Will Ukraine Go Nuclear? Has it already Done So?

Since my most recent op ed on the Russian/Ukraine war, things have been happening fast.

President Biden has reversed the U.S. government’s position and authorized Ukraine to launch U.S. missiles into Russia.

Then Russian President Putin signed into law” a law that “lowered the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons: If Russia's "territorial integrity" is threatened or if it is attacked by a non-nuclear armed nation (i.e. Ukraine) supported by a nuclear power (such as the US or Britain), Russia can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Additionally, Russia is now firing new experimental missiles into Ukraine.

This war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on since February 24, 2022. News reports tell us that Russia has been making incremental advances on the battle field. President Trump indicates he will end weapon’s shipments.

So, given the uncertainty, will Ukraine go nuclear?

On Oct. 24, 2024 Ukraine President Zelensky put the nuclear option on the table. Zalensky first reminded the world of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum which was a treaty under which

Ukraine transferred all its nuclear weapons to Russia. In return, Ukraine got guarantees from Russia, the US and the UK that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would not be violated. Zelensky that remined his NATO audience of Russia’s bad faith in first seizing Crimea, and then invading Ukraine in February of 2022.

He then laid out Ukraine’s options: “Either we go back to nuclear weapons, or we have to become part of an effective alliance, and NATO is the only one that works” and whose members have avoided wars of aggression since joining.

Zalensky made clear that Ukraine preferred the NATO option.

So, when Zelensky speaks of “going back to being nuclear,” does Ukraine really have that capacity? Is he bluffing?

If you surf the internet, it appears unanimous that Ukraine, which once possessed the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, has the plutonium and know-how to build atom bombs.

How long would that take? Expert opinions are all over the place. But one says “We have the material, we have the knowledge. If there is an order, we will only need a few weeks until [we produce] the first bomb.” Others say it might be a very dirty atom bomb, but that dirty bombs have the advantage of being deliverable by conventional combat aircraft.

Admittedly, I am a non-expert. But what do I think?

I believe that as long as the battle lines along the front remain relatively stable and Ukraine has the weaponry to maintain stalemate, Ukraine will keep silent and build its nuclear bomb(s). Indeed, they may have already done so. That would guarantee that Ukraine cannot be obliterated without Russia takings nuclear counter-losses unacceptable to Russia.

I believe that President Zalensky is telling the truth when he says NATO membership, or Ukraine goes nuclear.

President Trump has pledged that he quickly intends to negotiate the war’s end. But on what terms?

Is Ukraine willing to cede Crimea to Russia? Is Russia willing to give Crimea back to Ukraine? Is Putin willing to pull out of the eastern portions of Ukraine he now occupies? Will Ukraine demand back those territories that Russia has “annexed?” Will the U.S. end military aid to Ukraine? Will Ukraine demand reparations for the damage to Ukraine that Russia has inflicted?

If President Trump can untie these “Gordian Knots,” I believe he will deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

   First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 27, 2024.                                                                                                                                               Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is Ukraine really “months away” from having its own nukes?

Anybody who has read my op eds knows that I have found little to like about President Biden and his administration. But in his support for Ukraine, I think he has been essentially correct.

Like Biden, I do not believe that Putin merely wants a subservient Ukraine along Russia’s border. His invasion of Ukraine, and his prior invasions into Georgia and Crimea demonstrate Putin’s larger goal is to reconstitute the old USSR.

We can quibble about whether clearer Biden administration statements before Putin’s invasion might have forestalled the invasion, whether U.S. F-16s should have been made available to Ukraine sooner, or whether the limitations of use that be Biden administration placed upon the use of the weapons we have supplied should have been less restrictive. But what Biden has done, has been essentially correct— to keep Putin from devouring a peaceful neighboring state.

President Trump is now on the verge of taking office. He has stated he will cut military aid unless Ukraine engages in peace talks. Trump has warned President Zelensky, “You’re 38 days from losing your allowance.” Presently, we don’t know what Trump has told Putin.

At present, Russia is been making slogging advances in the war. But the cost to Russia in dead and wounded Russian soldiers has been awful. Now, each side is upping the ante. Russia has put N. Koreans into the war zone. Ukraine has seized some Russian territory, and is now manufacturing/using very effective drones.

Russia has frequently warned that it might use its nuclear weapons.

But now, according to a briefing paper prepared for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, Ukraine could develop a rudimentary nuclear bomb within months if President Trump withdraws US military assistance. That also suggests Ukraine could develop a nuclear bomb whether or not the US withdraws military assistance. The Times1 writes, quoting from the briefing paper:

“The country would quickly be able to build a basic device from plutonium with a similar technology to the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. … “Creating a simple atomic bomb, as the United States did within the framework of the Manhattan Project, would not be a difficult task 80 years later.”

“Ukraine still controls nine operational nuclear reactors and has significant nuclear expertise despite having given up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in 1996.

“The weight of reactor plutonium available to Ukraine can be estimated at seven tons … A significant nuclear weapons arsenal would require much less material … the amount of material is sufficient for hundreds of warheads with a tactical yield of several kilotons.”

President Biden’s great fear has always been that if Russia starts to lose the war, it will use nuclear weapons. He has, therefore, placed limits on use of the weapons we have supplied Ukraine. I am guessing that President Trump has the same fear, and wants to negotiate a Russian/Ukraine peace before Ukraine gets its own nuclear bombs and delivery systems.


If Russia has a “red line” which will trigger its use of nukes, things get a damn side more dangerous when Ukraine has its own nukes and its own “red lines.”

The notion that the country that once had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons can’t quickly build enough rudimentary nukes to take out Moscow, St. Petersburg and a half-dozen other major Russia cities is wishful thinking.

If Trump can negotiate an end to the war it will (1) save the U.S. billions; and (2) reduce the threat of a Russian/Ukraine nuclear war with all that entails.

Caption as revised by Editor: “Edging closer to nuclear weapons in Ukraine”

  1.   https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/zelensky-nuclear-weapons-bomb-0ddjrs5hw  

                       First  Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 17, 2024.                                                                                                                                               Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

 

 

The obvious solution to the Hamas/Israeli conflict

  

There is an obvious way for the Arab world to deal with the “Palestinian problem” that no state in the Arab World has been willing to try — without war, and with no Palestinian deaths. Simply put, it’s love your neighbor as yourself. 

Instead, the Arabs and Palestinians have repeatedly gone to war with Israel. They declare that “if Israel will only declare a “cease fire” and negotiate in good faith, the war with Hamas could easily be ended. It is all Israel’s fault.”

That of course, utterly overlooks the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023.

It also overlooks the clear words of Hamas’ founding document — “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,”18 August 1988:

That document says “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it. ”It asserts that “Palestine (Israel) is an Islamic Possession consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day."

It sets out the Hamas goal: “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” (What: no “Two-state solution?”)

The document rejects all negotiations: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement,” and declares “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad (Holy War).”

So, how is Israel supposed to negotiate with Hamas that believes (1) “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement;" and who believes (2) “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad (Holy War).”

Roughly 2 million Palestinians live in Gaza, a 140 square-miles corner of Israel, along the Mediterranean Sea, just north of the Sinai Peninsula.

Wikipedia tells us that “The ‘Arab world’ comprises a large group of 22 countries, mainly located in Western Asia and Northern Africa.” It includes Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and Somalia.

The Arab world spans an area of some 5,000,000 sq. miles. Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, encompasses a mere 11,200 sq. miles.

The Palestinians, living in Gaza, believe that all Israel belongs to them by right of the Mulsim conquests of the Holy Land during the middle-ages.

Since Israel was re-constituted in 1948, the Arabs and Palestinians have started and lost war after war to exterminate Israel. This time, responding to the Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, the massacre of Israeli 2000 civilians, and the taking of some 100-plus Israeli hostages, Israel has retaliated by reducing Gaza to rubble and killing thousands of Palestinians.

There is a better solution. If the Arabs states are truly acting in good faith, and out of love of the Palestinian people, each of the 22 Arab states could open their borders to perhaps 100,000 Palestinian immigrants. That would eliminate the need to exterminate Israel — unless, of course, the Muslim’s real goal is religious — to reconquer Israel in the name of Allah and the Muslim faith.

Are there examples of Christian nations opening their doors to Muslims? Yes. France has admitted over 3 million Muslims. The “Great Satan” — a/k/a the U.S.A — has admitted about 2,500,000 since 2000. How many have been admitted by Iran? Egypt? Iraq?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 6, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

With censorship, we are no longer a democracy

The 1st Amendment to our U. S. Constitution provides:

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....”

The U.S. Supreme Court, over the last 200 years, has recognized only a handful of exceptions to the notion that “no law” means “no law.” Those exceptions include libel, slander, obscenity, “fighting words,” and words that create a “clear and present danger.”

Of course, “words” can be “elements” of a criminal offense, but only when they are accompanied by an action. Tom and Harry conspire (words) to rob a bank. They then drive to the bank.

But what about “misinformation?” “Disinformation?’ False information? Can “misinformation” spewed during a political campaign be punished? “Disinformation” or “false information during a pandemic be censored?

For over 200 years, our Supreme Court has held that the sole remedy is “counter-speech.” Civil penalties, criminal punishments and censorship have been forbidden remedies.

But why do I ask?

On May 2, 2022, during the Biden presidency, that CNN reported “Biden administration defends disinformation boardfrom fierce GOP criticism. …The Department of Homeland Security and the White House are defending a new initiative to help target disinformation … Last week, DHS announced an interagency team, dubbed the “Disinformation Governance Board,” to coordinate department activities related to disinformation aimed at the US population ….”

So, what exactly is “Disinformation Governance Board?” It would be a board authorized to censor whatever they deem to be “Misinformation, Disinformation or False Information” — speech or other information that they believe that you and I should not be permitted to hear. E.g. information pertaining to Hunter Biden’s laptop.

If you believe in censorship who would you nominate for the office of “Lord High Censor?”

The men who penned our Constitution and Bill of Rights believed the right of free speech was a “God-given right” of every free man.” It was not a right granted to men by governments.

Our founders knew that we could not trust ANY person or government official to impartially determine which speech should be allowed, or prohibited. Indeed, without assurance that a Bill of Right would be added to our Constitution that would guarantee free speech, the Constitution would not have been approved by the requisite nine states.

Hitler had his Ministry to Truth and Public Enlightenment. You can have the same. Simply vote for the party of the “Disinformation Governance Board.” Vote for the party, that with the support of 51 “former security officials” and FBI operatives, that prevailed upon Facebook and Twitter to bury the Hunter Biden lap-top story. Vote for the party that used the FBI and DOJ to suppress any Covid information, other than Dr. Faucci’s.

The founders believed that ideas should fail or prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.” They trusted no censors. Their remedy for misinformation, disinformation and false statement — the only one compatible with democracy — was, AND STILL IS, counter-speech.

Trust the government to censor even-handedly, and you piss away your God-given right of free speech.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 27, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Where exactly do Harris, Walz stand on the key issues?

Imagine: You are in the market for a new house. You contact a realtor Larson E. Conjob. He tells you, “I’ve got the perfect house for you. It’s a steal at $550,000.” Enthused, you ask him to show you the house. He replies: “Trust me. I can’t show it to you now; but you can see it right after you buy it! Trust me. You’ll be overJOYed!”

That is Kamela Harris’s campaign pitch; she’s selling “JOY!” And she is demanding that you wait until after you vote; then she will disclose her “program!” Rather like Nancy Pelosi, speaking of the Obamacare bill: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it!” Or Joe Biden passing himself off as a moderate, while hiding in the basement; then governing from the far left.

The American voters — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — are entitled to know Harris’ positions on the key issue before they vote. And HOW she plans to deal with those issues.

Our Southern Border: Will she leave our southern border wide open? Or, close it? If so, how? Build a wall? Shut off welfare benefits to those who cross illegally? Immediately deport all who cross illegally? Revive the stay in Mexico policy? Stand on the border saying, “Don’t?”

Inflation: How is she going to beat inflation? Be “Joyful?” Print more money? Adopt Trump’s policy of “Drill Baby, Drill!? Raise corporate income taxes to 28%? Give first-time home buyers a $25,000 credit? Raise the top marginal individual tax rate to 44.6%? Raise capital gains tax rates (including “surcharges”) on realized gains up to 45%? Impose a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains? Impose price controls? Pray for “Hope and Change?”

Israel/Hamas War: Give Israel whatever support it needs? Support Hamas?” Give Iran billions to “play nice?” Borrow Trump’s policy of “maximum sanctions against Iran?” How?

Iran becoming a nuclear state: Let it happen? Do what must be done to guarantee it will never happen? Hope that Israel “nukes” Iran? How?

Men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.: Support men calling themselves “women?” Force the women to let men participate in women’s competitions? Stand up for women and girls?

Defund the Police: Four years ago, she was “for it.” Is she still for “defunding?”

“Cashless Bail:” Four years ago, when rioters were burning down American cities, she invited donations to provide bail to get the rioters out of jail. She also supported “cashless bail.” Has she seen the light? Or is she “doubling down?”

Fracking: She was against it four years ago? Whither blow the winds now?

“Medicare for All:” Four years ago, she was for abolishing all “private insurance,” and legislating “Medicare for All.” What, Kamala, is your position today?

Prevent Medicare and Social Security from going broke: Make both available to illegal immigrants? Deny both to illegal immigrants?

War in Ukraine: Would you “wash your hands of it?” Continue the current level of military aid?
Provide greater aid? Tell Putin, “Don’t?”

Taiwan: Most of our computer chips come from Taiwan. What if China invades? Let China take Taiwan? Go to war if necessary to keep Taiwan free?

Electric Cars: Is she still planning to phase out all gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2030? 2035? Allow the market to determine whether cars purchased are electric, or gas/diesel powered? Is there even enough electric power available if all cars were electric?

First Amendment: Is “hate speech” beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Is misinformation? Disinformation? Or has the U.S. Supreme Court over the last two hundred years correctly determined the categories of speech that are beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Can the U.S. Government use privately-owned business to limit free speech — something the Government itself is prohibited from doing?

Climate change: Should all gas stoves be eliminated? Replaced with electric stoves? Should Americans be limited as to how low they can set their air-conditioners?

There is something very wrong with a presidential candidate who refuses to truthfully tell the voters what she plans to do if elected? There is something equally bizarre with voters voting for a candidate who refused to tell the voters what her program is. (Note: many of her proposals come from her “surrogates.” That allows her to say, “I never said that!”)

We in America have never experienced a communist national government running our country. Everywhere else, once you get a communist government, you stuck with it — like incurable cancer.

Vice Presidential candidate Walz has made over 30 trips to China. Is he a Communist? A Communist fellow-traveler? Is this something a rational voter should want to know? When’s the last time the Communists were voted “out” in China?

America was built on the idea expressed in our Declaration of Independence that our rights are inalienable and “God-given” — our rights weren’t given us by kings, presidents or congresses. The only thing that stands between us and totalitarianism is what is written on a few sheets of paper — our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So long as our founding documents are construed consistently with the intent of the founders, our rights remain “God-given.” But when people come to power who believe that the Constitution should be construed consistently with their “more enlightened” notions, you will have lost your freedoms — even if you were promised “Joy and Freedom.”

Don Wooten is worried about AI being an uncontrollable ugly monster. I have the same concerns about candidate Harris who is afraid stand in front of the voters — sans teleprompter — and tell the American people where she stands on the key issues, and more importantly; HOW she intends to deal with them.




First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 11, 2024.
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Harris needs to say if she'll rewrite Title IX

                          Note: Title as Submited: "Candidate Harris, … Define “Woman.”



The Biden Administration’s new Regulations “re-writing” “Title IX” went into effect on August 1, 2024.

Title IX is the federal law that requires universities and colleges that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities to female students. These include equal opportunities in sports. As such, an educational institution must provide male and female athletes with equal access to financial aid. This means that funds allocated to athletic scholarships must be proportionate to the participation of male and female athletes. In other words, if a university allocates $500,000 to athletic scholarships, and 45 percent of its athletes are female, it must allocate $225,000 of that amount to female athletes. (Outside the financial aid context, an institution does not need to spend the same amount of funds on male and female athletes).

In the words of Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA),

“The Biden-Harris administration might not be able to define what a woman is, but they are waging a systematic and deliberate campaign to eliminate Title IX and destroy women’s sports.

“50 years ago, Title IX created opportunity and allowed girls across America to dream. And we’re all watching the Olympics right now, and I can’t help but think that we are all witnessing those dreams become reality for so many of our young female athletes. … But just think about it: If Biden and Harris had their way, Katie Ledecky might have never earned a single medal for our nation had she been forced to compete against biological males.”

President Trump vows that he will immediately undo the Biden re-write of Title IX.

But what is candidate Harris position on the issue?

Is she for or against the re-write? The American people are entitled to know the Harris’ position. Or is she going to pull a “Biden,” and hide in the basement? Why isn’t the Mainstream Media insisting that she tell the voters exactly where she stands on the issue?


If ever there was a ‘woman’s right issue,” this is it. Biden’s re-write of Title IX will affect over 35 million girls and women students. By comparison, there are less than 1M abortions per year in the U.S.

Are men going to be allowed participate in — and dominate — women’s college and high school sports?

Will your daughter be required to share the locker room with male athletes? The shower? Rest rooms?

Will your daughter be forced to share a dorm room with a male when she goes to college?”

Can you your daughter be compelled to believe that a man who declares himself to be a woman is ipso facto a woman? Can she be punished for using the wrong pronoun in referring to the erstwhile male?

Conservatives believe that our U.S. Constitution should be construed consistently with the intent of the founding fathers. Progressives believe it should be construed in accordance with their own “more enlightened notions” of due process and equal protections.

Until the Obama years, there were only two sexes. It was a “settled question.” Since, Progressives, with their more “enlightened notions,” now insist that there are many more.

For many Americans, there are only two sexes: men and women. A man has a penis and testicles and cannot birth or bear offspring. A woman has a vagina and female organs, can conceive, carry and bear a child, and can nourish it with breast milk. A man has XY chromosomes; a woman, XX.

For the “more enlightened” Progressives there are additional sexes. Moreover, a person can change his sex. A man can undergo surgery, or he simply can declare himself to be a woman.

But are Progressives truly “more enlightened” or are they “science deniers?”

As a very little boy I can never recall not knowing the difference between a man and a woman. My mother was a woman. My father was a man.

When I was no more than two or three my mother explained to me “where babies came from.” When I noticed an aunt with a very large belly, my mother explained to me that my aunt was “pregnant and was going to have a baby.” She explained that the baby developed inside his mother’s womb. She told me that only women could have babies, and she told me some women fed their newborn babies with milk they produced in their breasts; others used baby bottles.

Eighty years of my life have confirmed to me the truth of what my mother told me. And eighty years of my life have confirmed to me the truth of Genesis 1:27.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) sums the issues up well:

“The big concern that I have is that the rule applies to bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas, which means that schools and colleges could lose federal funding if they require students to use the facilities corresponding to their biological sex.

“And then it also expands the definition of sexual harassment to include addressing someone with the pronouns that align with his or her sex, that conflicts with his or her preferred gender.

“This is bending the norms of life that have existed for millennia.”

Since the days of Jefferson, Americans have always enjoyed freedom of belief, conscience and speech. If any American man wishes to believe that he is a woman, he has a right to do so.

Our 1st Amendment guarantees that right, as well as his right to declare himself a woman. That same 1st Amendment, however, guarantees that you and I can believe otherwise (believe our own eyes), and say that he isn’t.

Title IX took — as a given — that there were just two sexes. It requires schools that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities to female students. It was not passed allow either men or women to “redefine themselves.” Such a re-write can only be done by Congress. 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 1, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

When there is no transparency

On July 13, 2024, I wasn’t planning to watch President Trump’s Butler, PA rally. I just happened to turn the TV on. When the picture came up, Mr. Trump’s rally had just begun. Within two minutes, I watch the ex-President grab for his ear and then duck for cover.

I immediately that guessed, that Mr. Trump had been the target of an assassination attempt. For the next hour or so, I watched glued to the coverage.

The first question I asked myself was “Where did the shot come from?” I’m old enough to clearly remember the day that President Kennedy was shot from a window of the book depository.

As I listened on July 13, a “detective” was interviewed within minutes of the shooting. The key point that he made was that the Secret Service and FBI must be “entirely transparent during every minute of their investigations.” And yet, somehow, 18 days after the shooting, I find myself relying on CNN, PBS, AP and the NY Times to construct a timeline of events surrounding the attempted assassination

By the time I turned the coverage off, I had five glaring questions:

1. How could even an utterly incompetent Secret Service Head of security for the rally leave a building 147 yards from Trump’s podium — a prime shooting location — entirely unguarded?

2. Precisely at what minute was the SS notified that there was a “suspicious male loitering about the rally?”

3. Precisely at what minute was the SS notified that there was “a man with a rifle?”

4. Why was Trump allowed to go on stage, given the reports of a “suspicious male loitering about the rally?”

5. The minute the SS was notified of “a man with a rifle,” why didn’t the SS prevent Trump from going on stage? If he was already on stage, why wasn’t he dragged off or otherwise protected?

Then, CNN stated:

“US authorities obtained intelligence … in recent weeks of a plot by Iran to try to assassinate Donald Trump.

“NSC directly contacted USSS [Secret Service], at a senior level, to be absolutely sure they continued to track the latest reporting. USSS shared this information with the detail lead … In response to the increased threat, USSS [allegedly] surged resources and assets for the protection of former President Trump. All of this was before 7/13/24.”

But if the SS had indeed been provided with credible information of an Iranian plot, and the “SS shared this information with the detail lead” [the leader of Trump’s SS security detail], how is it possible that that “leader” left a rooftop” podium — the prime shooting location — unguarded?

Consider Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s July 22, 2024 “testimony” before the House Oversight Committee. Again, in the words of CNN:

“Cheatle [sparked] frustration among lawmakers for repeatedly dodging questions. … Cheatle is facing a flurry of criticism about how a gunman was able to get a clear line of sight to Trump at the rally.”

Why does a high officer of state, sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” dodge Congressional questions? Obfuscate?

Did Cheatle have any duty higher than protecting Biden? Trump? Did she not take a separate oath to do that?

The NY Times, citing text messages from local law enforcement officers, writes that at “5:38 p.m., photos are shared via a group chat, along with a text saying a man has been seen with a “range finder looking towards the stage. … man is no longer in sight and that Secret Service snipers should be notified.” (NP & Times).

6:02 p.m.— Trump takes the stage. “God Bless the U.S.A. plays;” Trump waves at the cheering crowd. Trump begins his rally speech. (AP)

6:09 p.m. — Witnesses report seeing a man climbing onto the roof of the one-story building closest to the stage. That man (Crooks) then sets up his AR-style rifle and lays on the rooftop, an estimated 147 yards from where Trump is speaking. (AP)

— Rallygoers yell to officers— pointing and shouting — that an armed man is on the roof. Witnesses capture his image in cellphone video. (AP)

— A local officer climbs to the roof. Crooks turns his gun toward the officer. Officer drops to avoid being shot. (AP)

6:10-6:11 p.m. — Crooks shoots Trump. (AP)

6:12 p.m. — SS advises, “Shooter is down.” (AP)

So, why, nearly 3 full weeks after the attempted assassination, do we have to get our facts from CNN, AP, NY Times and PBS? Why not from the SS or FBI?

Secrecy incubates “conspiracy theories.” Secrecy here breed distrust of both the Secret Service and the FBI. Sunlight and transparency ensure public trust.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 4, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

One Nation, Indivisible?

On July 14, 2024, one day after the attempted assassination of President Trump, President Biden, in an Oval Office address, told Americans that US politics must never become a "killing field.” He warned that "political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated, and urged Americans to "take a step back. … No matter how strong our convictions, we must never descend into violence. … We cannot, must not, go down this road again (referring to recent acts of political violence).” … “In America we resolve our differences at the ballot box; not with bullets."

But why has it taken eight years from President Biden to deliver this speech?

Compare President Biden’s July 14 speech, with his political rant in Michigan on July 12 — one day before the attempted assassination of Trump.

“We’re going to stand up for our Constitution and … democracy … Donald Trump is a loser. … a convicted criminal. …. Convicted … of 34 felonies of paying hush money to a porn star, … Mr. Trump raped her.                                                                                                                                          

“Donald Trump is a business fraud. … He was fined $400M for providing false information to banks. 

“He’s still facing charges of mishandling classified information, … charges for … trying to overthrow the election on January 6, and … charges in Georgia for election interference.\

 “Trump is a threat to this nation. He ran a violent mile on January 6th to overturn the results of the election — to hold on to power. …. We saw with our own eyes how he sent thousands of people to attack the Capitol. We saw the police being attacked; the Capitol being ransacked; a mob hunting for speaker Pelosi; gallows being set up for vice-president Pence.

“Trump is … unhinged. He’s snapped. He refuses … to say he’ll accept the result of this election. He says if he loses there will be a bloodbath; if he’s elected, he will be a dictator on day-one. … [O]ver my dead body! … Trump … will deploy the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump’s enemies. … Trump will eliminate the Civil Service, … hire tens of thousands of civil servants who are loyal only to him. They’ll have to take a loyalty oath. He’ll … round up over 10,000,000 people … and put them in detention camps. … Trump calls [illegal aliens] “animals.” … America… wake up and realize what Trump and his MAGA Republicans want to do!”

"Americans want a President and not a dictator. …. No self-respecting American President would ever be a Putin (puppet? puppy?), like this guy is. … I’ll be damned if I will allow Donald Trump to take this nation away." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UFF6GEcazc

So, for the next 100 days, now that President Biden has pulled out of the race, how will the Democrats behave? Will they behave like the sober Biden of July 14, or will they ape the Joe Biden of July 12?

And which President Trump will we see? A pre-July 13 Trump or a post-July 13 Trump?

I have said before, no American politician is “Hitler.” It is long past-time to stop the vile name-calling? Time to honestly debate the issues on the merits.

Our Supreme Court has said that the remedy for speech that is misinformation/lies is “counter- speech.” Let them, for example, discuss “illegal aliens.” If 10 million illegal aliens are good for the country, the new Democrat nominee — whether Vice President Harris or whoever — should be able to adduce facts to justify her/his policy; if bad, President Trump should be able to adduce facts to show the detriment to the country.

Prediction: Between now and the election, I predict that we will see a kinder, gentler, more human Donald Trump. Sadly, I predict that Democrats will revert to President Biden’s Michigan form — “Trump is Hitler — unhinged — a threat to democracy, etc.!”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 26, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

An opinion devoid of the slightest factual basis

Earlier this week, MSNBC host Joy Reid, on Tik Tok, proudly told the world that to avoid another term of Donald Trump being President, that she’d “vote for [President Joe] Biden in a coma.”

To those in the Democrat Party who wish to replace President Biden on the Presidential ticket, Reid said “Let me know, when you guys are finished fighting amongst yourselves, who I gotta vote for in November to keep Hitler out the White House.”

Joy Reid’s comparison of Trump to Hitler is her opinion. But Donald Trump has a political record. Accordingly, hard facts abound showing exactly what Trump did during his four years as President. Which of those facts would give an iota of support to Reid’s inane assertion that “Trump is Hitler?”

Joy Reid is a 1991 Harvard Univ. graduate with a “concentration” on “film studies.” What seems patently clear is that Reid seems to lack even the least passing knowledge of Hitler and his Third Reich. No person with a scintilla of intellectual integrity who has read William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or studied WWII, would ever compare Trump — or any other American politician — to Adolf Hitler.

Here is a timeline of Hitler and his deeds:

January 1933: Hitler become German Chancellor;

February 1933: Reichstag destroyed by fire; Nazis blame Communists;

March 10, 1933: Nazi burn books opposite Berlin University;

March 1933: Enabling Act passed. Hitler given power to rule by decree for 4 years;

Hitler proclaims Nazi Party the only permitted political party in Germany. All other parties and trade unions are banned. German states stripped of autonomous powers. Nazi officials become state governors;

February & March 1933: Mass arrests of Left-Wing opponents;

March 1933. Dachau Concentration Camp [“CC”] goes into operation;

April 1933: Communist Party banned;

May 1933: Socialists, trade unions and strikes banned;

Spring/Summer 1933: Early “CCs” are set up throughout Germany;

June 1934: Hitler eliminates all opposition within Nazi Party. Hitler personally arrests Ernst Roehm, his Chief of Staff. When Roehm refuses to use the pistol offered him to end his own life, he is shot to death — executed — without prior trial;

July 1934: President Hindenburg dies. Hitler abolished the office of the President, and names himself “Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor;”

1935: Hitler decrees military conscription;

September 1935: Nuremburg Laws strip Jews of citizenship; makes them “subjects:”

July 1936: Sachsenhausen “CC” begins operations;

July 1937: Buchenwald “CC” starts operations;

December 1, 1937: 7746 prisoners now in “CC;”

March 1938: Hitler orders the German Army to invade and seize Austria. Austria annexed;

June 1, 1938: First official execution in “CC;”

June 30, 1938: About 24,000 prisoners now in “CC;”


September 1938. Hitler threatens war with Czechoslovakia. To avoid war, Chamberlain and France agree that the Czechs shall cede the Sudetenland to Germany. Hitler promises he has “no further ter-ritorial ambitions in Europe;”

November 1938: Crystal Night. 7,500 Jewish shops are destroyed; 400 synagogues are burnt. The attack is portrayed as a spontaneous reaction to the death of a German diplomat by a Jewish refugee in Paris. It is actually orchestrated by the Nazi party;

November 1938: About 50,000 prisoners now in “CC;”

March 1939: In violation of the Munich Agreement, Hitler troops the seize rest of Czechoslovakia;

May 1939: Ravensbrück “CC” for women starts operations;

August 23, 1939. Germany and Russia sign a “Non-Aggression Pact;”

September 1, 1939. Hitler “blitzes”/overruns Poland;

April 9, 1940: Hitler attacks and occupies neutral Denmark and Norway:

May 10, 1940: Neutral countries Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg are bombed and invaded in furtherance of Hitler’s invasion/war on France:

June 1940: Auschwitz “CC,” in German occupied-Poland, begins operation;

September 7, 1940 to May 11, 1941: Hitler’s air force bombs/blitzes England, including London and Coventry;


June 1941: Beginning of “euthanasia” of mentally-deficient and ill prisoners;

June 1941. In violation of his Non-aggression Pact, Hitler invades Russia;

September 1941: First mass-gassing of Soviet prisoners-of-war in “CCs;”

December 1941: Some 80K prisoners in “CCs:”

January 1942: Wannsee Conference to provide for the “Final Solution” for “Jewish question;”

Spring 1942: Mass transportation of Jews to Auschwitz begins;

Spring/Summer of 1942: SS establishes first gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau;

September 1942: About 110,000 prisoners in “CCs;”

February 1943: Mass deportations of Gypsies to Auschwitz begins;

August 1944: 524,000 prisoners in “CCs;”

Early 1945: 700,000 prisoners in “CCs;”



So, Ms. Reid, when during his four years in office, did Trump commit any act comparable to any of the acts committed by Hitler, listed above?

When did Trump order the mass-burning of disapproved books? Rule by decree under an Enabling Act? Outlaw opposing political parties? Ban unions? Strikes? Order Mass arrests of political opponents? Of Democrats? Of Republicans? Set up concentration camps? Order the mass arrest of Jews? Invade neutral countries? Bomb them to bits? Order mass execution of any prisoners? Pass a law stripping anybody of their citizenship? Bomb population centers? Exterminate the mentally ill? Gypsies? Millions of Jews? Approve a “Final Solution?”

Joy Reid has expressed her opinion of Trump comparing him to Hitler. Where are the underlying facts to support her opinion? Or is her opinion of Trump based solely on irrational political hatred?

Trump can fairly be accused on childishly calling his opponents names — of being a “bull in a china shop.” But neither Biden nor Trump can rationally be compared to Hitler.

And Ms. Reid, if Biden goes “comatose,” what unnamed, unelected individual will be our secret “acting” president? It doesn’t seem to matter to Ms. Reid.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 10, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Lies, Opinions and Political Puffing

We all know what a lie is. When someone states as fact something that he knows to be untrue, that is a lie.

But what about opinions? If a weather man predicts a bright sunny day, and it rains all day instead, is he a liar? Not if he gave his honest opinion based on the best meteorological available to him. But what if all the meteorological data indicates a day of heavy rain, and our weatherman nevertheless, with no meteorological basis, predicts a clear, sunny day? Is he a liar?

When I was a boy, my mother played golf at Tam O’Shanter Country Club in Niles, Illinois during the hey-day of the club. I can say, without lying, that on one occasion, mom was the women’s club champion. I was there when she finished. And I still have her trophy showing she was club champ, and the small plaque that for one year graced her locker in the women’s locker room. My recollection is that mom won the championship twice, but I have no evidence that she did. I therefore cannot honestly say she was two-time club champ.

I can recall as a boy asking mom what was the lowest handicap she ever carried. She replied, “Six.” I was a bit surprised, because par was 72, and I did not recall her shooting in the 70s. But handicaps fluctuated, and I knew she generally played around 80-82. And I also knew that my mother never lied. In fact, the rule among her many friends was, “If you don’t want Marge’s honest opinion, don’t ask for it!”

Which brings us to last Thursday’s Presidential Debate.

As a judge, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, I always took account of two “cautions:” (1) A man who lies about little, insignificant things, is also apt to lie about important things, when the lie will benefit him; (2) A man careless enough to lie about a fact which can easily be disproved, will probably lie whenever he believes it is to his advantage.

A number of seemingly unimportant statements were made at the very end of the debate:

(1) Biden averred he had “his handicap down to a 6 while VP:”

(2) Trump to averred he “hit the ball 280 years:”

(3) Trump averred he “just won two club championships — not even senior events;”

(4) Biden implied he could carry his bag of golf clubs during the round of golf, and Trump couldn’t.

All four of these claims are subject to being easily proved or disproved. The voters are entitled to see if one or both of these guys were lying — stating as fact things they knew to be untrue.

I suggest they take a day off and play a televised round of golf at Saukie Golf Course in Rock Island. They could each carry a “Sunday Bag” (2 woods, a putter and five irons). This would not be impossible. I know an 84-year man who does just that 5 days a week.

If Trump is indeed a club champion-type who hits the ball 280 from the tee, he can show his prowess. If Biden indeed is a 6, or even a 10 handicap, he can prove it. Whether either has the stamina to be President, will be quickly shown as they trudge up and down Saukie’s ravines. And just in case the ravines prove to be too much for either man, the political parties could pay for paramedics and ambulances to stand by. And perhaps, the candidates could have a side bet: the loser drops out of the Presidential race.

It is time for these two guys to “put up, or shut up.”

Now a few thoughts about other “statements” made at the debate:

1. President Biden’s stated that he was "the only President this century" and "this decade" that did not have any troops "dying anywhere in the world." Were not 13 killed during the Afghan pullout? 3 more in Iran? Was that knowingly-made false statement of fact? A mere opinion? A mere lapse of memory?

2. President Trump’s claim that before Covid we had “the greatest economy that we've had in our history, the best.” False statement of fact made knowingly? Trump’s opinion? Obvious political puffing?

3. President Biden claimed that “The U.S. economy added 15 million jobs between the time U.S. President Joe Biden took office and May 2024.”

As per Snopes: “As the U.S. economy kept on recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, it had gained 15.6 million jobs as of May 2024. However, about 9 million of those jobs were lost during the pandemic, so the net jobs gain from pre-pandemic levels was 6.2 million.”

Was Biden expressing a mere opinion? If he was making a statement of fact, was it a material misstatement of fact to take credit for 15 million jobs, when only 6.2 were new jobs? A lie? Would an honest man have stated the case the way Snopes did?

4. Trump’s statement that the Ukraine War and the War in Gaza would have never happened had he been President. Statements of fact? Or self-serving opinion? Unprovable either way?

My point is this: politicians who knowingly lie are scoundrels unworthy of election. Politicians who merely give opinions are the norm. But are politicians who state “opinions” without factual underpinnings, in the face of clear, contrary underlying facts, tantamount to liars?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 3, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

A Theology of Love rather than a Theology of Sacrifice and Atonement

It has now been a bit more than five-years, since my daughter’s God-mother died following a long and miserable battle with cancer.

When I was told her death was imminent, I stopped by her home one night to say good-bye. I don’t recall how our discussion began, but the two of us eventually began discussing how an all-loving, all-just God could require his blameless son to die ignominiously, nailed to a cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind.

During the discussion, we also wondered how an all-loving, all-just God could have punished men and women for all generations for the “sin of Adam and Eve” — for eating fruit from the forbidden tree. How could an all-loving, all-just God impute the “sin” of Adam to men and women who did not exist at the time of “Adam’s sin,” and who had no part in committing that sin?

Both before and after that night, I have pondered these questions. I have never been quite able to accept that an all-loving, all-just God demanded a blood sacrifice of his only, and entirely innocent and blameless, son to restore God’s children to God’s friendship.

So, did Christ come into the world to be sacrificed? Not if we take Christ at his word. At John 14: 6, 7, Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

I have never doubted that God and Christ were omniscient. Afterall, Christ told his apostles that “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.” Mark 9:31.Actually, Christ predicted his death and resurrection three times.

Over time, I have concluded that God sent his son incarnate to show mankind the way that God wants us to walk, the truth that we have an all-loving, all just father, and that if we walk His way, our reward is eternal life.

That God sent his wholly-blameless son into the world to be “murdered” and “sacrificed,” seems utterly inconsistent with Christ’s teaching that God is an all-loving father. What all- loving father would require his son to be crucified — sacrificed?

So, did God intend that Christ be sacrificed? Or did he, in his omniscience, simply know that it would happen?

Did God really intend that his son be crucified as a condition of restoring his own children to his friendship? That’s the essence of “atonement theology.” In the words of my daughter’s God-Mother, “surely an omniscient, all-loving God could have come up with another way to reconcile mankind to Himself, short of ordaining his son’s crucifixion.”

But if God did not intend his son be sacrificed, who did?

Did the Romans and/or Jews who killed Christ think they were offering a “sacrifice” to God? Or did the Jewish leaders insist on Christ death because they believed him guilty of blasphemy?

Certainly, Pilate did not order Christ execution as a “sacrifice” to the Jewish God or any Roman God. Christ was condemned as a criminal.

Did Christ intend to sacrifice himself? Was Christ suicidal? If so, why did he pray that the Father might let the cup pass by?

Is it not equally probable that Christ became incarnate to show mankind the “way” to please God, and the “true way” to achieve everlasting life, knowing that men would put him to death, but also knowing that God would place His supreme “stamp of approval” upon all He did during his mission on Earth, by raising him from the dead, on the third day — precisely as he had predicted.

This op ed was prompted by a short article that a Protestant-thinker and lawyer-friend sent me earlier today.https://cac.org/daily-meditations/at-one-ment-not-atonement-breaking-up-old-logic-2020-02-05/

I had not realized that as early as the 13th century, there were theologians who questioned how an all-loving, all-just God could send his beloved son to Earth, and demand his crucifixion. Among them, were the scholar and theologian, Duns Scotus, and members of his Franciscan Order.

The Center for Action and Contemplation sums up Dun Scotus’ position thusly:

“Duns Scotus was not guided by the (Jewish) Temple language of debt, atonement, and blood sacrifice, which was understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul. Instead, he was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18). While the Church has never rejected the Franciscan position, it has remained a minority view.”

“Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely andfreely acts out of love. 

“Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God! God is not someone to be afraid of, but is … on our side.”

Whether all this plays any part in church closings, I leave for you to decide.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 19, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Imagine an America with no Churches and no Synagogues.

On the feast of Pentecost, commemorating the birthday of the Christian church, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, announced that between now and May 2026, “the diocese will be “reshaped” from 156 parishes to 75 parishes, with 129 worship sites.”

Two reasons are given for the contraction: a decline in Mass attendance by the faithful, and a prediction of a shrinking number of priests. Seventy percent of the 145 total priests ministering in the diocese are over the age of 50. According to the diocese’s projections, in the next 10 years, there may be fewer than 100 active priests.

But then, what happens when the number of active priests falls to 50? When even fewer “Catholics” attend Mass? Remain active in their parishes? Will half of the remaining parishes be shuttered?

How many parishes can be closed before the Catholic Church fades into utter irrelevance? And what happens, when it does?

For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that there is an all-loving God who eternally rewards men for the good they do, and punishes them for their evil deeds. And that Christ, his only son, is the way, truth and life.

What happens when the Jewish/Christian God comes to be regarded as nothing more than a pious fable? Who/What replaces him?

Does each man become a little “god” who creates his own rules — his own divine law?

Once you’ve rejected the Jewish/Christian law-giver, who replaces him? If there is no divine law-giver, who punish violations of the laws of our society, that go unpunished by our criminal justice system?

A man commits murder, and by perjury convinces his jurors that that he is innocent. A dictator, operating on the principle of “might makes right” confiscates and amasses a personal fortune of half the wealth of his country, while unjustly executing millions of his countrymen? A tyrant, who like the Roman emperors of old, declares himself “the only true god?” Without divine punishment of evil in an after-life, where is the “justice?”

Before you applaud the decline of the Catholic Church, and/or the decline of the other organized Christian religions, consider what you are seeing in the news:

Mobs of masked criminals invade a jewelry store, smash the counters, and in two minutes loot a million dollars-worth of jewelry;

Organized gangs send kilograms of fentanyl across our southern border, earning millions of dollars — which in the course of three years kills 300,000 U.S. citizens;

Young street-gang members shoot down city streets, killing members of the rival street gang — and bystanders,

Do the people who do these things believe that if not punished in this life, that that will be in the next?

Do they believe in the Judeo-Christian teaching that we must love God with out whole heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbor as ourself?

If you love your neighbor as yourself, do you steal his goods? Sell him deadly drugs? Shoot and kill him in a dispute over who can sell illegal drugs in a given neighborhood?

Or does each such predator set himself up as “god,” and determine for himself what is “good” and “evil?” Does “might make right?” Does possessing the deadliest gun make right?

And if the Christian churches and the Ten Commandments are relegated to the scrapheap of history, how many cops will we needed to protect the disabled, the elderly, the meek and the peacemakers from the predators? One in every home? Two? How many on every street corner?

In a nation where every inhabitant loves God and loves his neighbor as he loves himself, few, if any, police officers will be needed., In a nation where every man is a law unto himself, an officer at every street corner will not be enough.

When the churches and synagogues are gone, who will teach that there is a God, and that that God rewards good and punishes evil? Not the public schools. In many cases, not even the parents. So, who? Hollywood? The internet?

The Ten Commandments, which Judaism and Christianity teach are God-given, are the underpinnings of our criminal law. It is in the Ten Commandments that we have “objective” right and wrong. Without a divine lawgiver, one man’s guess as to what is right and wrong, is as good that of any other. Without a God, we are all little gods, and right and wrong becomes “subjective” to each one of us.

A few years ago, the beautiful Tri-City Jewish Center closed. Now 81 Catholic parish will die, in large part because many Catholics have lost interest and no longer attend.

The choices people make have consequence. The state, by its criminal law, will still teach what is right and want is wrong. Some parents will still take the time. But without the churches teaching that God ordains what is right and what is wrong, and punishes transgression of his laws, the state loses the strongest underpinning of its laws.

I therefore mourn that the loss of 81 Catholic churches as a great loss to our society. I would feel the same way if 81 protestant churches were to close. I would also mourn the loss of the last Quad City synagogue.

Without a divine law-giver, do we revert to the law of the jungle? To might makes right? You decide.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 9, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is it fair to label the President, “Genocide Joe?”

The so-called protesters at Columbia and the other colleges, have taken to calling President Biden, “Genocide Joe,” largely for the military support that the President is supplying and has supplied to Israel, in the days following October 7, 2023— the day when Hamas broke into Israel, murdered Jewish men, women and children, took men, women, children and the elderly hostage, and raped Israel women.

While “Genocide Joe” may have a nice ring to it if you are unhappy with our President’s support of Israel, does it have a right of truth to it? I don’t think so.

Taking for purposes of argument the figures of the Gaza Health Ministry as true, Reuters reports that as of April 30, 2024, 35,535 Palestinians have been killed and another 77,704 have been wounded.

Israel says its war is against Hamas. But who elected Hamas? Put Hamas in power? Provides the “warriors” for Hamas?

Prior to 10-7, the Hamas “soldiers,” lived and made their war preparations among the Palestinian civilian population. On that day, the emerged from Gaza, murdered, raped and took hostage. They then slipped back to hide among the civilian population. They now claim, “You can’t retaliate for our war crimes, because if you do, you will kill innocent civilians.”

Hamas, which adhered to no “rules of war” on October 7, now demands that Israel scrupulously abide by all “rules of war,” while all the while hiding among the civilians of Palestine. And all the while continuing to hold non-combatant Israelis as hostages.

Israel, of course, has the power to burn the other cheek. But Hamas could end the fighting in an instant by coming out from among the civilian population, surrendering, and facing a war crimes trial before neutral nations.

When in December of 1941, the empire of Japan executed a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, the U.S declared war on Japan. The war ended only when the U.S dropped two atom bombs on Japan. It didn’t have to end that way. Japan had beaten back all the way from New Guinea, the Pacific archipelagos, the Philippines to Japan’s home island. We could have invaded and suffered a million casualties, and inflicted millions of casualties on Japan. Or Japan, knowing that it couldn’t win, could have surrendered before the bombs were dropped, Was President Truman “Genocide Harry,” or did he do what had to be done to end the war and avoid far greater casualties?

If Israel quits now, and Hamas survives, how long will it be before Hamas again emerges from among the civilian population and repeats October 7?

I am sorry, but for supporting Israel, I cannot agree with the protesters that President Biden should fairly be called “Genocide Joe.”

But then is there anything President Biden has done that might support labeling him “Genocide Joe?”

President Biden seems to support abortion without any limits. In the words of Vice-President Harris, “Joe Biden and I have a different view … we believe no politician should ever come between a woman and her doctor.” So, if five-minutes before delivery of a healthy, full-term baby, would Biden and Harris really stand by if the mother and her doctor decided to abort/kill a perfectly healthy child?

If it is “genocide” to kill Palestinian civilians who put Hamas in power, and who support Hamas and its October 7th atrocities, how can it be anything but “genocide” to abort an unlimited number of perfectly-healthy children, minutes before they will emerge naturally from the mother wombs?

And then, what about the President turning a blind-eye to the fentanyl crisis at our southern border?

CBS news reports that, “In 2021, 90% of some 80,000 opioid-related deaths involved fentanyl.”

PBS reports, “Drug deaths nationwide hit a new record in 2022. 109,680 people died as the fentanyl crisis continued to deepen, according to preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

“In 2023 the overdose death rate topped 112,000 in a 12-month period for the first time," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


In the last three years, what has President Biden done to staunch the flow of fentanyl manufactured in China and sent through Mexico into the U. S. to kill nearly 300,000 Americans?

Closed holes in President Trump’s border wall? Declared “war” on the fentanyl smugglers?

If it is “genocide” to supply Israelis with weapons used to kill 35,000 Palestinian civilians, and if the President’s primary duty under the Constitution is to “preserve and protect,” why isn’t President Biden properly labeled “Genocide Joe” for exacerbating problems at the southern border by his acts in furtherance of keeping our southern border wide-open, except at the ports of entry? Or will the label be proper only after 400,000 American die from fentanyl overdoses?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 24, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Biden's political version of 'stolen valor'

Every so often, President Biden says something so bizarre that even the mainstream media is forced to report it.


On April 17, while campaigning in Pittsburgh, Fox News reports that Mr. Biden told members of the United Steel Workers a bizarre story of about his long-deceased uncle, Ambrose “Uncle Bozey” Finnegan.

"Ambrose Finnegan, we called him Uncle Bozey, he was shot down. He was Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force. "They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there, and they checked and found some parts of the plane,"

"He flew those single-engine planes as reconnaissance over war zones, and he got shot down in New Guinea. They never found the body because there used to be, there were a lot of cannibals, for real, in that part of New Guinea."

Mr. Biden’s account, notes Fox, bears scant resemblance to the official report of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency.

"For unknown reasons, this plane was forced to ditch in the ocean off the north coast of New Guinea." … "Both engines failed at low altitude, and the aircraft’s nose hit the water hard."

The report also said three men failed to emerge from the sinking wreck and were lost in the crash, one crew member survived and was rescued by a barge, and that Finnegan’s remains were not associated with any of the remains recovered from the area after the war and are still not accounted for.


The report filed by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency makes no mention of (1) Uncle Bozey’s plane being shot down; in fact, the cause of the crash was determined to be failure of both engines. Additionally, the official report (2) makes no mention of no mention of “cannibals,” no suggestion that President Biden’s uncle was eaten by cannibal, or that the plane carrying went down in the 200-miles stretch of ocean between New Guinea and Los Negros, near enough to New Guinea for cannibals to canoe out for dinner.


So, how does a rational Democrat explain the President’s latest surreal personal account? Did it really happen and did the military get the facts wrong? Is the president lying about his family history in an effort to convince a few steel workers to vote for him? Does Mr. Biden have a screw loose?

But resume enhancement is nothing new for the president.

"In the first year of law school, I decided I didn't want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class." … "And then I decided to stay, went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class."

He later admitted that he graduated 76th in a class of 85.

And then there was his recounting of how he was arrested for trying to see Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

And then his story, told while in Maui, to show his sympathy for those who had lost their home to volcanic fires, about his house burning down due to a lightning strike. "To make a long story short, I almost lost my wife, my '67 Corvette and my cat."

In 2004, the American press still fact-checked Democrats, unlike today.

A 2004 report from The Associated Press, archived by LexisNexis, said lightning struck the Bidens’ home and started a "small fire that was contained to the kitchen." The report said firefighters got the blaze under control in 20 minutes and that they were able to keep the flames from spreading beyond the kitchen.


The military has a term for claiming you earned a medal when in fact you didn’t is “Stolen Valor.” President Biden seems obsessed with enhancing his political resume — the political version of “stolen valor.”


The problem with being untruthful of little things, is that it makes hard for the voters to know if you are telling the truth in big things.

Both of our candidates for the presidency have a serious character flaws. Mr. Trump says things that are crude and unpresidential. Mr. Biden says things that are patently untrue, and often screwy.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 24, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

You are paying for every “newcomer” who illegally crosses our Southern Border

During the Trump years, the Democrats declared the cities that they ran to be “sanctuary cities,” and refused to co-operate with Federal authorities to removes “newcomers” illegally here, even when they had committed serious crimes. Now that they are confronted with the costs of an open border. And now the mayors of New York and Chicago and the other large Democrat cities are demanding that the Feds “pick up the tab.” In NY, luxury hotels are being re-purposed — at taxpayer expense — to house the “newcomers” who have flooded across our Southern border and ended up in NY.

Does that make sense?

When my mother immigrated to the US (nearly a century ago), immigrants who were "unable to take care of themselves without becoming public charges," were declared unsuitable for American citizenship and therefore denied entry. Today family members who ask that their relative be afforded “green card status” are asked to “sponsor” them, to keep them from becoming “public charges.”

Do those rules make more sense?

Imagine that upon waking up in the morning, you hearing water running. Because the sound seems to be coming from the basement, you check. As you start down the basement steps, your worst fears are quickly confirmed. The one-inch water pipe, in the exposed rafters, some 8 feet above the meter, has burst, and is pouring 20 gallons a water per minute into your basement.

What do you do? (a) Climb back into bed and hope the problem goes away? (b) Grab a bunch of old rags and begin sopping up the water? (c) Begin moving the basement furniture outside to dry? (d) Close the main shutoff valve?

Any same individual would choose to close the main shutoff valve! But not President Biden.

Consider the crisis at our Southern Boarder, and compare.

President Trump’s first step was to “close the main shut off valve” — build a state-of-the-art border wall to keep “newcomers” from illegally entering the US between our ports of entry.

President Joe Biden’s first step upon taking office was to immediately halt construction to close the remaining gaps in the wall. He believes that if he welcomes the “newcomers” with open arms, provides them with free food, housing, schooling for their children, medical care, cell phones, etc. that the “newcomers” will be forever grateful to him and his fellow Democrats, and will vote “Democrat” for the rest of their lives, thereby guaranteeing that the Democrats win all future elections.

And what is the cost to the taxpayers of the Biden Vote-Buying scheme?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) after taking account of the taxes that the “newcomers” pay into the Federal Treasury — estimates the cost to be $150,000,000,000 annually. You can easily calculate your share of that —as well as the shares of your spouse and each of your children.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 13, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

The Art of the Judicial Screwing

Imagine that while you were a boy, that your father died, and that in his will, he left you a lot within the City of Moline. That lot, at the time, was valued at $10,000 in his estate inventory.

Fifteen years later, you have now graduated from law school, passed the bar, obtained your first job and married. You and you wife now wish to buy a home.

You go to the bank and ask for a $100,000 mortgage. They ask for your financial statement. You state that your income is $90,000 per year, that you have about $50,000 in savings, and that the lot your dad willed you, has a value of $25,000. In setting the value of the lot, you take into account the years of inflation since your dad died.

The bank loans you the $100,000. Under your note and mortgage, you are required to pay the loan off in 20 years. The bank sets the interest rate at 7%.

For the next 20, you faithfully make every payment of principal and interest on time and in full. (You also paid all real estate taxes as they came due). After you have made your last payment, the bank gives you a release of mortgage. You now believe that you own your house free.

But three years later, the Attorney General of your state enters the picture. He sues you for “defrauding” the bank by overstating the value of the lot your father willed to you, and your income. He claims that in your financial statement to the bank, you overvalued your lot by $10,000, and your income by $5000.

The Attorney General claims that had you honestly stated the value of your lot to be $15K rather than $25K, and your income to be $85K rather than $90K, the bank probably would have asked for interest at the rate of 8% rather than 7%. The Attorney General brings in a CPA to support his allegations. He asked that you be assessed a civil penalty equal to the extra 1% interest that the bank would have earned over the 20 year-period, or approximately $10,000.

The judge rules that for the Attorney General to prevail, it is not necessary that the bank deemed itself damaged by your ”fraud,” or that it even relied upon your “fraud.” The judge assesses a $10,000 civil penalty upon you. Moreover, he assesses interest, compounded yearly, on each of the twenty $1000 payments of interest that you should have made over each of the twenty years of your mortgage.

Remember: The bank has never made any complaint of “fraud.” They deemed that they had been repaid in full. `Indeed, they may never see a penny of the judge’s $10,000-plus award. That may all go into the coffers of the State.

Would you feel you had been treated fairly by the judge? By the Attorney General?

You would probably insist that you have been judicially screwed. That’s precisely what former-President Trump is doing — and for the same reason.

Mr. Trump has previously written The Art of the Deal. Now you and he can combine to write The Art of the Judicial Screwing.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 29, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is only Israel required to fight a 'Just War?'

As I have watched the pro-Palestinian tumult in the streets of our great cities, I have wondered how many Americans have taken time to read Hamas’ founding document — “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,”18 August 1988.1

In the “Covenant’s” preface, we are told: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Article VI states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

Article VII concludes, “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Hamas believes that a land once “conquered by the armies of Islam,” is forever “consecrated” “to Moslem generations until the Day of Judgement (Art. 11):”

“Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (Holy Possession) land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day."

“This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.”

In Article XIII, Hamas rejects all compromise – all peaceful coexistence.

“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against a part of religion."

“Now and then, the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question.

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

“Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.”

Article XV sets out the means Hamas intends to employ to achieve its end.

“The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

“It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).

“It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.”

 

On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacked the civilian population in Israel, in clear violation of the “laws of war.” Roughly 1,200 Israeli’s (including some foreign nationals) were murdered. The figure includes women who were raped, and children who were slaughtered; 250 more, including the elderly, women and children, were taken hostages.

So, what is Israel supposed to do? Abide by the Geneva Convention as to Palestinian non-combatants, while Hamas makes mockery of the Convention, revels in killing elderly Israeli women, pregnant women and infants, and exultantly sends iPhone videos of its atrocities to its supporters?

What Hamas did IS PURE EVIL.

Hamas calls for the “obliteration” of Israel and the killing of every Jew — for every Muslim to engage in Jihad. Hamas rejects all initiatives, proposals and international conferences as a waste of time and vain endeavors. And then wonders why Israel responds with total war?

Imagine living in a lawless part of town, and having a “neighbor,” who has repeatedly and publicly threatened to kill you and your family. That “neighbor” then breaks into your home, rapes your wife, beheads her and your infant daughter, and kidnaps your 2-year-old son. Not satisfied, he publicly announces he still plans to kill you and your remaining children. What do you do?

What is Israel supposed to do with an enemy who will not negotiate peace? Who calls for “Jihad” to “obliterate Israel,” and for the killing of every last Jew (who will not abjure his religion and become Moslem)?

The NY Times reports (12-27-23)

“Hamas … and its affiliates have continued to fire rockets at Israel nearly every day, … striking some of the country’s biggest cities.

“Hamas and other armed groups have fired about 12,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel ….”

Hamas hides its rocket launchers in Gaza among the civilian population, and fires its rockets at the civilian population throughout Israel.

Hamas claims the right to torture, rape and murder all Israeli non-combatants. It beheads women and children. Takes hostages. Refuses to negotiate.

The Jews, it seems, are required to love their Palestinian neighbors as they love themselves. Hamas requires the Palestinians wage murderous Jihad against every Jew until Israel is “obliterated” and every Jew is killed.

What standing does Hamas have to demand that Israel observe all “Rules of War,” when Hamas pisses on every one of them?

1. The Covenant is available online, in full, at Yale Law School’s Avalon Project — an online library of original documents dealing with law, history and diplomacy.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 19, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea