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

Biden should use his 'pardon power' to end the political vitriol

I listened carefully to President Biden’s speech from the Oval Office tonight [October 19, 2023]. To the extent that he called for Congress to provide funding so that the U.S. could serve as the “arsenal of democracy” for Ukraine and Israel, it was an excellent speech.

Near the end of his speech, the President also importantly stated:

“Time is of the essence. I know we have our divisions at home. We have to get past them. 

 “We can't let petty partisan petty politics get in the way of the responsibilities of a great nation.

“We cannot and will not let terrorists like Hamas and Putin win. I refuse to let that happen.

 “In moments like these we have to remember who we are. We're the United States of America, and there's nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”

I also fully agree with that. So, what are the main causes of our divisions?

There are no matters that have divided the country more than:

• The two impeachments of President Trump;

• The bringing of criminal charges against President Trump and his supporters;

• The charges that Hunter Biden has been guilty of taking Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese monies.

• The charge that Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese monies have been funneled to President Biden, and that he is “corrupt.”

The “vitriol” (to use President Biden’s word) that had resulted from the accusations and counter-accusations has made it impossible for Republicans and Democrats in Washington to work together to solve the real problems of the country.

President Biden has to power the put an end to this division, vitriol and hatred that have crippled the House and the Senate for the past six years, and to “bind up” or least try to “bind up” the nation’s political wounds. He should use his constitutional powers to put an end to the above diversions. He should do what Lincoln wanted to do after the Civil War, and what President Andrew Johnson actually did. USE THE PARDON POWER!

If he is serious in wanting a united country, and Congressmen and Senators who can work together, now is the time to:

• Fully pardon former-President Trump and all those in his administration for any and all crimes they committed, or arguably committed, during the 2016 campaign through the end of President Trump’s term of President, including claims arising out of the so-called insurrection, and the mishandling of classified documents.

 

• He should also pardon himself and his son, Hunter, for any and all crimes they committed, or arguably committed, during the years of the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, including claims for the mishandling of classified documents,

The choice is clear: Continue to snipe across the aisle or work across it.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 23, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Iowa abortion law a good faith effort to strike proper balance

On July 12, this paper ran a long front page article, “Abortion ban likely — Iowa lawmakers aim to pass limits”

The article tells us that the bill prohibits abortions only after the baby’s heartbeat is detected. “Fetal heartbeat” is defined by the law as “cardiac activity — the steady and rhythmic contraction of the fetal (baby’s) heart within the gestational sac.”

Because abortions still can be performed before that heartbeat is detected, there clearly is no outright “ban;” just “limits.”

The law is also no “ban,” because abortions can be performed after a rape, if the rape victim reported the rape within 45 days, and after incest reported within 140 days of the offense.

The law also allows abortions where the woman experiences a “medical emergency.” “Medical emergency” is defined as “a situation where the abortion is performed to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered, or when the pregnancy creates a serious risk of substantial, irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Some, who favor greater access to abortions take issue with that definition, arguing that a baby’s heartbeat can truly only be heard somewhere between 17 and 20 weeks; what is heard before that are only “electrical impulses.”

One doctor, who seemingly argues in support of abortion without any limitations, is quoted in the article as saying, “abortion is health care.” “Reproductive freedom is necessary for a healthy and functional community.” The legislation “forces women into lifelong obligations which impact her education, career, family and community.”

But how is abortion “health care for the baby?” Or is the baby unworthy of consideration? Where in that doctor’s remarks do we see any attempt at balancing the mother’s health care interests against the baby’s rights to life and health care?

Many Americans have a sincere religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception. Others believe a woman has an absolute right to abort/kill the child in her womb at any time.

What is clear, however, is that not all Iowans share the same religious or absolutist beliefs.

The people of Iowa can quibble about whether these limits imposed by their legislature are too restrictive or not sufficiently restrictive. But they can adjust or abolish the limits at any time in the future. In overturning Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Dobbs' decision, admitted its prior error, and returned the issue to the people of the several states to decide the issue for themselves through their elected state representatives.

I favor the Dobbs decision overturning Roe for two reasons:

1. Roe amended our U.S. Constitution in an unconstitutional way. The Constitution itself specifies the procedures by which it can be amended. Nowhere does it provide that five, six, seven, eight or nine judges have that power.

2. I agree with Thomas Jefferson about the source of our fundamental rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The passage of time, and the advances of science show the wisdom of Jefferson’s words. We now know that every human being possesses both the DNA of his mother and of his father. Indeed, it is that DNA which makes every embryo/fetus/baby a human being; indeed, a distinct human being from the moment of conception.

Therefore, if Jefferson is correct when he states that “all men” (meaning “all men, women and children”) have an “unalienable right to life” (and I think he was), then the baby in the womb, being a human being, has an unalienable right to life.

In saying that, I do not mean to imply the life of the embryo/fetus/baby can never be taken. But if taken, it can be taken only for the most serious of reasons —reasons akin to self-defense. In this legislation, for example, the legislature has impliedly determined that rape and incest do not end when penetration ends, but continue on, until the child conceived in rape/incest is aborted. Similarly, notwithstanding the fetus’ right to life, the legislature has determined that the child’s life can be balanced against the mother’s right to act in defense of her own life.

The words of the Declaration of Independence are germane here because it is undeniable that the embryo/fetus/baby is as human as you or I are. It is just younger and more helpless.

If our law doesn’t have as its highest value the protection of human life at all stages, what should its highest value be? Why did Lincoln regard slavery as a moral wrong? Why do we condemn Hitler’s “final solution” for the Jews, gypsies and the mentally disabled? Why do many oppose the death penalty for even those guilty of the most brutal murders? Is a baby’s life worth less?

Is the legislation perfect? Time will tell. But at least under the Dobbs’ decision, the representatives of the people of Iowa appear to have made a good faith effort to strike a reasonable balance between the unborn baby’s right to life, and the mother’s life, health and right to be free from criminally forced pregnancies.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 23, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

The remedy for hate-speech is counter-speech

Two op eds ago, I wrote that the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution might be amended in ways which I believed would appeal only to fools — to readers who were “constitutionally clueless” as to the meaning and importance of the First and Second Amendments in their lives and in the lives of the American people. The “simple” amendments that I "proposed," if adopted, would have gutted our First and Second Amendments and ushered in totalitarian government.


Now I ask a few more questions:

1. Can there really be “freedom of speech” if the government can define what constitutes “disinformation?”

2. Is there “free speech” if the government can make the dissemination of “disinformation” a criminal offense?

3. If the government can imprison you for up to five years if you happen to say something that the government labels “disinformation?”

4. Do you really have a “right to keep and bear arms” if the government can impose any limitation on that right that the government deems “reasonable?”


In 1777, one year after he wrote our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson penned the “Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty.” Jefferson deemed his statute, which became Virginia law in 1778, to be his second most important writing. As you read these few quotes from Jefferson, note Jefferson believed our “rights” were “God-given;” not gifts from any government.

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain, by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint …

“that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments … are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do.”

Jefferson saw with clear eyes the historical tendency of governments to ordain that only their beliefs were true and infallible.

“Legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible, … have assumed dominion over the faith of others, (and have set) up their own opinions … as the only true and infallible, and … endeavor(ed) to impose them on others … over the greatest part of the world and through all time"

Jefferson understood, that allowing the government to shut down out thought that it disagreed with inevitably destroyed all freedom of speech and religious liberty.

“To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy …

“It at once destroys all religious liberty.”

Jefferson understood the tendency of the magistrate to “approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own.”

Jefferson, however, realized that some speech must be restrained:

“It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”

 So, what was Jefferson’s remedy for disinformaton? Misinformation?

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself.

“She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition [she is] disarmed of her natural weapons: free argument and debate.

“Errors cease to be dangerous when it (truth) is permitted freely to contradict them.”

These principles and those enunciated in the Declaration of Independence are the principles under which Madison, Jefferson’s right-hand man, drafted our Bill of Rights.

When it comes to determining which speech shall be permitted and which tenants of faith are true and can be practiced as a person’s free exercise of religion, our Constitution vest that determination solely in the individual; not in any branch of government.

Over the nearly 200 years of our republic, the Supreme Court has narrowly defined a few classes of speech that have historically been deemed beyond the protection of the First Amendment: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, speech integral to criminal conduct, and speech that creates a clear and present danger.

Lying, disinformation, misinformation, hate-speech, bullying speech, however, have never been proscribed; their remedy, as noted by Jefferson, lies in counter-speech.

Similarly, the remedy for using or possessing guns in a criminal fashion, is prison. It is not to punish or confiscate from the law-abiding individual.

After our Constitution was drafted, it is said that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what sort of government the convention had created? He is said to have answered, “A republic — if you can keep it.”

Jefferson’s notion that our fundamental rights are God-given made America the exception among nations. The men who built America on his premise gave us a great gift. The English people fought a 700-year battle with the successors of William the Conqueror to force recognition of those God-given rights. Americans who would cede their rights are fools. Those who would permit the government to nibble away at them aren’t much better. Rights ceded to government are rarely regained.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 16, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea