Were '90s Democrats Racists? Xenophobes?

I recently had a conversation with a brilliant man -- a liberal friend -- I've known for almost 50 years. He opposes President Trump's "extreme vetting" immigration policy.

"Christian charity requires us to admit the poor -- the oppressed - of any nation who would seek refuge here." Then, with a twinkle in his eye, he added "And if the additional 50,000 refuges that we situate in Michigan vote Democrat in the 2020 election, and turn the state 'blue' again, so much the better."

I wasn't sure, if his afterthought was serious or putting the needle in; whether his motivation was to be Christ-like, or to win the next election, or both. Perhaps because I saw a glaring contradiction between his deep concern for all who would immigrate here, and his utter lack of concern for the child in the womb, I wasn't sure whether winning the next election was his genuine concern.



I also couldn't help but compare his remarks on immigration with those made by another very prominent Democrat 22 years ago.

"All Americans -- not only in the States most heavily affected, but in every place in this country -- are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

"The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.

"The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.

"That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

" ... we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

"We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."


This was six years before America became conscious of the real possibility of terror in the homeland -- six years before radical Islamic terrorists flew passenger liners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, murdering some 3,000 Americans; before Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon massacre, the attack on the Marine Recruiting Office in Chattanooga, and the San Bernardino Christmas party massacre. And before the Mexican Drug cartels really got going. Today those cartels ship cannabis, cocaine and heron across our open border. Chicago and other American cities have become killing fields as gangs kill over who controls territory. Drug-cartel related violence in the streets caused the Chicago Crime Commission to label Joaquin Guzman Loera, head of Sinaloa Drug Cartel, as Chicago's Public Enemy No. 1.

There are obvious reasons American parents for generations have taught their children to never talk to strangers. If a stranger came to your door, and asked if he could move into your home, would you let him? Would you be comfortable you could do so safely without "vetting" him? Would you let him sleep in a room next to your small children unless you were satisfied as to their safety?

The bottom line is this: Regardless of whether my friend's position on vetting is based on Christian charity or crass political considerations, it ignores the fact that ISIS and drug cartels are at war with us, even if we don't think we are at war with them.

Prudence is a Christian virtue.

By the way, my prominent Democrat was President Bill Clinton. The citation is from his Jan. 24, 1995 State of the Union speech.

Posted: QCOline.com February 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Obama and MLK's 'Dream' 53 Years Later

When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, I was wary of his associations, economic notions, views on foreign policy and disarmament.

At the same time, I was enthusiastic that a black American who had come from a home without a father, who had lived in Indonesia, and who had experimented with marijuana and cocaine, could overcome those disadvantages.

I was enthusiastic because Barack Obama had succeeded at Harvard, gotten his law license, gotten himself elected to the Illinois state Legislature, then to the U.S. Senate and ultimately to the highest position of trust and confidence in the land -- the U.S. presidency. Someone may have helped him along the way. But he still earned his own success.

I felt the most important message of the 2008 election was that "the doors were open" to any person in the United States -- regardless of religion, color or humble beginnings -- to become president. His success proved that work paid off.

If Obama, a minority, who had formerly messed with illegal drugs could become president, then any child from a broken home messing with drugs in Chicago or LA, could do the same thing -- if he set his mind to it!

Mr. Obama's election dispelled the myth that most of white America still wanted to keep black America down. (In 2010, 72.4 percent of Americans were white; 12.6 percent were black.) Without a great many white votes, Mr. Obama could not have been elected president.

Mr. Obama's election strongly suggested to me that Martin Luther King's dream of an America living up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence was inexorably coming true: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Former President Obama's election and MLK's speech inspired me to write a play, which I called "Mornings After the Dream."

The heroine is "Ethel," a black mother whose husband had been shot to death while perpetrating a liquor store robbery. Ethel was inspired by one of my favorite bailiffs down at the courthouse. All "facts" of my play came from my imagination -- except those pertaining to Ethel's character.

My Ethel is a woman widely respected in her church and her community. She is raising Terry, a surly, disrespectful teenage son, a school dropout, who has gone into the "businesses" of theft and dealing cannabis.

Terry blames the police for his father's death. Ethel doesn't. "It was all caught on a security camera. Your dad came out of the liquor store. ... [He] saw the officer, shot at him twice, and missed. ... The police officer returned fire. The camera showed it all. I must have watched it 20 times. ... You watched it, too, but you sees things that aren’t there, and which aren’t ever going to be there."

My Ethel, however, is a realist: "I realize there are still racists out there. But I also know millions of white Americans put race behind them and voted for President Obama ... Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, President Obama had a dream. Why can't you share in their dream? ... If the white folk didn't work together to stop Barack Obama from getting to the White House, why should they waste their time messing with your?"

If President Obama has moved us closer to Rev. King's dream, then despite any other shortcomings, he will go down as a successful president.


Posted: QCOline.com January 22, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Murder Committed by those with Little Respect for Life

The Fifth Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill.” Nevertheless, in 2016, there were 762 homicides in Chicago. But if God said, “Thou shall not kill,” then why?

Now we hear of a mentally handicapped young man being bound, gagged and tortured in Chicago.

Why?

Guns caused most of those deaths. Progressives, therefore, argue, “Ban all guns!”

But is the availability of guns the true cause of those killings? The torture? Do people who kill or torture their neighbors believe that destruction of human life is morally wrong? Punishable by God? Have they respect for life?

In 2015, Hillary Clinton told attendees of Women in the World Summit, “Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

Reproductive health care was Mrs. Clinton’s euphemism for abortion. She continued, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Fairly read, Mrs. Clinton was saying not just that the right to kill fetuses had to be protected. She was saying that resources (taxpayer funding) should be used to make abortions more readily available. Even more chilling, she said, the religious beliefs of Catholics and those who believe abortion to be a moral wrong must be changed.

Do you doubt her meaning? In the same video she added:

“I would like to see Planned Parenthood even get more funding. ... The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights.” (lifenews.com/2016/08/08/hillary-clinton-make-christians-change-their-religious-views-to-support-abortion.)

Thanks to Wikileaks, we have learned that Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were not her unique personal views.

The Clinton team had already created two organizations designed to undermine the church’s teachings on the right of the fetus to life.

In 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta received an email from Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman stating, “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.”

Newman suggested the Clinton team should “plant the seeds of revolution.”

Podesta responded, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this ... Likewise Catholics United. ”

Newman and Podesta were discussing two politically funded front organizations created to undermine church teaching against abortion -- to convince voters that there is no moral wrong in killing unborn children; to undermine church teachings demanding respect for life.

During the first 15 years of my judgeship, I regularly heard every type of case an Illinois judge could hear, including criminal and juvenile delinquency cases.

Overtime, I perceived a pattern. The sentencing reports prepared by our probation officers contained certain commonalities.

Most criminals/delinquents:

1. Read poorly, and did poorly in school;

2. Came from homes without a father; and

3. Lacked religious affiliation.

I would be shocked if those same commonalities weren’t present in the 762 Chicago homicides; in the torture. People don’t commit crimes for three main reasons:

-- It is against the law, and they might be imprisoned;

-- They have been taught by their families (immediate and extended) the golden rule, and that crime is wrong;

-- Their church teaches that Hell exists and that God severely punishes murderers.

Without family and church, what passes for “moral training” most likely comes from the schools or from the streets. But any street morality that approves selling drugs and using deadly force to defend one’s turf, is not likely to discourage gun violence.

In modern America, people have many reasons why they are not involved with organized religion. But in this political cycle, we have seen something new: the brain-trust of an American party covertly attempting to undermine church teachings protecting the right to life.

Destroy religion, the family, respect for life, and reject morality, and death follows; first, for the unborn, stripped of protections, both moral and legal.

Then, for the rest of us, who are left only with those legal protections accorded us by amoral men.


Posted: QCOline.com January 14, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

 

Does Obama Really Want an Election Redo?

Was the 2016 election unfair? Void?

On Dec. 14, 2016, NBC News, quoting unnamed U.S. intelligence officials, reported that Russian President Putin "became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign" to elect Donald Trump U.S. president. President Putin's spokesman immediately dismissed NBC's report as "laughable nonsense."

So, why should this matter now?


Didn't Hillary Clinton publicly concede the election on Nov. 9?

"Last night I congratulated Donald Trump ... I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. ... I'm sorry we did not win this election...

"We must accept the result and then look to the future ...

"Donald Trump is going to be our president. ... Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transition of power. We don't just respect that; we cherish it."

Is Mrs. Clinton's concession no longer operable? Is the peaceful transition of power no longer enshrined? Cherished?

On Dec. 14, Josh Earnest, President Obama's official spokesman -- who says only what the president wants said -- claimed, "There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia -- everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.”

What was Earnest's factual basis for that claim that Mr. Trump called on Russia to hack his opponent?

Perhaps this! On the stump, Mr. Trump said, "Russia has no respect for our country. ... If it is Russia, nobody even knows it's Russia ... It shows how weak we are. ... how disrespected ....

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 (Clinton) emails that are missing.

"I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice."

Trump's sarcasm was obvious. But Earnest heard only a confession of guilt and let his imagination run wild: “It MIGHT be an indication that (Trump) was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.”

But if Mr. Trump was aware, wasn't President Obama also aware? Did candidate Trump have better intelligence than President Obama? Was the CIA reporting to Mr. Trump, but not to President Obama? If the Russians were hacking, why didn't President Obama do something then and there? Whose permission did he need? His mother's?

The president's spokesman is now implying that Russia unfairly interfered in our election to assist Mr. Trump: “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns."


The election was "unfair." Earnest's unspoken, but logical conclusion, is clear: That "unfairness" rendered the election void. We need a new election!

Bizarre? Perhaps. But watch CNN's interview with former CIA agent Bob Baer, who said, “I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence, 'cause IF the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again” (cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn).

Who does Mr. Baer suggest should decide if America should vote again?

Mr. Baer's proposal would require President Obama to declare the 2016 election "illegal and void." But where in the Constitution is a president -- or anyone else -- given power to cancel election results, cling to power, and require a do-over?

There, of course, are leftist precedents for that. Fidel Castro (1961) announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba, and made himself president-for-life. Would Mr. Baer have President Obama stage a Castro-like coup d'etat? The left decries our "national divide." Would a coup be likely to heal that?

Our Constitution limits President Obama to two, four-year terms, and provides his term ends at noon on Jan. 20.

If the Russians hacked John Podesta's emails, Obama had his at-bat and whiffed. Now, Trump's the batter; it's his job to deal with Russian spit balls -- past and future.

Posted: QCOline.com January 7, 2017

Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

What Chicago Experience Suggests about "Stop and Frisk"

Last Saturday, I discussed what "Stop and Frisk" is, and that the U.S. Supreme Court approved its use as a police law enforcement street tool in Terry v. Ohio (1968). The primary intent was to allow the police to get guns off the street before they could be used in the commission of a crime, rather than to gather evidence after the crime for prosecution.

The Supreme Court saw a "stop" on the street as a less intrusive form of a seizure, and the "frisk" ("pat down") on the street as a less intrusive search, which nevertheless had to be objectively "REASONABLE," based on all the facts known to the officer at the time. The stop and frisk would be over in a few seconds, and an innocent person stopped would be quickly on his way.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. It seems un-American to be stopped on the street, required to answer question and patted down -- even if the stop lasts 30 seconds or less, and you're allowed to go your way.


In Chicago, there was a reaction. The ACLU and some leaders of the black community lobbied for additional restrictions on the use of Stop and Frisk. They got them.

According to a Feb. 1 report by ABC 7 Chicago, "For decades when Chicago police stopped and frisked someone on the street, they only had to fill out a small card called a "Contact Card." It required simple, basic information about who was stopped and why."

Beginning Jan. 1, a new Illinois law regulates when cops can stop and pat down people in public, and additionally requires officers to fill out a two-page "Investigatory Stop Report" - essentially a full-blown police report.

IL SB1304 provides:

The officer will record the following data on the stop card: the officer's subjective determination of the gender and race of the person stopped; the reason for the stop; date, time and location of the stop; whether a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person; and, if so, the reason for the protective pat down or frisk, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; whether or not a search beyond a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person or his or her effects; and, if so, the reason for the search, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the search beyond a protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; the disposition of the stop, such as a warning, a ticket, a summons, or an arrest; if a summons or ticket was issued, or an arrest made, a record of the violations, offenses, or crimes alleged or charged; and the name and badge number of the officer who conducted the detention.


Information obtained via a FOIA request, covering from Jan. 1-Oct. 24 shows, "Stops over that same period have plunged to 91,438 -- down 82 percent from 513,161 a year earlier."

Opponents of SB1304 contend that the time-consuming form that officers now must fill out for each stop has played a significant part in the drop. They further argue that if a cop makes no stops, he will never be charged with making unlawful stops.

Proponents argue there are fewer stops because the new reports prevent unlawful stops.

Dec. 2, 2016 Dispatch report states, "Chicago experienced more than twice as many homicides (77) in November" 2016, than it did in November 2015, and over 700 for the year. Chicago Fraternal Order of Police president Dean Angelo says less-aggressive policing no doubt coincides with the spike in Chicago murders and shootings.

So it seems that in Chicago, citizens are more secure against searches, and less secure against being shot to death. A cause/effect relationship is unprovable, but the numbers are suggestive.

Posted: QCOline.com December 17, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

"Stop and Frisk" - a Layman's Guide

What is Stop and Frisk?

Both presidential candidates discussed it. President-elect Trump was for it. Mrs. Clinton was against it. Neither explained it.

In this piece, I explain it so a person without law school training can understand it. In the next, I'll deal with the controversy surrounding it.

The starting point for the inquiry is the Fourth Amendment which provides that before a search or seizure can be constitutional there must be "probable cause" for that search or seizure.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The courts have held that probable cause means "reasonable cause" or "reasonable grounds." If all the facts known to the officer make it "reasonable" for him to search or arrest, he may constitutionally do so. To be constitutional, the search must be REASONABLE.

In Terry v. Ohio in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer "briefly stops" a suspect on the street and inquires as to his identity, and what he is doing, even though the officer might lack "probable cause" to arrest and haul a person off to jail, or conduct a full search -- if the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The officer could take the further step of "frisking" the defendant if he had a "reasonable suspicion" that the person stopped might be armed or dangerous to the officer.

This reasonable suspicion -- like probable cause -- must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's "hunch." The bottom line is that the officer's conduct still must be REASONABLE as required by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits only unreasonable searches or seizures.

But fewer "specific and articulable facts" are generally thought to be necessary to make a brief stop and/or frisk REASONABLE than would be required to justify a full "custodial arrest," and/or a complete search of the person.


The governing idea behind allowing Stop and Frisk is that it was to be a rather brief, minimal intrusion, done on the street, and an innocent person stopped would be free to go in a few seconds.

Stop and Frisk was perceived to involve a brief inquiry as to the person's identity, and what he was about. But even for such a brief stop "specific and articulable facts" were required. And if additional "specific and articulable facts" existed to justify a "pat down search" -- such as a bulge in the person's pocket indicative of a gun -- the officer could pat down the person's outer clothing.

An additional justification was that unlike traditional Fourth Amendment search for evidence in a criminal case after the commission of the crime, Stop and Frisk was envisioned as a law enforcement street-tool - designed rather to prevent commission of a crime and to insure officer safety during the brief stop.

Stop and Frisk was in the first instance designed to be a public safety measure -- akin to the often times far more pervasive airport security check, designed to keep terrorists and bombs off air liners. The inconvenience to law abiding passengers is deemed reasonable given the danger of planes being blown from the sky, with the death of all passengers.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. If you are a law-abiding citizen it is damn unpleasant, if not humiliating, to be stopped on a public street, required to answer questions and patted down even if the "stop" lasts no more than 30 seconds and you're allowed to go on your way. But the same can be said of security checks of law-abiding citizens boarding civilian airliners.

(Editor's note: This is the first of two columns looking at the constitutionality of the law enforcement tool known as Stop and Frisk.)

Posted: QCOline.com December 9, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Was Fidel Cuba's George Washington? No!

ABC’s Jim Avila says that “Fidel Castro was Cuba’s George Washington.”

Really? Washington was the American commander in the field during our war for independence against Britain. Fidel Castro was the commander in the field in Cuba’s revolution to overthrow the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. There the similarity ends.

Washington (and his fellow founders) created a government designed primarily to insure the national security and personal liberty to the American people. The U.S. Constitution that Washington et al. created made no provision for national health care or universal public education. Those matters, at least in the first instance, were left to the states to deal with as they saw fit.


Fidel Castro eschewed liberty for the Cuban people and instead opted for “equality.” In lieu of personal liberty, the Cuban people were given free national health care, and a free public education -- a public education where every student was taught precisely what the Castro government wanted taught.

Washington’s America is the nation-of-choice to which people from around the world have chosen to immigrate for 200 years. It has also been a place from which any dissident could freely leave.

Nobody immigrates to Cuba. Castro’s Cuba is a prison from which people escapee across shark-infested waters to America: 120,000 in 1980 alone.

When the American Revolutionary War was over, neither Washington nor his administration imprisoned Americans who opposed the Revolution, or Americans who agitated against out new Constitution, or who spoke or worked to undermine Washington’s presidency.

When Castro’s seized power, hundreds of members of Batista’s government were rounded up, quickly tried and executed.

When Washington became president, private ownership of American businesses and farms, large and small, saw no change.

When Castro became prime minister, foreign corporations and plantations were “nationalized” -- i.e., confiscated at far below their fair market value. Castro’s First Agrarian Reform Act limited the size of land holdings and forbade foreign property ownership. The pretext was to “develop a class of independent farmers.”

Instead, the state essentially assumed land ownership, with the farmers becoming mere government employees.

Then (1959) came the purges of military and government officials and the suppression of any media critical of Castro’s policies. Even Manuel Urritia, the Revolution’s first president was purged.

Washington avoided foreign alliances, and in his “farewell address” cautioned his countrymen “to avoid entangling alliances.”

Castro, instead, established diplomatic relations with the Communist USSR, and accepted 100 Russian “advisers” to help organize his “defense committee.” When Castro agreed to purchase oil from Russia, American refineries on the island, refused to process the oil.

This gave Castro his justification for their expropriation.”What followed was President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs invasion/fiasco. Kennedy’s ineptitude allowed Castro to consolidate his power.

On May 1, 1961, Castro announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba. At year’s end, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and announced the Cuban government was adopting communist economic and political policies.


When Castro agreed to place Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba, an American Naval Blockade followed, and for 13 days the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

Washington tried to create an America without parties or factions. Castro opted for one party. In 1965, he merged his revolutionary cadre with Cuba’s Communist Party, and became its head.

Washington refused to become a king. After being freely elected twice, he retired after eight years and became a private citizen. A free election followed.

Fidel Castro, a Stalinist, clung to power from 1959 until 2008 -- 49 years!

He turned Cuban power over to his brother.

Castro-philes credit Castro with setting up 10,000 schools, and increasing Cuban literacy to 98 percent. They extol his “universal health care system.” But there was a terrible price.

Unions lost their right to strike. An independent press was eliminated. The Catholic Church and other churches were shackled. Dissidents were imprisoned or executed. People drive cars from the 1950s. In June 2012, Cuba’s National Statistics and Information Bureau disclosed that the current average salary of Cubans had reached 466 pesos (US $22) a month!

Fidel Castro? Mao, maybe. But not George Washington. Schools and health care? Si.

Liberty? No.

Posted: QCOline.com December 2, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea