who was their 22-month-old son. … As a result of this risk, the victim was pronounced deceased, which the cause of death was later discovered as an acute drug (fentanyl) intoxication."

But was the fentanyl involved supplied by the Mexican drug cartels? What’s the likelihood? Perhaps we will find out if one of the cases actually goes to trial.

On at least two prior occasions in my op-eds, I have tried to raise the “hue and cry” as to the deadly dangers of fentanyl. On August 7, 2022, I wrote,

“Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate: … fentanyl … accounted for 71,238 deaths in 2021 ….

“The US Customs and Border Patrol website tells us that the eight South Texas ports of entry, during the year beginning Oct. 1, 2020 and ending Sept. 30, 2021, saw a 1,066% increase in fentanyl seized, and a 98% increase in cocaine seized.

“[N]early 4 times as many Americans are being killed by fentanyl as are being murdered by guns.”

Earlier, on March 17, 2022, I cited a proclamation made by President Biden showing his total awareness of the problem.

"I find that international drug trafficking — including the ... global sale and widespread distribution ... of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States."

So, what exactly is President Biden doing to stop the “international drug trafficking” (by the Mexican drug cartels) from creating this “extraordinary threat to the national security” by their “widespread distribution” of fentanyl?

What exactly is Mr. Biden doing to prevent 71,238 Americans from dying of fentanyl poisoning?

Specify any serious efforts Mr. Biden has made to close the border?

Instead, President Joe Biden blithely trips about the country, ranting that "Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country," and raving that “"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic." Not to mention, labeling a vague segment of Trump voters as “semi-nazis.”

And as he gallivants from town to town, thousands of American men, women and children are dying from fentanyl poisoning.

And while he reads from his teleprompter, the Mexican drug cartels are becoming ungodly wealthy and overwhelmingly powerful, as they daily seize control of more and more towns and regions in Mexico.

And why? Mr. Biden has made a crass political decision to keep the border open to illegal immigration, betting that those who cross illegally, and who are showered with taxpayer dollars, will be an ever-grateful and reliable Democrat voting block to assure the Democratic Party a permanent hold on political power.

President Biden turns a blind eye to the fact that in 2021 Mexican cartel drugs have accounted for 71,238 fentanyl, 32,856 meth, and 24,538 cocaine deaths. He turns a blind eye to the fact that through the first nine months of 2022, 750 migrants have died trying to cross the border illegally. And he turns a blind eye to the danger of the drug cartels that daily grow richer and more powerful, and to the fact that they are daily destroying the Mexican state.

We have a President, who rather than protecting the American people from the “widespread distribution ... of extremely potent drugs, such as fentanyl,” acts as “enabler-in-chief” for the poisoning of the American people and their children.

Joe Biden’s “approval rating” wallows in the 30s with likely American voters. His Democrat pollsters are polling the wrong people. They should poll the drug cartels. Mr. Biden’s “approval rating” might well exceed 100%!

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 2, 2022 

News of recession parroted White HouseTalking Points

What’s the function of a “free press?” To deceive? Obfuscate? Suppress?

Why does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

In the 1971 cases of New York Times v. U.S, and in U.S. v Washington Post [the “Pentagon Papers cases”], the U.S Government sought injunctive relief to stop the Times and Post from publishing the contents of a classified study. entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”

Six of the nine justices wrote their own concurring opinions in which, as the majority, they ruled against the Government’s request for a “prior restraint” [an injunction allowing censorship]. Four of the six-judges hesitated to say that a “prior restraint” could never be imposed. Mr. Justice Black believed, however, that when The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law,” “no law” means “no law.” I cite the Black and Douglas concurrences because they tell us most succinctly why the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of the press.”

Mr. Justice Black wrote,

“When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms.

 “They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. 

"In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. 

“Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment …

 “The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.

“Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment … wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: 'Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom * * * of the press * * *.'

 “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.

“The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

 “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

“The New York Times, the Washington Post … should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”

Mr. Justice Douglas wrote,

“The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be…

 “Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions there should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate….”

Justice Douglas, however, was also concerned with a press that acted inconsistently with its reason for having been granted such freedom.

“The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused … does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint ….”

So, if (a) “paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people,” and (b) “the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information,” what happens when the press joins in “government deception?” In suppressing “embarrassing information?”


On Thursday, July 28, 2022, The GDP numbers showed a “second consecutive quarter of negative growth.” That is the traditional definition of “a recession.” Nevertheless, the Washington Post headlined, “U.S. economy shrinks again in second quarter, reviving recession fears,” parroting White House talking points.

Do the “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” equal a “recession,” or merely “revive fears” thereof?

The White House argues, and the Post echoes, “the declaration of a “recession” must instead come from The National Bureau of Economic Research.” “This “two consecutive quarters” declaration only comes instead from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”

But since 1948, the last ten times we have had of “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” and “recessions” as per the BEAs analysis, the NBER subsequently confirmed that indeed all ten periods were “recessions!”

So, when the Post obfuscates the issue to protect the Administration, how is that consistent with the reason for having a free press?

Why not a headline reading, “Country slides into recession, but it may be mild.” Followed by an article explaining the term “recession” and stating why this one’s likely to be mild?

Why not put truth and credibility over partisanship?

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 14, 2022 

The staggering toll of fentanyl

Mass shootings are awful, but what about fentanyl poisonings?

Why do poisoning deaths caused by illegal drugs get so little national news coverage compared to deaths caused by mass shootings?

A mass shooting gets national, wall-to-wall coverage. How many individual murders on the streets of Chicago and our other great cities get even an iota of national coverage?

How many illegal-drug poisoning deaths even get noticed?


Here are a few uncomfortable facts.

• In 2020, there were 19,384 gun murders in the US.

• In 2020 there were 615 “mass shootings” in the USA. These resulted in 521 deaths.

• If in 2020 the mass shootings caused 521 deaths, 18,863 Americans were murdered in shootings, other than mass shootings. 97.3% of the murder victims murdered with guns were not victims of mass shootings.

• In 2020, fentanyl killed 57,834 Americans! In 2021, fentanyl killed 71,238 Americans!  

A. Gun Deaths in US in 2020

According to Pew Research, in 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

That figure includes primarily gun (a) murders and (b) suicides. But it also includes three other, less common types of gun-related deaths.

• In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths were suicides; a total of 24,292 suicides.

• In 2020, 43% of all gun-related deaths were murders; a total of 19,384 murders.

• Of the remaining 2020 gun deaths (a) 535 were unintentional; (b) 611 involved law enforcement; and (c) 400 were from undetermined circumstances.

The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 exceeded the previous peak of 18,253. However, while 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population.

On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

 B. Fentanyl, Meth and Cocaine Deaths in the US in 1920 and 1921

Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate:

• Synthetic Opioids (fentanyl) accounted for 71,238 deaths in 2021; 57,834 deaths in 2020.

• Psychostimulants (meth) accounted for 32,856 deaths in 2021; 24,576 deaths in 2020.

• Cocaine caused 24,538 deaths in 2021; 19,927 in 2020.

• Prescription drugs caused 13,403 deaths in 2021; 13,722 in 2020.


Do not misunderstand me. 615 mass shootings, resulting in 521 Americans being murdered is awful. But the murder of 18,863 is far worse. And the 24,538 poisoning deaths from cocaine in 2021 are even worse. As are the 32,856 meth poisoning deaths in 2021.

But fentanyl killed 71,238 Americans in 2021!

The staggering number of 71,238 fentanyl deaths in 2021 is only 5530 deaths less than the 76,768 deaths caused by gun murders, and poisonings by meth and cocaine, combined!

And when you combine the fentanyl deaths with those occasioned by meth and cocaine, you find that 128,632 Americans were killed by these three illegal drugs, as opposed to 19,384 killed by gun murders. Six times as many Americans were killed by fentanyl, meth and cocaine, as were murdered by guns!

The US Customs and Border Patrol website tells us that the eight South Texas ports of entry, during the year beginning Oct. 1, 2020, and ending Sept. 30, 2021, saw a 1,066% increase in fentanyl seized, and a 98% increase in cocaine seized.

At those eight entry ports, from Brownsville to Del Rio, the CBP seized (a) 41,713 pounds of marijuana; (b) 8,592 pounds of cocaine; (b) 33,777 pounds of methamphetamine; (d) 1,215 pounds of heroin; (e) 588 pounds of fentanyl; (f) 463 weapons; and (g) 84,863 rounds of ammunition.

The DEA states that 2.2 pounds of fentanyl has the potential to kill 500,000 people! CDC says a 3-milligram dose of fentanyl, is enough to kill an average-sized adult male. Fentanyl, according to the CDC, is up to 100 times more potent than morphine and many times more potent than heroin. Drug dealers are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.

So, what’s my point?

Every time there is a mass shooting, President Biden and his minions are all over the television demanding gun control, and the banning of certain weapons — proposals that ignore the fact that most criminals use guns that are stolen, or purchased on the black market.

But nearly four times as many Americans are being killed by fentanyl as are being murdered by guns. When it comes to fentanyl, Mr. Biden is back in his basement. Where is Joe Biden’s action to stop fentanyl, cocaine, meth and heroin from flooding across our open southern border?

How many Americans have to die so that the Mexican drug cartels can become richer? More destructive? How hard is it for the cartels, in the absence of Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall, to run illegal drugs into the US between our ports of entry?

When it comes to doing deeds to protect American lives from Mexican drug cartel fentanyl, America appears to have a feckless, uncaring president.

Mr. Biden has said that the stopping transportation of fentanyl across our southern border is a matter of “national defense.” Time for his deeds to match his words. Talk is cheap.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 7, 2022 

Congress should crack down on guns "found," stolen or acquired on the "street" or from the "black market"

If you are serious about reducing gun deaths …


In the wake of the recent mass murders in Texas, Congress has again passed legislation intended to stop “dangerous” people from getting guns.

The legislation will enhance background checks for would-be gun buyers under the age of 21, and provides for the examination of juvenile court records, and mental health records from the age of 16.

It provides funding for states to better implement “red flag laws.” These permit officials to “temporarily” confiscate guns from people adjudged to be a threat to criminally use them.

And it strengthens laws against a person who purchases a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing a gun, or who does not want their name associated with the transaction.

So, will this legislation prevent the next episode of mass murder? Only if the would-be shooter is one of the less than of 2% criminals who purchase their guns from licensed gun dealers.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of criminals who use guns don’t get their guns from licensed gun dealers. Indeed, 56% appear to get their guns by stealing them, “finding them” at the crime scene, or getting them “off the street or from the underground market.”

In January 2019, the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report, captioned, Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes:[2016] Survey of Prison Inmates. It stated that

1. 21% or 287,400 of all state and federal prisoners reported that they had possessed or carried a   firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time. 

2. 6% claimed they had stolen the gun.
3. 7% claimed they “found it” at the scene of the crime.
4. 43% stated that they obtained the gun “off the street or from the underground market.”
5. 25% claimed to have obtained the weapon from a family member or friend, or as a gift.

6. Less than 2% of prisoners say that they obtained the gun from a retail store.

7. 0.8% admitted obtaining the gun at a gun show.

The primary goal of the criminal law is to protect those who abide by the laws from those who don’t.

To that end, the criminal law seeks to (a) protect the law-abiding public, (b) punish the offender, (c) provide for his rehabilitation, and (d) deter him and others from committing future crimes.

Congress’ new legislation may help slightly, but it will not stop people from using guns obtained by stealing, “finding” or getting them “off the street or from the underground market.”


If you really intend to do that, you need to pass legislation that scares the hell out of any rational person who would possess a stolen or “found” gun, or one bought “off the street or from the underground market.”

Pass a law that says, possession of a gun bought other than from a licensed firearm dealer carries a mandatory 10-year prison term, with parole possible only after 8.5 years. (The 1.5 year reduction would be for “good conduct” clearly indicative of “rehabilitation.”)

Let that law contain a second section that states that if such a gun is used in the commission of any crime, the mandatory prison term will be 20 years, with parole possible only after 17 years.

Let the third section provide that if bodily harm is done to any individual by gun shot from said gun that the mandatory prison term will be 40 years, with parole possible only after 34 years.

Let the fourth section provide that if death or great bodily harm is done to any individual by gun shot from said gun, that the mandatory prison term will be 60 years or life, without parole, in the discretion of the court taking account of all relevant factors.

Provide an exception where the gun was lawfully purchased after a required background check by a person lawfully entitled to buy it, who subsequently gifts it to an immediate family member after that donee passes a required background check.

Then, if such a gun is used in violation of the five provisions above, provide that the defenses of self-defense and defense of other shall not be available to said gun user.

Finally, provide that where death or great bodily harm has been done with such a gun, and where the defendant is adjudged to be insane, that the prosecutor shall proceed with a “not guilty only” trial, and that upon conviction the defendant shall be placed for the mandatory term in a mental health prison wing for a like term.

You won’t stop all shooting by such a law. But 56% of prison inmates obtained their guns by stealing them, “finding them,” or getting them “off the street or from the underground market.” How many of them could have obtained a gun from a licensed gun dealer after a background check?

The goal of my proposed law is to scare the hell out of anybody inclined to steal, find, or acquire a gun “off the street or from the underground market.” Once “Harry Street-Gang” sees his best buddy, “Charlie Gang-Bang,” get 10 or 20 years, for possessing or using such a gun, obtaining a gun off the street will no longer be worth the risk.

Wikipedia states that in 2020 there were 615 “mass shootings” in the USA that resulted in 521 deaths. But in 2020, over 19,000 were shot dead (excluding suicides). It is folly to focus on the 521 mass shooting victims, and to ignore the other 18,500. Toddlers are being killed in our great cities as street gangs wantonly shoot up and down our city streets.


Of course, my statute will fail if prosecutors won’t use it, or plead such cases down.

Admittedly, there do not appear to be recent statistics to show exactly how many of the 19,000 deaths were caused with stolen or black-market guns. But when 56% of the prison inmates say the gun they used was such a gun, there is a reasonable inference to be drawn.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 17, 2022 

Before the EPA can destroy a major industry, there must be clear Congressional authorization

Does the EPA — a collection of unelected bureaucrats — have power in America to shut down industries that produce electricity by burning coal or natural gas to prevent climate change, notwithstanding the costs involved to the public, the industry and the workers who will lose their jobs?


In the days when I was in law school, we took a required course known as “Agency.” That course explained the relationship between the “principle” and his “agent.” An agent was a person appointed by the principle to transact certain business on behalf of the principle. The rule was that an agent had only such powers as an agent as were conferred upon him by his principle. The agent was powerless to create his own authority. 

A simple example: If I hire a young man for the purpose of mowing my lawn, I have given him authority to mow my lawn. Unless I have given him authority to paint my house, he has no such authority. The agent can’t create his own authority.

If I authorize the young man to cut my lawn, that is his express authority. I am also implicitly authorizing him to use a lawn mower. That would be reasonably expected. He would not by implication, however, be authorized to buy a $3,000 John Deere Garden tractor at my expense to do the job.

Our American Constitution provides that, “all legislative power resides in Congress.” Among the enumerated powers, Congress is specifically granted “Power To provide for the general Welfare of the United States.” To facilitate that purpose, another clause says that Congress has power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

As such, Congress is the “principle.” As such, Congress can appoint an “agent,” if Congress determines that an agent is “necessary and proper” to implement a law it passes. The IRS, the FAA and the EPA are such “agents.” As in the case of any other agent, Congress’ agents have only those powers conferred upon them by Congress.

A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA ruled in accordance with those principles.

Congress created the EPA to protect the environment. For many years, the EPA set standards to be met by the states to control pollution. Traditionally, industries, such as industries that burn coal to produce electricity, have been required to install equipment calculated reduce the carbon emissions created by the process. The standards created by the EPA have traditionally balanced, among other factors, the cost of installing the most efficient equipment for obtaining the best result in terms of pollution reduction against the cost to the industry of doing so.


But what happens if employing the best and most modern equipment, produces only minimal results in further reducing pollution? 

Can the EPA make a new rule that say that to further reduce pollution, the plant owner must shut down his coal-fired plant, and replace it with a gas-fired plant? But while gas carbon emissions are only half of the of coal emission, what if to “save the planet,” the EPA determines that even carbon emission produced by burning gas, still pollute too much? Can the EPA order a shut-down of all coal-fired and all gas-fired plants, and order a conversion to “green energies?” What if that change-over will cost billions, or even trillions of dollars? What if the cost to the public is dramatically higher energy prices? Inadequate electricity? What if tens of thousands of people are thrown out of work? Can the EPA do that?

In West Virginia v. EPA, the court held, "No."

“Prior to 2015, EPA had always set emissions limits under Section 111 based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly.

“Here, rather than focus on improving the performance of individual sources, it would “improve the overall power system by lowering the carbon intensity of power generation.” … It would do that by forcing a shift throughout the power grid from one type of energy source to another.

“Under its newly “discover[ed]” authority, … EPA can demand much greater reductions in emissions based on a very different kind of policy judgment: that it would be “best” if coal made up a much smaller share of national electricity generation. And on this view of EPA’s authority, it could go further, perhaps forcing coal plants to “shift” away virtually all of their generation—i.e., to cease making power altogether.”

In West Virginia v. EPA, the court said that if Congress meant to give the EPA such authority, it had a duty to clearly state that it meant to do so.

“Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress 'Enabling legislation" is generally not an “open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line.” …

“We presume that “Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.”

“To convince us otherwise, something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims."

Before the EPA can destroy a major industry, Congress must clearly give it such power.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 10, 2022 

Balance and compromise are the essence of democracy

If you have studied civics or American government in school, you know that our federal government has only those powers expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. The federal government was created to do only those things that the states found that they couldn’t do for themselves.

As such, the federal government is not “presumed” to have powers. It has only those powers “specifically delegated” to it.

If you scrutinize our U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, you will not find the word “abortion.” The Constitution nowhere says, “Every woman has a right to choose abortion.” So, how did “abortion” come to be a Constitutional Right?

The Constitution itself prescribes the mechanism for its amendment.

“Amendments, … shall be valid … when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….”

Twenty-seven amendments have been to our Constitution. Do any of its 27 amendments mention the word “abortion?” The answer is, “No.”

So, how then did “abortion” come to be a “constitutional right?”

Abortion came to be a “constitutional right” in 1973 when seven justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said so.

Mr. Justice Blackman, author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, wrote that a woman’s right to choose to abort her fetus has its basis in the right of “privacy.”

Blackman, however, began by acknowledging that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.”

“In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as … [1891], the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment …; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments …; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights …; in the Ninth Amendment …; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment … . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty… are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

The court then concluded

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Thus, in the absence of clear language in the Constitution or in its Bill of Rights, the seven-member majority discovered a “constitutional right” to abortion lurking somewhere “in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights” or “'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Because I believed that our Constitution and Bill of Rights must be construed consistently as they would have been construed by the people who adopted it, from the day Roe was decided, I have
believed that Roe v. Wade was improvidently decided, and was a usurpation by seven judges of the rights of the people to amend our Constitution through their elected legislatures or conventions.

I believe the following questions are dispositive: (1) at the time that our Constitution was written and ratified, did anyone involved in the process believe it was enshrining “abortion as a“constitutional right?” (2) Did anyone believe, at the time our Bill of Rights was adopted, that “abortion” was being protected thereby? (3) Did anyone believe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was written to prohibit the states from depriving “any person (especially the former slaves) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” that it was guaranteeing women the right to abort fetuses?”

Have we a historical record of even one person, at any of those times, arguing that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment “will guarantee women the right to abortion?”

If not, Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional judicial usurpation.

In 1973, in dissent, Mr. Justice White, wrote 

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment…

“This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”

In 1973, I said the Roe decision was wrong. The Court construed two adjoining words in the 14th Amendment: “life” and “liberty.” 

The mother’s “liberty” was construed “expansively.”

The fetus’ “life” was counted for nothing. Dodds v. Jackson allows the people and their 50 legislatures to act to strike the proper balance the fetus’ “life” and the mother’s “liberty.” Balance and compromise are the essence of democracy.

The purpose of our written Constitution and its written amendments was to clearly state, for the whole world to see, the rights of every American, and the powers specifically granted to the national government. If abortion was such a fundamental right, it is remarkable that it wasn’t guaranteed therein, along with our fundamental rights to speak, worship, print and peacefully assemble.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 3, 2022 

Bad deeds are done in the dead of night

So, what are the costs of President Biden’s open Southern border policy?

On March 17, 2022, I wrote of the fentanyl crisis enabled by Biden’s criminally wanton open-border policy.

"Illicit fentanyl, primarily manufactured in foreign clandestine labs and smuggled into the United States through Mexico, is being distributed across the country and sold on the illegal drug market.

 "Between 2020 and 2021, nearly 79,000 people between 18 and 45 years old — 37,208 in 2020 and 41,587 in 2021 — died of fentanyl overdoses …”

I concluded by asking, “So does Biden really care?” Biden's past remarks signal he doesn’t.

"I find that international drug trafficking — including … fentanyl ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States."

But fentanyl deaths are but one deadly consequence of Biden’s obtuseness. There are others.


Between February 2021, and May 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBT”) states that there have been 2,500,000 encounters with foreign nationals illegally attempting to enter into the U.S.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody recently released a document from President Biden’s Department of Homeland Security, captioned, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Overview of the Southwest Border.” That heavily redacted eight-page document describes the role of Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations (“TCOs”) in smuggling foreign nationals into the U.S.

That document states,

“…We assess that smuggling networks [Mexican Drug Cartels and TCOs] are very active in promoting the flow of migrants through Mexico. These drug trafficking organizations maintain control of the primary trafficking corridors into the United States. The drug trafficking organizations’ control of these corridors, allows them to regulate the flow of migrants, as well as charge migrants a ‘tax’” for the right of passage through these corridors.

“TCOs will exploit migration flows and entrench themselves in the smuggling cycle. TCOs endanger vulnerable individuals, amass illicit profits that feed cartel violence in Mexico and along the border, and create a volatile border environment.”

AG Moody states that. “This … contradicts what the Biden administration has been telling the American people. It shows that the Mexican drug cartels are profiting off the mass migration ….”

In October 2021, according to Border Report, CBT agents advised:

“Everything going through their [the Cartels’] area they know,” … so everyone going through their area they has to pay a fee. … They charge between $8,000 and $15,000, depending on the person and where they are coming from. … They have pick-up drivers in the United States. They recruit the youth to drive. They have stash house coordinators, people that transport these people form the stash houses to their final destination.”

The detriment to the people of the U.S. has been well-documented. The illegals are rewarded with welfare benefits, SNAP cards, free medical care, free schooling for their children, etc., all at the expense of American Taxpayers. Why? To create a new mass of voters beholden and permanently loyal to the Democrat party, who will ensure the Democrats with a permanent hold on power.

But what effects does enriching the Drug Cartels have on the people of Mexico? Here is just one CTV News (Canada - 1/25/22) report. Many others can be found on the internet.

“Activists from Mexico's violence-plagued western state of Michoacan said … that the government has to fight all drug cartels equally and return land to an estimated 35,000 people displaced by fighting.

"’In terms of safety, we are worse than ever,’ said Hipolito Mora, former leader of the 2013-2014 self-defense movement that kicked the Knights Templar Cartel out of Michoacan.

“The cartels are back, with the Jalisco Cartel fighting the local Viagras gang for control of the state. The battle has featured heavy weaponry and the use of bomb-dropping drones. The government response has been to hold off incursions by the Jalisco cartel, while doing little to stop the other gangs.

“Rev. Gregorio Lopez, a Catholic priest once known for wearing a flak vest while celebrating Mass, said, … ‘There are regions where the government frankly can't go, regions ... where organized crime has total control…. At least 35,000 people have been forced to flee their homes and farms …. The warring drug cartels extort money from almost all merchandise passing through Michoacan. … They have to pay protection money on the outskirts of the city. There are little plastic tables and some guy there charging …’"

A president should be proud of his border policy. The Press and the American people should be allowed to see everything that’s being done. Secret air flights, disbursing the migrants in the dead of night, should tell you that Biden feels he needs to hide what he is doing from the American people.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 19, 2022 

Abortion, self-defense, slavery and the well-formed conscience

The sections dealing with abortion in the Roman Catholic catechism provide no exceptions allowing abortion, even in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother with imminent death, and even in cases of rape or incest. But do other chapters provide exceptions? Perhaps. But such exceptions as might be provided in the chapters on conscience and self-defense, are narrow.

So, can a woman ever be justified in taking the life of her unborn child? (Note: we are discussing morality here; not “law.”).

On this matter, the Church’s catechism provides useful “guidance” to both those who’d say, “Yes,” and those who’d say, “No!”

I use the word “guidance” carefully. In the last instance, the catechism provides rules to guide the formation of the “well-formed” conscience. Why? Because ultimately every human must act in conformity with his/her own “well-formed” conscience — especially in grave or blood matters. On issues such as “conscience,” that catechism embodies the best analysis of popes, churchman, and theologians over the course of 2000 years, as well as scriptures.

The Catechism teaches that “conscience” requires every person to discern whether his proposed course of conduct will be good or evil. That judgment takes account of all relevant circumstances surrounding his/her act. It requires the person to utilize the means available, under the exigencies of the circumstances, to make an informed judgment. Once that effort has been made, the person must always obey the certain judgment of his/ her own conscience — regardless of what others may say.

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself, but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. (§1776)

In addition to its teachings on conscience, the catechism also gives guidance on the issue of self-defense.

Under the secular principle of self-defense, a woman can do what is both reasonable and necessary to avoid the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to herself. This principle of self-defense has been recognized in all societies from time immemorial and finds cautious support in the Church’s catechism.

“Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow. … Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” §2264.

But can one incapable of “intending,” be an “aggressor?” Theologians have argued that issue through the millennia. Can a woman act in self-defense against the “unintended” acts of a fetus where there is a high probability that that pregnancy will cause her death? Few would deny her the right to use deadly force in self-defense to preserve her own life from death at the hands of a totally insane killer — a person incapable of intending to kill her, or even knowing what he is about to do. Is she not “bound to take more care of her own life? Is this not truly the realm of conscience?

Then there are sections on rape and slavery. Where conception occurs from rape or incest, because the crime does not end with penile withdrawal where pregnancy results, it is certainly arguable that the woman can defend herself and do what is reasonable and necessary to end the rape, forced pregnancy and enslavement. The Church recognizes that rape/incest “causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act.“ (§2356)

“§2414. The seventh commandment forbids … the enslavement of human beings … It is a sin … against … fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to [slavery].”

The sections on abortion, rape and slavery provide no remedies; but must be read together with those on conscience and self-defense.

The choice to act in self-defense, in the face of immediate death or great bodily harm, is the gravest choice that any woman can ever called upon to make. Especially here, she “must obey” her well-formed conscience. The catechism teaches, that conscience that “ever calls her to love,” permits the woman to love” her own life more, than that of her would-be killer [§2264). If she has done her best, under the circumstances, to fully inform her conscience, the Church teaches she is not culpable even if her judgment of conscience is wrong.

“If the ignorance is invincible, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to the person.” §1793.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 12, 2022 

Why does the Catholic Church condemn abortion?

Knowing the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion, why would anybody contemplating an abortion, consult its catechism? Where else can you find a succinct distillation of 2000 years of Christian moral teachings?

Most people who are pro-abortion, and, indeed, most people who are anti-abortion have never taken time to ponder the underpinnings of the Church’s teachings concerning abortion. But are its teachings today, consistent with those of the early church?

The Didache, generally thought to have been written in the late 1st Century, has been described as the oldest extant Christian catechism. It begins by teaching that “There are two ways, one of life and one of death.” In its second chapter, it condemns abortions: “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born.”

Tertullian (c. 155 - 220 a.d.) in the 8th chapter of his Apology for Christians wrote,

“But Christians now are so far from homicide, that with them it is utterly unlawful to make away a child in the womb, when nature is in deliberation about the man; for to kill a child before it is born is to commit murder by way of advance; and there is no difference whether you destroy a child in its formation, or after it is formed and delivered. We Christians look upon him as a man, who is one in embryo; for he is in being, like the fruit in blossom, and in a little time would have been a perfect man, had nature met with no disturbance.”


On such texts, the church teaches: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” “Abortion willed — either as an end or a means — is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

The church find support in its teachings in the Prophet Jeremiah, quoting God as saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you.”

And in Isaiah, “Before birth the Lord called me, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name …

“Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you.”

Based on such passages, the church teaches 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being, to life.”

From there, the Church goes on to teach, 

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

“These human rights depend neither on single individuals, nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin."

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

The fundamental question here is not whether you agree with this op-ed. Nor whether you are a member of the Catholic Church. Nor even whether you agree with the catechism of the Church.

The fundamental question is whether, The church is right or wrong when it teaches that abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. And given the “irreparable harm done” to the innocent fetus-embryo-child “who is put to death,” whether “abortion is grave matter” and mortal sin.

And is the church correct when it teaches, “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.”

In a few days the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether abortion remains a Constitution right — a legal question. Whatever its decision, the moral question still remains.

But if the “abortion” chapter of the catechism provides no exceptions, does it do so elsewhere?

See my next op ed.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 5, 2022