Stop Demonizing - Pass Rational Immigration Policy

It is currently fashionable for those on the left to compare President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler.

I can understand young people with little knowledge of WWII and German history from 1930 through 1944 engaging in that hyperbole on the immigration issue.

I cannot understand any adult who lived through those years equating our president to Hitler.


On June 30, 1934, Hitler ordered the summary execution of the leaders of his own SA (Sturmabteilung, translated literally, Storm Detachment).

He personally arrested Ernst Roehm, the head of the SA, conveyed him to prison in Munich, and executed Roehm in his cell without trial. Roehm had been Hitler’s best friend.

Gregor Strasser, the No. 2 man in the Nazi Party who had crossed Hitler, was arrested in Berlin and murdered in his cell. Former Chancellor Von Schliecher and his wife were shot dead in their home by Hitler’s men. Von Schliecher was Chancellor Hitler’s predecessor. Hitler crushed his own storm troopers to win the support of the German army.

Then there was the “final solution.” Over six million Jews were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis. Jews died of starvation, disease, and poor living conditions. They were shot down in the streets, and sent to gas chambers in extermination camps. Children were reunited with their parents only in death.

Hitler raped Austria, devoured democratic Czechoslovakia in two bites, made war on small peaceful Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and Greece.

He savagely unleashed his military on Poland, France, England and the USSR. Some 26 million Russians, and 5.8 million Poles died. German military casualties are estimated at 5.3 million, including Austrian conscripts.


Anybody opposing Trump’s immigration policies who compares Trump with Hitler is nuts. Mr. Trump has not arrested and murdered without trial a single political opponent, or his critics in the media.

Hitler invaded his neighbors. Our president hasn’t invaded anybody. And to compare placing children who cross our border illegally into detention facilities for 20 days with children sent to Auschwitz or Treblinka for extermination is absurd.


On Feb. 24, 2017, before the present furor, the Chicago Tribune wrote that “Nearly 60,000 children came across the border without their parents during the fiscal year ending in September.”

Were they to be allowed to roam free? Unless detained, how would they ever be placed? Reunited? Calling the president’s immigration policies racist or him Hitler is, at best, a puerile diversion from the real immigration issues that Republicans and Democrats should be discussing.


Isn’t it about time these issues, and others, are calmly, conscientiously and publicly discussed?

1. How many immigrant laborers does our country’s workforce need each year?

2. What level of skills should the immigrants have?

3. How many immigrants should we accept for humanitarian reasons?

4. What is the true cost of providing immigrant children with an elementary and secondary education (including salaries and pensions of teachers, administrators, etc., as well as school supplies and busing)?

5. What is the true cost of providing housing assistance for illegal immigrants? Foster care? Medical care? Meals?

6. What do illegal immigrants pay in federal and state income taxes? FICA?

7. How many illegal immigrants commit felonies? Serious misdemeanors? What is the cost of incarcerating these individuals? Probationary services? Parole services?

8. How many illegal aliens are driving without financial responsibility? What are the costs to others from accidents caused by uninsured illegals?

9. How many total dollars will we spend providing services for illegal immigrants? Would these dollars be better spent on the elderly, veterans, the disabled, inner-city schools, our infrastructure, etc.?

10. Out of every 1,000 illegal aliens who enter our country, how many have felony records in their own country? How many are drug dealers, mules, cartel enforcers, gang members, Islamist terrorists, medical doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists?


How do we keep bad people out? Calling Trump names will solve nothing.

It is, however, a lot easier, and perhaps more politically expedient, for Democrats and anti-Trumpists to engage in name-calling than it is to fix the mess.

There are many good reasons to admit aliens into our country, but admitting them to gain votes is not one of them.

Posted: QCOline.com July 5, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Campaign Spying Another Watergate?

On May 17, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.’

“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”

Watergate, if you weren’t around in those days, was a major political scandal during President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. It was the Congressional investigation of the June 17, 1972 burglary by five Republican operatives at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.

Facing impeachment for covering it up, Nixon resigned. Based on an interview with Jeb Magruder (then deputy at the Committee to Re-Elect the President), the New York Times wrote that the purpose of the break-in, was to have the White House operatives wiretap Democratic Headquarters.

Nicknamed “the plumbers,” their intent was to plug a potential leak. They feared that Democratic campaign chairman Lawrence O’Brien possessed information concerning an illegal gift from Howard Hughes to Nixon, the disclosure of which might complicate the president’s re-election.

The wiretap was designed to dredge up political dirt useful in sealing potential Democratic leaks.

So is history repeating itself? Is Trump’s Watergate analogy reasonable? Not according to President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John O. Brennan.

Brennan, not unexpectedly, immediately accused Trump of lying and “mischaracterization” for saying his campaign was spied upon by the FBI. Brennan argues that the operative the president labels a spy was in reality a “confidential human source.”

Brennan then narrowly defines his terms to support his charge:

“A spy is someone who is recruited. Usually it’s a foreign national who is going to work on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies to provide information about issues related to our national security. A confidential human source is what the FBI uses in order to have some insight into what may be going on that could involve criminal activity.”

But is Brennan’s definition consistent with the commonly understood dictionary definition of a spy?

The Apple Dictionary defines one as “a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.” 

Merriam Webster Dictionary says it’s “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.” 

The Oxford Dictionary defines spy as “a person employed by a government or other organization to secretly obtain information on an enemy or competitor.”

Trump’s May 17 tweet was entirely consistent with its common dictionary meaning. More importantly, to call the president a liar, Brennan had to intentionally engage in his own mischaracterization.

The president did not simply tweet that the FBI spied on the campaign. He added the FBI used an “embedded information” or a “confidential informant” to spy on his campaign.

To have any rational basis for calling the president a liar, Brennan had to pretend that the president didn’t say the spy used by the FBI was an embedded informant or a confidential informant.


Indeed, Brennan seems to be saying that the FBI didn’t spy, it merely used a “confidential human source.”

So who is mischaracterizing? Trump or Brennan? Or is Brennan merely obfuscating? Is a spy usually a foreign national? Does a spy usually work on behalf of U.S. intelligence? Does a spy usually deal with national security?

What is a confidential human resource working on behalf of Corporation X who goes to work for a company for the purpose of stealing trade secrets but a spy?

"Spy" equals “confidential informant,” equals “embedded informant,” equals “confidential human source.”

If the real purpose of inserting the confidential human source was to protect the integrity of the election process, why wasn’t one inserted into the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Did FBI leadership insert a confidential human source into the Trump campaign? Why? The president believes it did, and that it was for partisan political purposes. If he’s right, how does this differ from Watergate?

The Mueller investigation goes on without end in sight. Congressional Democrats call for full disclosure. The president should oblige them. It is time for the president to order the FBI to provide Congress with every document Congress has requested — in unredacted form.

If FBI leaders defy the president, they should be fired.

Posted: QCOline.com June 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What's the Fairest Tax for Illinois? You Decide

You have just been appointed “supreme dictator” of the state of Illinois, and authorized to rule by decree. So, what’s your tax policy?


Sadly the state’s last governor and the members of the Legislature have left you with a god-awful mess.


Illinois has five major pension funds. As of June 2017, Illinois’ unfunded pension liability reached $137 billion. Each Illinois resident owes about $10,500.


In 2017, unpaid Illinois bills reached just under $17 billion. The law requires the state to pay 12 percent interest on bills unpaid after 90 days. A $6.5 billion bond issue was used to pay a portion of those bills. In April of 2017, Illinois still had $7.4 billion worth of bills to pay. Of course, principle and interest also will have to be paid on the bonds.

So Mr. Dictator, where do you start? You have two good friends — principle advisors. One’s a raving Clinton/Sanders progressive (CS). The other, a trumpeting Trumpist (TT).


CS: “The whole reason for this fiscal mess is that Illinois does not have, unlike the U.S. and many of our neighboring states, a progressive income tax.”


TT: “Hogwash!”


CS: “If only we had a graduated income tax, we could solve all Illinois funding problems. Illinois presently has a flat-rate income tax which was increased from 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent on individuals, effective July 1, 2017. Even so, the flat-rate income tax simply does not generate enough revenue to meet the state’s financial problems.”


TT: “Illinois has plenty of revenue. The problem is that the political hacks in the Legislature choose to spend more than they collect in taxes. You can’t blame Republicans for that. They’re virtually extinct in Illinois!”


CS: “It is also a fact that a progressive income tax (aka, graduated income tax) is fairer. Under a flat-rate tax, if a rich guy has net income of $100,000, he’d pay $4,950 in Illinois personal income tax. The poor guy with a net income of $10,000 would pay $495. That simply isn’t fair.”


TT: “Rich guy has 10 times the income; he pays 10 times the tax. What’s unfair about that? Does rich guy consume 10 times the public services? Is rich guy’s vote weighted so as to count 10 times as much as poor guys? What would be fair for you? Should rich guy pay 10 percent while poor guy pays 4.95 percent? Or 20 percent while poor guy pays nothing? Or is that too fair?”


CS: Illinois’ lack of a progressive income tax has contributed to Illinois budget deficits!


TT: “You just told us that the U.S. has a progressive income tax, and you claim a progressive tax would allow Illinois to avoid deficits. Are you unaware that during President Barack Obama’s eight years, the average federal deficit was $816 billion?


CS: “Illinois has woefully funded its public education! This has forced school districts to continually raise property taxes to make up for deficits!



TT: “Forced? We could give the schools a blank check, and they’d still want more money! Have your forgotten the recent 1 percent school tax increase you touted last fall?” Then assuming the offensive, TT queries, “Once we get your progressive tax, what stops the poor from exploiting their political power so as to increase taxes on the rich while lowering or abolishing their own taxes?”


CS: “That will never happen! You’re fear-mongering!”


TT: “Really? The United States government has had a progressive tax system since 1913. Are you aware that the top 1 percent of federal income taxpayers pay 39.5 percent of all individual income taxes, and that the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of all individual federal income taxes? Are you aware that the bottom 50 percent pay 2.8 percent? That over 76 million U.S. households — 45.3 percent of all households — pay no federal income tax? What’s fair about that? And even worse, to get votes, pandering politicians exempt the poor from paying any federal income taxes. How is that fair?


“We had a war over ‘taxation without representation.’ Representation without taxation is even worse! It encourages class warfare. The poor don’t want to pay any income tax, so they tell their friends in the Legislature, ‘tax the rich! The top 5 percent paying 50 percent of all income taxes aren’t paying enough! It isn’t fair’!”


So, Supreme One, what’s your tax policy?

Posted: QCOline.com June 13, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

‘

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