NFL: Invited Guest or Captive Audience?

My love of professional football goes back to my childhood.

When I was a small boy, living in Chicago, tears came to my eyes every time the old Chicago Cardinals beat my beloved Bears.

My dad, in those days, was a silent partner in a restaurant where members of the Bear’s team would gather to have dinner and relax after a Sunday game.

As a little boy, I was introduced to many of my Bear heroes as they came to dine. Dad’s main business had season tickets to the Bear games when they played at Wrigley Field.

I can still recall watching from the temporary stands as George Balanda, in the arms of a defensive lineman, completed a pass, seemingly from a “horizontal position.” I can recall Ed Sprinkle jarring the ball loose from an opposing back to set up a game-winning touchdown for the Bears.

I can recall watching Willie Galimore take a punt and sprint through a non-existent hole between two tacklers on his way to a touchdown. And I can recall sitting through the 1963 championship 14-10 win over the Giants with my brother and uncle in 10-below-zero weather at Wrigley Field.

And then one day, a number of National Football League players decided they weren’t going to stand for our national anthem. They were going to kneel in protest. When they did, I turned my back on the NFL, and quit watching its games.

Don’t get me wrong. As Americans, NFL players have constitutional rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. But I also have constitutional rights. I have a right to disagree with their protests, and a right to tune them out.

To me, it isn’t a question of constitutional rights. It’s a matter of civility and manners. I resent being a captive audience. If I go to a football game, or turn the TV on to watch a football game, I want to watch a football game.

From the time I was a child, I went to football games to see two teams play a football game. From 1948 on, if I wanted to watch “protests” or “political debate,” I could turn on TV and watch “Meet the Press” or some similar show.

The NFL teams, players and management alike, “invite” fans to watch their football games. When the fans come to see their games, the owners and players alike get rich.

Imagine being invited to your best friend’s home for dinner. He’s a Republican. You’re a Clinton Democrat. Then as dinner is about to be served, he brings out a huge portrait of Hillary Clinton, and rips it to shreds almost under your nose, saying, “I am protesting your worthless erstwhile candidate!”

Imagine going to the Quad City Music Guild to see a musical, or to Playcrafters to see a light comedy, and having one-third of the actors refuse to proceed with the show until they can educate you on the evils of abortion. Or the virtues of a woman’s right to choose?

Imagine going to church to participate in your church’s Sunday service, and having your priest or minister ask you to stand in silent protest against the president’s plan to build a wall. Or Bob Muller’s partisan investigation of the president?

When we are invited for dinner, attend the theater to see a play, or go to church to worship, we don’t come to be captive audiences to political protests. In each of these examples, the “hosts” have constitutional rights to speak and assemble. But the guests, in each case have, a right to expect that their hosts will act consistently with the purport of their invitations, and not use the invitations for a purpose foreign to the stated purpose of the invitations.

It is selfish, rude and ill-mannered to turn guests into a captive audience, and to force them to sit through something the host has to know may be offensive, as a condition receiving the contemplated benefit of the invitation.

The NFL owners and players invite their patrons to see a football games, and to pay a lot of money for that right. If rather than playing football, the players want to protest the country, the flag, or anything else, why not do it somewhere else?

Or why not be gracious and make an announcement? “The players plan to kneel down in protest against (whatever). That protest be in this stadium and will commence 20 minutes after the game. You are all invited stay and to participate.”

Posted: QCOline.com June 7, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Iran's Conduct Justifies Nuke Deal Withdrawal

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced his reasons why the U.S. was withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal.

“The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and al-Qaida.

“Over the years, Iran and its proxies have bombed American Embassies and military installations, murdered hundreds of American service members, and kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured American citizens.

“No action taken by the regime has been more dangerous than its pursuit of nuclear weapons — and the means of delivering them.

“In theory, the so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from ... an Iranian nuclear bomb. ...

“In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and — over time — reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.

“At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

“Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations, including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.

“Finally, the deal does nothing to constrain Iran’s destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism.

“Since the agreement, Iran’s bloody ambitions have grown only more brazen.”

Is President Trump’s assessment of the facts accurate? If not, where is he wrong?

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, threatened that “the Jewish state [Israel] could face destruction, if it continues to challenge Iran.” Then, while speaking on state television, he became more specific:

“The holy system of the Islamic Republic [Iran] will step up its missile capabilities day by day, so that Israel ... will become sleepless and the nightmare will constantly haunt it if it does anything foolish. We will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”

According to the Associated Press, Khamenei’s “remarks drew chants of ‘Death to America’ from those gathered for Friday holy prayers.”

Khamenei’s threat to raze two of Israel’s principle cities followed Israeli air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria. Those strikes, according to the Telegraph, “followed a barrage of some 20 rockets fired by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard into Israel’s Golan Heights. ... Israel carried out its air strikes, according to Israeli sources, striking around 50 Iranian military bases, supply depots, and intelligence sites, as well as Syrian regime air defense batteries.”

So, if Israel attacked 50 Iranian bases in Syria, why does Iran threaten to attack two cities—civilian populations centers—in Israel? Why doesn’t Iran just attack 50 Israeli military bases in Syria? The answer is simple: There are no Israeli bases in Syria.

This, of course, raise the question, why were there 50 Iranian bases in Syria? Did the Iranians set up these bases to encircle Israel with rockets? No? Then why has Iran provided Hezbollah in Lebanon with rockets that Hezbollah has been firing into Israel year after year?

In December of 2016, the Washington Times reported that Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, while speaking in Tehran, said that were President-Elect Trump to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration, Iran would destroy the State of Israel.

The Islamic regime also threatened to destroy the Gulf kingdoms and start World War III. Consider also Iran’s other recent activities in the Middle East.

Recently, Sarah Huckabee Sanders listed them. “Already this week, the IRGC has fired rockets at Israeli citizens. Iran’s proxies in Yemen have launched a ballistic missile at Riyadh. Iran is backing the Shiite Huthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war.”

I think everything Present Trump said about Iran is entirely accurate. I take Iranian threats seriously. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace. History both affirms and belies that statement.

The evidence since the fall of the Shah suggests that in the hands of the leaders of “holy system of the Islamic Republic,” Islam is anything but a religion of peace.

Why if you want nuclear power only for “peaceful purposes” do you build your nuclear facility under a mountain? Why are you testing ICBM? Why are you threatening to raze Jewish cities? Why are you abetting proxy wars throughout the Middle East?

Posted: QCOline.com May 17, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

How to Put the Stake through Gerrymander's Heart

If a congressional district is gerrymandered to favor one group, it necessarily discriminates against every other group.

Elbridge Gerry, who served as governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812, was the political force behind the original gerrymandered congressional district. That district, if his political foes are to be believed, was shaped like a salamander. They therefore christened it “the gerrymander.”

If a district is gerrymandered to favor the white population, it necessarily discriminates against blacks, Hispanics, Asians and every other group. If a district is gerrymandered to favor the black population, it necessarily discriminates against whites, Hispanics, Asians and every other group, etc.

Similarly, a district drawn to favor a rural populace necessarily disfavors suburbanites and urbanites included within the district.

I am just cynical enough to believe that whoever draws a district’s lines will draw them for the benefit of his political constituents and cronies. If Democrats draw the district lines, they will favor Democrats. If Republicans draw them, they will favor Republicans. If a Bernie Sanders supporter draws them, socialists will benefit.

And I don’t believe that nonpartisan, blue ribbon reform committees are as nonpartisan as they claim to be.

So do you really want to drive a stake through the heart of the gerrymander?

Here is my simple suggestion for redistricting:


A. SHAPE OF DISTRICTS


All districts shall be square, or if that is not possible, rectangular. No district shall have more than four sides. No exceptions.

All four sides shall be straight lines, unless one of the four sides of the square or rectangle is an irregular state border, or is formed by a river or other geographical or boundary feature that is not a straight line.

Where the state boundary line is a straight line, a congressional district shall be a square, or if that is not possible, a rectangle. In no event shall any district have five or more sides.

A district at the confluence of two state border rivers, at the south end of Illinois, may have only three sides, with the two rivers joining, each constituting one side.

B. ONE MAN, ONE VOTE

Because of differences in population density, the square or rectangular districts will vary in geographical size. But they shall be equal, within 1 percent, in population.

C. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The only factor that may be considered in setting the size of the squares or rectangles is population.

Race, creed, color, national ancestry, religion, urban/suburban/rural considerations or any factor other than population may not be considered in creating the squares or triangles.

Population means U.S. citizens eligible to vote.


D. USE COMPUTER TO DRAW LINES

The squares or rectangles shall be created by a computer, subject to the rules set out in paragraphs A, B and C. The computer shall be programed to create squares or rectangles containing approximately 710,000 U.S. citizens eligible to vote.

The population difference between the largest district and the smallest district shall not exceed 1 percent.

If you want competitive congressional districts, do it my way.

If you’d prefer to rearrange the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic, then take into account one or more factors other than population.

You can see Gov. Gerry’s gerrymander at columbia.edu/~so33/SusDev/Lecture11MinorityExample.pdf.

Posted: QCOline.com May 9, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Old Courthouse: What will we be saving?

Should the courthouse be demolished? Saved? I have previously opined that if it is to be demolished, the decision should be made by the elected county board, and not by a commission created for “the sole purpose” of providing “a good and sufficient jail.”

That being said, I see no sufficient reason to save it. The main argument is that it is an historical building worthy of preservation. In the autumn of 1966, I came to Rock Island to work as an assistant to the then-state’s attorney Richard Stengel.


At that time, the exterior walls of the courthouse were substantially in their original condition. But the six domes had all been removed, including the magnificent great central dome (replaced with the ugly metal box we still see today.)

If the exterior walls are worth preserving, the box, utterly devoid of beauty and historical value, isn’t. The interior of the courthouse, bears scant resemblance to the original, with the exception of the rotunda and hallways.

By the time I arrived in 1966, the original circuit court courtroom, a rather prosaic two story-high rectangular courtroom, was gone. A ceiling had been installed to provide additional fourth floor space for the state’s attorney’s office, as well as for a new law library.

In lieu of the original courtroom, a new courtroom, a new hearing room and three new judges’ chambers had been constructed. Nothing of the original remains.

When I arrived, the old county court courtroom was still extant at the north end of the second floor. It was an utterly unimpressive, dreary courtroom. The oak bench and bar were commonplace.

The original county courtroom was entirely replaced years ago by a new courtroom. Nothing of the original remains. The original probate court courtroom occupied the southeast corner of the first floor. It was an even drabber, uninspiring room with a plain oak bench.

Across the hall, at the southwest end of the first floor, there was a large chamber for the probate judge. Only the barrister bookcases made the room interesting. Nothing of the original remains.

The fourth floor has been altered over the years to the point that nothing remains of the original fourth floor. Three North has also been altered beyond recognition. The north end of the second floor bears no similarity to the original. Nor does first floor north.

Only two courthouse offices bear minimal originality: the small sheriff’s office on the first floor near the front door, and perhaps the office of the Recorder of Deeds.

The Circuit Clerk’s offices have been chopped, re-chopped, and re-re-chopped so many times, as to be unrecognizable. The county clerk’s and treasurer’s offices are now across the street.

If the building were gutted to remove all temporary walls and ceilings, I suspect the empty rooms would look much like the original unfurnished rooms. But the original courtrooms, etc., would still be gone.


And what would the cost be just to get down to the original bare walls? How many millions of dollars would it cost to restore the original courtrooms and offices? Is there asbestos? Would it not have to be professionally removed? Could the building be used for any new use without asbestos removal?

What of the open rotunda? If the building were to be renovated, would codes allow it to remain as an open five-story chimney? What would it cost to close off the rotunda to comply with codes? Wouldn’t that obliterate more of the original?

When I became a judge in 1974, the thermostats were already “decorative.” The heating system was ancient. Would that be upgraded? Or would there be an attempt to replicate the original? At what cost?

Don’t get me wrong. With the expenditure of $22 million (as per Judge Walter Braud’s estimate), I could see the building being restored to its original condition. But would that cover replacing the six domes?

I’m sure uses could be found for it. But beginning in 1948, Rock Island County taxpayers began rejecting referenda to restore/repair the courthouse. Does anyone really think they will approve a referendum to restore it now?

Can the preservationists come up with $20 million? If it is not demolished, is it just going to be allowed to sit and deteriorate?

Posted: QCOline.com May 3, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What Happens When We Are All "Gods?"

Why do we have mass murders in our schools?

Over the last few years, I have written a number of pieces on guns. In that regard, I have discussed the pre-existing right to self-defense, the Second Amendment, and the need to have a last line of defense against gunmen in our schools.

I have not, however, set out my beliefs as to the causes of school shootings. Here they are.

When I was a boy, knowingly or intentionally eating meat on Friday was a matter of grave sin. In more recent times, eating meat on Friday is permissible, except in Lent.

But I have heard no one, in nearly a half century, warn that transgression of the Lenten regulation is a one-way ticket to Hell. Now, the Pope has reportedly said that there is no Hell. At death the person unworthy of eternal life simply ceases to exist.

Whether the statements attributed to the pope are genuine or apocryphal, is a matter of profound concern. If there is no Hell, then one of the principle underpinnings of societal morality vanishes.

During the Christian era, the human concern over spending an eternity in the fires of Hell has deterred countless millions (but not all) from engaging in anti-social conduct that the church taught was deserving of damnation.

So, did God give the Ten Commandments, or did Moses falsely claim divine authorship to give his own work-product divine authority, knowing that such laws would be needed to govern the incipient Jewish nation, and a fractious Jewish people?

The question of whether God truly gave us moral law raises related questions. Is there a God? Did God give us the Ten Commandments, or did Moses perpetrate a well-intentioned fraud?

If God did give us a moral law via the Ten Commandments, did God commission anyone on earth, to authoritatively interpret and explicate his moral law? If there is no God, then he could not have given us a moral law. And if God does not exist, Moses, the pope and all others who claim to speak in his name are frauds.

If God is debunked, then what passes for morality is manmade, either by the state, some other assemblage of men, or sundry individuals.


When I was a boy, there was near unanimity that abortion was immoral and a grave sin. It was premised on the belief that all human life was sacred.

Then the Supreme Court decided that the right of the woman “to choose” trumped the right of the fetus to live. The right of the fetus to “life” was not an “unalienable right.”

The Supreme Court authorized every woman to choose to be “God,” and gave her the near-absolute power of life and death over her fetus. But there is an unintended consequence: When fetal life is divested of sanctity, when it is no longer “unalienable,” the sanctity and unalienability of all human life is brought into question.

Since Roe v. Wade, liberal orthodoxy has supplanted church dogma on more and more issues that were heretofore deemed moral issues. But there is a danger. As each individual gets to decide what is moral, each individual becomes God.

Those who perpetrate mass school shootings take god-playing only one step further.

Early abortion is now a matter of personal choice. For many, so is late-term abortion. So why not “post-birth” abortion?

To be clear, I think school shooters have one thing in common. They don’t believe that perpetrating mass murder will result in spending an eternity burning in Hell. That implies that they do not believe in the existence of a God who justly punishes evil. They recognize and fear no law above their own self-made law.

They recognize no divinely appointed spokesman. There is no objective moral law. For them, what passes for morality, is entirely subjective.

Now take our little “gods” and immerse them in a culture (a cesspool?) of violence. One which portrays killing other humans as “cool.” Create video games that make killing other humans the way to win; that make killing others “fun.”

Portray human victims as targets or as “the enemy.” Saturate them in movies and television that glorify shootings. Desensitize them. You have created strange and deadly little “gods.”

Posted: QCOline.com April 26, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Constitutional Law 101 - for Beginners

Where do the rights of Americans come from? From Congress? From the Constitution?

Thomas Jefferson believed they were God-given. He said so in the Declaration of Independence: “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.”

If Jefferson was correct—and the framers of the Constitution proceeded on the belief that he was—then our federal Constitution is not the source of our rights.


For those who have forgotten, our Constitution was not the first American Constitution. First came the Articles of Confederation. It was a treaty—a confederation of the states—under which “each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Our present Constitution was ratified (1788) “in order to form a more perfect Union.”. That is, to remedy defects and omissions of the Articles of Confederation. But like the first Constitution, the present Constitution specifically enumerates the powers delegated to the federal government.

By implication, powers not specifically delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states and/or the people. When the time came for the people of the states to ratify the new Constitution, opponents argued that there was no Bill of Rights attached.

They feared the new government would encroach on the rights and liberties that Americans had enjoyed during the colonial period. They feared the new Congress might regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc.

Proponents of the new Constitution argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because no where in the enumerated powers was Congress given any power to regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc. Opponents weren’t persuaded.

They distrusted that rights were sufficiently protected by implication. They feared the new federal government would engage in what we now call mission creep, and abrogate the undelegated sovereignty of the states and the pre-existing rights of the American people.


In order to get approval, the proponents had to agree to the immediate addition of a Bill of Rights. But that was not a grant of rights. It was meant to be a second guarantee—a codification that guaranteed the reserved rights of the states and the people would not be abrogated by the new federal government.

The first guarantee was present because Congress had been granted no enumerated power to prohibit or regulate religious belief, the exercise of religion, speech and the press, etc. The same is true of the 2nd Amendment. From earliest colonial times, guns were essential for self-defense and defense of the family on the frontier. There were no police. But there were robbers, murderers and many hostile Indians.

Then, as well as today, that right of self-defense and defense of family is a God-given right to defend one’s own life and family; a right not to be murdered. The right to self-defense is the most basic of all rights.


You can’t practice religion or speak if you’ve been murdered. When you are confronted by someone with a gun, willing to kill you to achieve his goal, your unalienable right to life becomes virtually meaningless unless you have a gun.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant the right to have a gun. Rather, it does two things: It guarantees the preexisting right of the people to “keep and bear arms,” as well as the preexisting rights of the states to keep their militias, as in colonial times. Therefore, the right of the “people to keep and bear arms” also has double protection.

First, Congress was granted no general power of gun control. Second, the 2nd Amendment guarantees and codifies the preexisting right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

In D.C. v. Heller, 2008, Heller admittedly conceded that the 2nd Amendment preexisting right, like the First Amendment preexisting right of free speech, was not unlimited.

Machine guns have been prohibited in interstate commerce under the Congress’ power of regulating commerce. Given the holding in Heller, while the court can be expected to sustain some gun control, it is clear that no regulation will be allowed that regulates out of existence the preexisting right of a person and his family to possess a weapon or weapons reasonably suited and necessary to assure defense of home and family.

Posted: QCOline.com April 12, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Does Schiff Memo Rebut Nunes Memo? You Judge

President Trump has declassified the memorandum prepared by the Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also known as the “Democrat” or “Schiff Memo.”

The Schiff Memo is designed to rebut the three key points set out in the Republican Nunes memo. On Feb. 22, I wrote that the Nunes memo “suggests that the FISA process was abused.”

The purpose of this op-ed is to set out the Republican memo’s three key points and the Democratic responses thereto, to allow you to judge whether the Democrats have succeeded or failed in rebutting:


Nunes Memo, Point 1:

“That the Steele dossier was compiled by (Christopher) Steele on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia. ... That information, although known to the FBI and DOJ, was not disclosed to the FISA Court.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: The Department of Justice disclosed that Steele (Source 1) “was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source No. 1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired identified U.S. persons to conduct research regarding Candidate No. 1’s (Trump’s) ties to Russia. They identified the U.S. Person and Source No. 1 as having had a longstanding business relationship. The identified U.S. person hired (Steele) to conduct research. ... The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1’s campaign.

Nunes Memo, Point 2:

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to (the DOJ’s Bruce) Ohr that he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s ‘bias’ was recorded at the time, but not disclosed in any application made to the FISA court to surveil (Carter) Page.”

Schiff memo rebuttal: “Far from ‘omitting’ material facts about Steele, ... the DOJ repeatedly informed the court about Steele’s background, credibility, and potential bias. DOJ explained in detail Steele’s prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI and the likely political motivation of those who hired Steele.”

Nunes Memo, Point 3:

“Deputy Director (Andrew) McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information.”

Schiff memo rebuttal:

I can find no attempt to rebut the Nunes’ memo’s third point.


Witnesses testifying in every U.S. court take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” A half-truth is not the whole truth. Affidavits for search warrants must set out facts, not conclusions.

They must describe with “particularity.” Had I been the judge, asked by the FBI and DOJ to issue a FISA warrant to spy on Americans involved in a political campaign, I would have demanded the specific facts—as opposed to conclusions. I would have wanted the whole truth, not half-truths. Particulars!

That Source 1 was approached by an identified U.S. person was “conclusory.” Were I the judge, I would have wanted the particulars that the Clinton Campaign and the DNC had sent Clinton Campaigm law firm attorneys to hire Steele to dredge up damaging information on Mr. Trump’s “ties to Russia” to undermine his presidential campaign. I would have wanted to know that Steele composed the dossier on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and that they paid Steele $160,000 through the Clinton campaign’s law firm.

I would have wanted to know that the FBI knew—rather than “speculated”—that the Clinton campaign and the DNC—rather than “identified U.S. persons”—were obviously looking—rather than “likely looking”—for information useful in taking down the Trump campaign.

And I would have wanted to know the full extent of Steele’s anti-Trump bias that made him desperate and passionate that Donald Trump not get elected president. Obvious bias and likely motivation are two very different things.

Would the FISA judge, had he been presented with the detailed facts set out in the Nunes memo, have issued the warrant? Or would he have concluded that Steele’s opposition research, paid for with 160,000 Democratic dollars, and created by an operative with a visceral hatred of Trump, wasn’t trustworthy?

As a judge who issued numerous search warrants in my 26 years, I would not have issued the warrant(s) had I been provided with the matters set out in either memo.

How about you?



Posted: QCOline.com April 5, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea