Why Can't Obama See, Drug Dealers Deal Death?

As fast as U.S. attorneys and federal judges imprison cocaine and heroin dealers, President Obama seemingly commutes their sentences, and puts them back on the street, naively or disingenuously describing them as "non-violent offenders."




On July 24, The Dispatch ran an article captioned "RICo sees rise in fatal heroin overdoses."

Justin Gengler is dead; his grandmother believes the cause of his death was heroin. According to the Rock Island County coroner, "Since 2011 there have been 39 fatal heroin overdoses in Rock Island County, with victims ... ranging in age from 19 to 59."

The article adds, "State and federal prosecutors are increasingly filing homicide-related charges against people accused of providing heroin that led to an overdose death" for wantonly providing drugs that kill.

But while prosecutors more and more may be filing homicide-related charges, Whitehouse.gov boasts, in some detail, of President Obama's drug-dealer sentence commutations.

On March 30, the administration announced sentence commutations for 61 drug offenders. Twelve of those "non-violent" 61, had also been convicted of related firearm offenses. These March 30 commutations brought the total of Obama drug-offense commutations to 248 -- more than the six prior presidents combined!

Those commutations include:


1. Carmel Bretous, Miami, Fla. Conspiracy to import at least five kilograms of cocaine; importation of five kilograms of cocaine; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; Sentence: 235 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (Nov. 6, 2001) Commuted to: Prison sentence commuted to expire on July 28, 2016.

2. Dexter Lanoyd Dickens, Panama City, Fla. Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (four counts); principal to distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; Sentence: Life imprisonment; 10 years' supervised release (Dec. 17, 2004). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

3. Bernard Beard, Compton, Calif. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and phencyclidine (PCP); felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; Sentence: 240 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (May 22, 2009). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

4. Ernest Spiller, East St. Louis. Distribution of crack cocaine (two counts); maintaining a crack house; possession of a firearm in further of a drug trafficking crime; felon in possession of a firearm. Sentence: 352 months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release; $1,000 fine (Aug. 3, 2000). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28.

Later, President Obama commuted the sentences of 58 more drug dealers, including Wade Cutchen, Newport News, Va. Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine; possession with intent to distribute heroin; Sentence 324 months imprisonment; five years supervised release (Sept. 15, 2000); amended to 262 months imprisonment (May 19, 2015). Commuted to: Sentence expires in February 2017.

To speak of these defendants whose sentences have been commuted by Mr. Obama as "non-violent" is utterly disingenuous. These White House summaries clearly do not disclose the defendants' prior convictions. Were these scumbags really first-time offenders? Do you really believe federal judges were imposing sentences of 235 months to life on first-time offenders? Or did they have prior convictions for armed robbery? Distribution of heroin?

Thirty-nine Quad-Cities-area drug users have died from heroin overdoses during the last five years. Every time one of Mr. Obama's "non-violent drug dealers" deals drugs, he deals potential death. And with drug sales, drug wars and gun violence: 340 shot dead; 1,979 shot and wounded in Chicago this year alone.


Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Concealed Carry Prophets of Doom Guessed Wrong

Those who favor stricter gun control in Illinois have operated on the premise -- I believe in good faith -- that allowing the concealed carry of firearms will result in greater gun violence because those with "concealed carry permits" (CCPs) will misuse their weapons.

On July 9, 2013, Illinois became the last state to permit concealed carry -- only after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declared unconstitutional Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as violation of the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

Three years have now passed since concealed carry became Illinois law. Because I could recall no news accounts of Illinois CCPs being convicted of firearm violence, I went to the internet to see if there were accounts I might have missed.


The first article I found was a Chicago Tribune piece captioned "In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought." To my surprise, the article did not list a single incident of criminal misuse of a firearm by a CCP. The worst "problem" cited involved an incident wherein a CCP lawfully tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a responding police officer to duck for cover.

As of May 31, 2016, IllinoisCarry states that about 178,000 CCPs are in effect in Illinois. ( illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61841) So how many of those 178,000 CCPs have been convicted of gun violence or murder?

In checking the internet, I can find only one episode of gun violence by an Illinois CCP -- a murder/suicide. Given the lockstep predisposition of the liberal press to lobby for "stricter gun control," it is inconceivable that if CCPs were using their weapons for murder and violent crimes, that the internet would not be awash with such reports.

Corroborating my research, Chuck Goudie of the ABC-7 Chicago I-Team wrote on Aug. 14, 2015,

"There are now more than 120,000 CCPs in Illinois and it is extremely rare to hear about a permit holder being involved in any violent crime, much less a murder. Friday's (murder/suicide) was the first of 2015 according to police officials, if not the first at all here since Illinois passed concealed carry."

That translates to 1 violent crime per 120,000 CCPs. This is consistent with a July 16, 2015 Report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, entitled "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States," which concludes, "Permit Holders are Extremely Law-abiding."

"Permit holders on rare occasion violate the law. But in order to truly appreciate how incredibly rare those problems are, one needs to remember that there are over 12.8 million CCPs in the US. Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the US who is anywhere near as law-abiding ...

"Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for CCPs, in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states." (crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf)

In Illinois the standards for CCP are rigorous. The applicant, among other things, must have no felony or misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence, no pending warrants, a full background check, 16 hours of firearms training by a state police-approved instructor, and local law enforcement officers must have no objection.

Additionally, the new law clarifies and expands the reporting requirements relating to individuals who have severe mental health problems. Physicians, clinical psychologists, and qualified examiners must report when they determine that someone poses a clear and present danger, is developmentally disabled, or may be otherwise disqualified from possessing a FOID Card. (For a good summary of the requirements, see: chicagotribune.com/news/ct-obama-gun-control-illinois-impact-met-20160105-9-story.html)


Posted: Wednesday, July 9, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why America Needs Another Harry Truman

This November, we will elect our next president. In November of 1948, I cast my first presidential ballot. I was 7 at the time. I was in second grade.

That "election" was conducted by Sister Mary Margaret at Our Lady of Mercy. I "voted" for Harry S. Truman, Democrat. I was one of only two kids that did. The other thirty-some kids voted for Thomas E. Dewey, Republican.

Like a great many Americans who will vote this fall, I had no clue what either President Truman or Gov. Thomas Dewey stood for. My best recollection is that I voted for Harry Truman "because he was president.”

My vote for Truman, was a vote I have never regretted. And with the passage of years, historians have come to realize that Mr. Truman may well have been one of our greatest presidents.

Truman wasn't always right. But he had the guts to do what he believed was right, regardless of polls, party politics or personal gain.

To end World War II in the Pacific, Harry Truman dropped two atom bombs. It is estimated that those bombs killed 246,000 Japanese. In his memoirs, Mr. Truman estimated that 500,000 Americans would have died had we invaded Japan -- had the bombs not been dropped. Secretary of War Stimson and Winston Churchill estimated 1 million American deaths. Those figures did not include estimates of Japanese deaths.

In February 1948, the president submitted a civil rights agenda to Congress in furtherance of voting rights and fair employment practices for blacks.

This provoked a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats and the split of the Democratic Party. Mr. Truman refused to back down. "My forebears were Confederates ... but my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten."

Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution against African-American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman. His response was Executive Order 9981 (July 1948), desegregating and requiring equal opportunity and racial integration in the Armed Forces.

Another executive order made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race.

In 1943, while still a senator, Mr. Truman called for a homeland for Jews who survived Hitler's Holocaust. State Department officials, however, were reluctant to offend the Arabs. Secretary of Defense Forrestal warned Truman of the importance of Saudi oil in the event of war. Truman replied that he would decide his policy on the basis of justice, not oil. Truman recognized Israel over the objections of Secretary of State George Marshall on May 14, 1948.

In 1950, the Senate, led by Estes Kefauver, investigated charges of corruption among internal Revenue officials, and 166 employees either resigned or were fired in 1950. With many soon facing indictment, Attorney General McGrath fired the special prosecutor for being too zealous. Truman fired McGrath. Truman’s plan to reform Internal Revenue was passed by Congress.

In 1952, Mr. Truman, citing his authority as commander-in-chief and the need to maintain an uninterrupted supply of steel for munitions to be used in the Korean War, instructed his secretary of commerce to take control of a number of the nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that, without prior Congressional authorization, his actions were unconstitutional.

Mr. Truman supported the creation of the U.N. He established the Berlin Airlift to save Berlin when the Soviets cut-off access. He enunciated the Truman Doctrine to contain the Soviets He won bi-partisan support for the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe. He fired Gen. McArthur for insubordination.

And what I like best about him, was that he told the truth.

Harry Truman retired to Missouri a poor man. He had only his WWI army pension. He refused to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself.

Before voting this fall, I recommend you watch the movie "Truman." (It is available on amazon.com.)

Measure how our 2016 candidates measure up against a great president.

Posted: Wednesday, July 16,  2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

First Right Is the Right to Defend Ourselves

As I write, 49 bodies have now been removed from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

Fifty-three more patrons suffered wounds, in the deadliest shooting rampage perpetrated in modern American history. The gunman, Omar Mateen, took a timeout during his shooting spree to call 911 and profess allegiance to the Islamic State.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the shooter first opened fire outside the nightclub, exchanged fire with a uniformed Orlando police officer working security for the nightclub, and entered the club where he began his mass murder spree. By the time additional officers arrived, it was too late for 102 of his victims.


At the time of Mateen's entry, there were 300 unarmed patrons in the club.

The Pulse was a "gun free zone" under Florida law. A number of things are evident from the early news accounts:

1. Mateen ignored the "gun free zone" signs on the doors.

2. The Pulse's "gun free zone" status did not prevent gun violence or save lives. The fact that patrons were unarmed facilitated the slaughter.

3. The fact that an armed officer was working security outside the club did not protect the patrons. The armed terrorist was in the club before the officer could stop him.

4. The police officers responding to the call for help arrived too late to prevent 102 patrons from being shot.

5. Stricter gun laws would probably not have prevented the massacre. France had stricter gun laws, yet the Paris shooters still found a way to get guns.

If Mateen had been unable to acquire a semi-automatic rifle, could he not have achieved the same result using one or more semi-automatic pistols? Or a hand grenades? Is there no black market for these things?

6. Attorney General Loretta Lynch's dicta that the “most effective” weapon at America’s disposal against Islamic terrorism is “love” is absurd. Six million Jews found prayer inadequate against Hitler's Holocaust.

But what if some of the patrons at the Pulse had been armed? What if only 1 percent had been carrying concealed? What if one of them was behind Mateen as he started to shoot? What if one of them was off to his side? What if one was in another portion of the building, and had time to take cover and return fire?

Of course, it is all speculation. But I am guessing that while Mateen would have killed and wounded a number of those present, he would not have had enough time to kill and wound 102. And if 2 percent of the patrons were carrying concealed, he would have had to face six people able to defend themselves and others about them.

Admittedly, they could have hit other patrons by mistake. The police could have, too. Admitting that, I doubt that 49 people would be dead and 53 wounded had six patrons been carrying.

Experience teaches that gun free zones have proved to be superb killing fields for the Dylan Klebolds and radical Islamic terrorists who believe their religion justifies/mandates slaughter of unarmed civilians -- women, children, etc.

There is a partial list of Islamist terrorists attacks since 1980, lest you have forgotten, at                 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks.

The simple fact is, the terrorists are winning. There are not (and never can be) enough police in America to stop the San Bernardinos and Orlandos. There will never be enough police to protect every bar, nightclub, school, amusement park, airport, bus station, wedding, funeral, and every other soft target in the U.S. And when the government is unable (or unwilling) to protect us, we have the most basic of all rights -- the right to defend ourselves.

For many years, when I was a judge, I favored gun control. Wanton Islamic terror has caused me to reconsider. Experience (e.g., Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, Paris, Orlando) teaches that the only way to stop the terrorism is via concealed carry by screened and trained citizens.

So, do we have more to fear from citizens permitted to carry concealed than from terrorists? See my next op ed.


Posted July 1, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

To Obama, Whatever You Think You Are, You Are

On May 13 President Obama's Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education issued a directive providing "significant guidance" to schools receiving federal funding.

The directive threatens, "As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations. The Departments treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity."One activity specifically dealt with in the directive is use of school bath and locker rooms:

"A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy."

Simply put, if a boy suddenly identifies himself as a girl, he ipso facto becomes a "she" and must not be denied access to female restrooms or locker rooms.

According to the directive, neither birth, genitalia nor DNA determine whether a child is male or female. Every boy can now choose to be a girl, and vice versa. Now, all that matters is how the child self-identifies.

For the Obama's bureaucrats, gender is not something with which one is born; it is merely something "assigned at birth" and recorded on one's birth certificate. As the directive explains:

"Gender identity refers to an individual's internal sense of gender. A person's gender identity may be different from or the same as the person's sex assigned at birth.

"Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation recorded on an infant's birth certificate should such a record be provided at birth.

"'Transgender' describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth."

In Obama's mind, genitals do not determine one's sex. Sex is originally determined by the accident of what a registrar writes on one's birth certificate. A transgender female is no more than a person who some recordkeeper arbitrarily designated at birth to be a "boy," who now -- without more -- identifies as a girl. The directive specifically explains:

"Gender transition refers to the process in which transgender individuals begin asserting the sex that corresponds to their gender identity instead of the sex they were assigned at birth. During gender transition, individuals begin to live and identify as the sex consistent with their gender identity and may dress differently, adopt a new name, and use pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Transgender individuals may undergo gender transition at any stage of their lives, and gender transition can happen swiftly or over a long duration of time."

No, a sex-change operation is not required; nor is a medical diagnosis. All that's required is self-identification. If a boy standing outside a girls' locker room suddenly "identifies" himself as a girl, he she would have the right to enter.

According to the directive:

" ... there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity. Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity ... requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX.

No, today is not April Fools' Day.


 Posted, May 17, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Rock Island County Making Itself the Target of a Lawsuit

Certain Rock Island County Board members and the Public Building Commission are playing a dangerous game.

Their actions could well result in all complicit members being sued for $28 million and millions in attorneys' fees (perhaps non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) for civil rights violations.

Every taxpayer forced to pay an unauthorized tax has standing to sue -- both for himself, and those "similarly situated."


The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process. Due process means "in accordance with the law of the land" (i.e., Illinois).

A county, if authorized by Illinois law, may impose and collect a tax. But unless a particular tax is authorized by the Constitution or laws of Illinois, a county is without power to impose it. For example, if the Constitution provides that no city can impose an income tax, then no city can impose an income tax.

The same is true when a county board is by law authorized to impose a tax only after a referendum. Against that, consider the following facts, most of which have been lifted from the "friendly" little lawsuit recently brought against the Public Building Commission.

(By "friendly" I mean, why no motion for an outside judge? Why no appeal?)

The Public Building Commission was created for the sole purpose of providing "a good and sufficient jail." When a building commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for that purpose only -- for a limited purpose.

Now that commission and the county board want to use the commission to build a Justice Center Annex containing courtrooms. No additional jail cells, (other than possible temporary holding cells for prisoners who are brought to court) are part of the planned Justice Center proposal.

There is a statutory procedure for a county to expand the purpose of a public building Commission:

"The purpose of a public building commission created by the county board ... may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose of the ... commission has been submitted to the electors ... at a regular election and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question."

Illinois law unambiguously states that the county board may not expand the purposes of a public building commission without a referendum.


When the board charges ahead, claiming no referendum is needed, and levies a tax to pay for the Public Building Commission's new jail annex project, it clearly purports to be acting "under color of (some) law," and in imposing their tax, it clearly will be taking "property" from persons.

It justifies its actions claiming the courthouse annex is really just a part of the jail. Really? A jail is a place where you put prisoners. A courthouse, in essence, is a place where judges and juries try lawsuits. (A courthouse need not include a recorder of deeds, or a county clerk's office; but it always includes courtrooms).

Jails, controlled by the sheriff, are part of the executive department. A jail doesn't become a courthouse simply because clever county board members say so.

People freely enter and leave a courthouse. Except for prisoners being brought to court, people entering the courthouse are not in handcuffs, are not under guard, and wear no orange suits,

A courthouse essentially consists of courtrooms, and facilities for judges and jurors. Judges and juries work in courtrooms; not in jail cells. Courtrooms, run by judges, are part of the judicial department. Courthouses are not places of imprisonment.

When the present county jail was built, everybody knew what the resolution meant when it said: For the "sole purpose" of providing "a good and sufficient jail." The original intent was clear. It was sold as a jail. A jail was authorized. A jail was built. Not a courthouse!

Now that resolution is seen by the judges and many members of the county board as a "living document," meaning, "anything they want it to mean."


Posted: May 10, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Great Chicago to Moline Train Boondoggle

If rail passenger service between Moline and Chicago is a money-making proposition, why was service dropped in 1978? Why hasn't some railroad or entrepreneur re-instituted service during the last 38 years?

A May 12 Dispatch/Argus editorial endorsed the project.

"The overall project cost is $222 million with $177 million coming from the federal government. The state's commitment is $45 million. The Moline ... station is also being funded by the state."

It is claimed that the new Amtrak route will bring "businessmen, families and tourists to and from the Quad-Cities, and provide jobs."

"It has been estimated the Q-C route would produce as many as 200,000 (548 per day) passengers per year."

Sound good? Here's what an April 14, 2008 Amtrak feasibility study projected:


1. One-way trip from Moline to Chicago:

a) 4 hours using existing tracks; b) 3 hours, 35 minutes on hours improved 60 mph tracks; c) or 3 

hours 20 minutes on improved 79 mph tracks.

2. Estimated the annual ridership (round trip):


a) 90,000 on existing tracks; b) 102,000 on 60 mph tracks; c) 110,000 on 79 mph tracks.


3. Projected route revenues:


a) $2.1 million on existing tracks; b) $2.4 million on 60 mph tracks; c) $2.6 million on 79 mph tracks.


4. Estimated annual operating expenses:


a) $8.4 million on unimproved tracks; b) $8.4 on 60 mph tracks; c) $8.5 million on 79 mph tracks. (amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267400916/1241245669129).


In short, as per the Amtrak feasibility study on unimproved, or on 60 mph tracks, the train to Chicago will lose $6 million annually; on 79 mph tracks, it will lose a mere $5.9 million.


What if the losses are understated? Rail and Reason, in an April 13, 2013 piece captioned, "Seat mile and passenger mile costs for Amtrak," says they are.


The Hoosier State Route (Chicago to Indianapolis) computes:


-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.835;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.153. (A loss of $0.682 per mile).


The Kansas City, Mo., to St. Louis Route seat mile and passenger totals were:



-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.427;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.138. (A loss of $0.289 per mile).


Assuming 79 mph tracks (best scenario) from Moline to Chicago, a round trip would take 6 hours and 40 minutes, excluding time going to the Moline station, going from the Chicago station to the ultimate Chicago destination, returning to the Chicago station, and getting home after disembarking at Moline.


The one-way adult fare for the 280 mile trip from St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo., is $72. For the 80 mile trip from Chicago to Milwaukee, $28. Fares, therefore, are roughly 25 cents a mile. Extrapolating, the cost of a 180-mile one-way trip from Moline to Chicago: $45 -- exclusive of bus or cab fare to get to and from the ultimate Chicago destination.


Based on these Amtrak figures, the Moline to Chicago route figures to lose $6 million annually. Assuming 100,000 round-trips per year, that means each round-trip loses $60. Each one-way trip, $30. If actual ridership is less than 200,000 one-way trips per year, the losses are proportionally greater.


There are but two ways for the proposed Moline/Chicago route to break even: set one-way prices at about $75 (and assume no ridership decrease), or subsidize the route -- indefinitely.


In her 2014 report, "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger painted a bleak picture of Illinois finances. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on other liabilities. This does not include the $111 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.


Illinois is broke. To waste $45 million as capital to get a passenger train running that is projected to lose $6 million a year is nuts. In my opinion, this smells of crony capitalism.


So, who really is pushing for the train? Who's going to get the $177 million federal and $45 million state investments? The owners of the historic O'Rourke building? Construction companies upgrading the track? Who?


And the taxpayers get to make up the annual $6 million losses!





Posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea