Do You Want to Live in these Democrats' America?

I consider U.S. Sen. Susan Collin’s speech in support of the Kavanaugh nomination to be the finest speech delivered by a member of Congress in my lifetime.

Collins eloquently and persuasively discussed every point that needed to be discussed. Only in one respect do I dissent.

I believe that before any American’s life or reputation is destroyed at any public hearing by an allegation of criminal misconduct, the accuser has the burden of proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In every criminal proceeding, the judge is required to instruct the jury as follows:

"The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

"The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the state throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his innocence."Our U.S. Supreme Court has held that the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to our system of justice and essential to due process.

Now a substantial wing of the Democratic Party would rewrite that rule to read that in any case where a woman charges a man with sexual misconduct

"The accused is conclusively presumed guilty of the charge against him.This presumption remains with him throughout every stage of the trial and during deliberations on the verdict and cannot be overcome. You should disregard all witnesses and all other evidence that the accused presents to establish his innocence because it is easy to imagine why the accused might be lying.

"The accuser’s credibility must be afforded greater credibility because it is far more difficult to come up with any plausible reason any woman might be lying. Indeed, the accuser’s credibility may not even be questioned."

Is it really better that 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man escape? 

If you are man, is this fundamentally transformed America in which you wish to live?

If you’re a woman, is this the shining new America in which you want your father, your husband and your sons to live?

If a man whose testimony is corroborated by three witnesses, has less credibility than a woman whose testimony is utterly uncorroborated, how many additional witnesses does the man need? Two? Twenty-five? Five-thousand?

How many more witnesses are needed before he can overcome the presumption of guilt? Or is it an irrefutable presumption? 

If women never lie, and if men never tell the truth, why waste time on trials?

If this is the sparkling new order that the progressive left wants, I want no part of it. I want a system of due process where everyone criminally accused is presumed innocent. Where accused and accuser start out equally in terms of credibility.

Where no one should be found guilty unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where accuser, accused and all witnesses face each other, and  equally face rigorous cross-examination. And I am not willing to gut any clause of our Bill of Rghts to favor a particular class of accusers or accuseds, or for reasons of political correctness, or to appease any mob.

Our traditional criminal justice system reaches its conclusions on evidence, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. Sympathy, passion, raw emotion, bias, and hatred have no place in the system bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers.

Our Supreme Court has held that not every hearing requires all the safeguards deemed essential to a criminal trial. The full due process required during a criminal trial may not be required in a hearing for a zoning variance. But the court has held that the due process commensurate with the proceeding must be accorded to each hearing.

At a minimum, due process requires a neutral judge (or hearing officer), notice of what the proceeding is about, and the right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses.

Since 1215, people have fought not to be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process. Is a man’s good name and reputation not part of his life and property? Or are they subject to destruction for perceived “greater good?”

In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. ... He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

Is that the America you want to live in? If the destruction of a good man is the means to your end, is that OK?

Posted: QCOline.com October 11, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

I Believe Ford was Abused, but not by Kavanaugh

I have now listened to the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing. I carefully listened to both the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Many of the senators conducting the hearing correctly said that a woman’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted deserves to be afforded careful consideration. I agree.

That being said, once such an allegation has been made, both sides deserve due process. After listening to Ford’s testimony, I am convinced that she was abused in the 1980s. But I am still troubled by the fact that it was only in 2012 that she first named Kavanaugh as her assailant (in a therapy session).

I am also convinced that Kavanaugh’s testimony of innocence was truthful. What I am saying is that I think Ford was abused by someone — other than Kavanaugh.

Ford has claimed that she and four others attended a small party at which she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh and two of those people, P.J. Smith and Mark Judge, under penalties of perjury, have denied any recollection of attending any such party.

Kavanaugh has also sworn before his God that he is innocent. The fourth person, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school, has also denied attending a party with Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh maintained a calendar/diary back in 1982 which he produced and referred to at the Senate hearing. His notes, made at the time, about parties and other events, together with his explanations relative to those notes, tend to support his testimony, and do nothing to support Ford’s testimony.

Character witnesses from Kavanaugh’s high school, college and law school days, and from all the years he has spent in his professional life, a period of some 40 years, all believe that the man Ford describes, is not the man they have known and been close to.

I fully realize the proceeding before the committee is not a criminal proceeding. But when career and family-destroying allegations of criminal violations are made against any man or woman, there has to be a presumption of innocence, and a requirement that the allegation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anything else, where there is an allegation of criminal misconduct, is not consistent with American notions of due process.

As I said, I am convinced that somebody assaulted Ford when she was in high school. I am even more convinced that it was not Kavanaugh. His denial was at least as firm as her accusation. Importantly, he was corroborated by three witnesses — one was Ford’s friend. She was corroborated by no witnesses, and no physical evidence.*

Additionally, his calendar, and the people who have known him best, tend to corroborate Kavanaugh.

I don’t think Ford is lying about Kavanaugh, I just think she is mistaken. The fact that it took her some 30 years to recall who her assailant was, and 38 years to make her allegation, does not add credibility. It might not hurt her credibility, but it certainly doesn’t enhance it.

I feel sorry for what Ford and her family have suffered. I am also deeply troubled by what Kavanaugh and his family have suffered.

Once you decide that anybody facing an allegation of criminal misconduct should be presumed guilty, and should have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, you’re not talking about American justice.

If you are willing to demand that of Kavanaugh, then be willing to have the same rules applied to you. Or don’t you believe in “equal protection?”

* (I do think the committee should have called the three witnesses. But I think their absence probably hurt the judge more than it did Ford. Assuming they testified consistently with their sworn statements, I think testimony in open court is normally more persuasive than evidence via affidavit or deposition.)

Posted: QCOline.com October 4, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

America's Version of Spanish Inquisition?

In the year 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was put on trial for treason.


The indictment charged that Raleigh had conspired to kill King James I, raise a rebellion with intent to change the nation’s religion from Protestant to Catholic and subvert the government.


It further alleged that Raleigh had listened to Spanish bribe offers, and conferred and conspired with Lord Cobham to use Spanish gold, to put Lady Arabella Stuart on the English throne. Raleigh was tried by a jury of 12 knights.



His trial was conducted by a special commission, which consisted of four judges and seven laymen, with Chief Justice Popham, of King’s Bench, the English criminal court, presiding. It had been the job of the commissioners to ferret out the evidence of Sir Walter’s guilt.


Cobham was Raleigh’s sole accuser. The prosecution never produced Cobham in open court. Cobham’s testimony, instead, was produced in the form of unsigned written confessions.


Walter’s judges were plainly part of the prosecution. When Cobham was taken into custody, the commissioners had questioned Cobham to get his confession.


In 1603, what we today know as the “presumption of innocence” and the rule that the prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” had not yet become part of due process in English criminal cases. But unlike cases tried before the Spanish Inquisition, an indictment, charging a crime, began the proceedings.


Without an indictment, there could be no trial. By 1603, the requirement of a written charge, a jury trial, and protection against double jeopardy had become part of what passed for due process in English criminal trials.


Raleigh pleaded that Cobham be produced in open court, so that Raleigh could confront his accuser face-to-face and cross-examine him. His request was denied. Raleigh might open gaps in the prosecution’s evidence and thereby escape conviction.


Raleigh, because he had been charged with treason, was presumed to be guilty, just as he would have been before the Inquisition. He had no right to subpoena Cobham or any other possible defense witness to compel his witnesses to come to court.


Even worse, Raleigh, because he was a defendant, could not testify under oath on his own behalf, nor could he have the services of an attorney. He was allowed to question the only witness the prosecution produced, a sailor who testified to second and third-hand hearsay — what people in Spain had told other people who told him.



Raleigh was allowed to argue his own case to the jury. The prosecution went first, called its witness and produced written confessions and deposition. Raleigh was not required to put on his defense before he heard the prosecution’s evidence.


It was largely because of trials such as Raleigh’s that we have our Bill of Rights. In the 180-year period between Raleigh’s trial, and the adoption of our Bill of Rights, Englishmen on both sides of the ocean came to realize that “due process” (a fair trial) required certain procedural safeguards.


They include written notice of the charge, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers. The right to compel one’s own witness to give testimony in court, and the right to testify under oath as to one’s innocence.



In recent days, we have seen Democratic U.S. senators shamefully attempt to turn the clock back to 1603 in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. They would presume him guilty, and require him to prove his innocence at least beyond all doubt.


They start with the presumption that if a woman accuses him, the woman must be telling the truth and he must be lying. “Bring in the burglar; we’ll give him a fair trial — and then hang him!”


Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of criminal misconduct that she alleges occurred some 36 years ago. She has done so in an unsworn letter and in an unsworn op-ed. Both are hearsay.


In America, prosecutions are commenced only after sworn evidence is heard and an indictment is returned. To date, there’s no sworn complaint. Ford’s attorneys have insisted that Kavanaugh testify first, without a sworn charge specifying Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct!


Next, they insist that he put on his sworn defense before his accuser accuses him under oath, before he can confront her face-to-face, before he can cross-examine her, and without his own attorney.


That is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition did to its victims. If Democratic senators and representatives really want a return to the practices of the Spanish Inquisition, they should have the guts to unequivocally say so. If they don’t, then even a judge is entitled to due process.


And in America today, due process and fair trial are thought to require at a minimum — by every thinking man — the rights that are guaranteed to every American by the 5th and 6th Amendments to our Constitution, together with the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that the state/accuser prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted: QCOline.com September 27, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Civility is Dead, even at Memorial Services?

What are we becoming as a nation? Is hatred an appropriate sentiment at a funeral?

Sen. John McCain has died. Aretha Franklin has died. Both have had memorial services. And at the memorial services, those who were there to eulogize the lives of McCain and Franklin felt compelled to attack President Donald Trump.

McCain I believe was properly eulogized as a man who believed in reaching across the aisle, and who believed in civility in public discourse.

When Franklin passed away, Trump was gracious and non-political: “The Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, is dead. She was a great woman, with a wonderful gift from God, her voice. She will be missed!”

When McCain died, the president tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

The president’s gracious and non-political tweet came not withstanding his very public differences with McCain. Compare what the president said with what was said by some of the people who spoke at the two memorials.

At the Franklin memorial service, one speaker could not limit himself to eulogizing the deceased. Instead, he felt compelled to verbally assail the president: “You lugubrious leech, you dopey doppelgänger of deceit and deviance, you lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator, you foolish fascist, she ain’t work for you.”

Jesse Jackson took the opportunity to urge Democratic voter registration. “We have long lines to celebrate death, and short lines for voting. Something is missing. If you leave here today and don’t register to vote, you’re dishonoring Aretha.”

At the McCain memorial, the senator’s adult daughter also found it impossible to engage in the very self-restraint that her father had demanded of the president.

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege. The America of John McCain does not need to be made great again, because America was always great.”

Again, what are we becoming as a nation? Are we no longer able to draw a line as to what is appropriate behavior at a memorial service or funeral?

Is their no longer a consensus at to what constitutes appropriate etiquette at a funeral? At a memorial service? Is hatred ever an appropriate sentiment at such a service? Is a funeral the appropriate venue for a political rally?

I have always thought that a funeral or memorial service was an appropriate time to recall our best memories of the deceased. A time to recall the good things a man has done and tried to do, the times we have shared together, and perhaps, in a warm, humorous way, the foibles of the deceased.

At least that’s the way I’d like my service to be conducted ‘’ with perhaps, in the background, a little Irish music and music from the older Broadway shows and operettas that I have loved.

I would not want to go to my grave hating anybody. If I had a political “enemy,” I would hope I might have forgiven him or her before I passed.

The time for a man to fight with his “enemies” should come to an end before he breathes his last and goes to face is God. Once ended, the fight should not be resurrected by his surrogates.

I am afraid that God might discern a modicum of hypocrisy if my friends were to pray for the repose of my soul, while hating my old adversary.

Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Majority Rule? Yes, within Limits ....

Do you believe that in America the majority should rule in all cases?

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Do you believe she should be president?

In November of 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, and all but three Democrats voted to change the filibuster rules of the Senate. The change reduced the majority required for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes. Fifty-two Democrats and “Independents” voted for the change. No Republicans did.

At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the Democrats, “You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, warned, “I think the minority will rue the day that they broke the rules to change the rules.”

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, both former senators, applauded Reid’s decision.

Do you believe super-majorities should ever be required, or are you adamant that the majority should always rule? If you believe the latter, then you have no appreciation of the reason why we have a Bill of Rights.

It was added to the Constitution for the express purpose of putting certain matters beyond the will and vote of the majority. It guarantees every American religious liberty. It guarantees your choice to worship as a Catholic, or as a Baptist. Or not to worship at all.

Should the majority be able to make a law that says, “Everybody shall faithfully sacrifice to the Roman deities?” Or a law that says, “No American shall practice the Catholic faith?”

If Republicans are in the majority, should they be able to pass a law by majority vote that says, “All Republicans are exempt from paying the federal income tax, and all Democrats shall pay income taxes at a 50 percent rate?”

If the Democrats become the majority, should they by majority vote be able to pass a law that says, “All persons who voted Republican in any of the last five presidential elections shall forfeit citizenship, be reduced to slavery, and work for a Democrat slave-master for seven years?” Or that all Republicans shall attend Maoist-style “re-education camps” to be taught the virtues of socialism?

If you don’t see the danger of majority rule degenerating into mob rule, you’re blind. Our Constitution, as drafted, had no Bill of Rights.

It was the Massachusetts, Virginia and New York state ratifying conventions that insisted one be added to the Constitution.

Those Americans who insisted on a Bill of Rights were hard-headed practical men. They had seen England go from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic to Protestant at the will of the monarchs’ majority in Parliament during the consecutive reigns of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary and Edward VI (1485-1553).

And they watched the Civil War between Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, as Puritanism became ascendant, and then the Restoration of Charles II and the High Church (1688).

Our founders didn’t want the religion of this country changing with each new president or Congress. They outlawed establishments of religion, and guaranteed the free exercise thereof. They put the question of religion above the will of the majority.

Reid’s decision to eschew the 60-vote rule and approve judges by a majority vote has come back to haunt the Democrats; first with Neil Gorsuch, and now Brett Kavanaugh.

In the movie, “A Man for All Seasons,” the importance of laws is made magnificently clear.

William Roper: “So, now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law?”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake?”

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted: QCOline.com September 6, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Papal Death Penalty Update; a Respectful Dissent

Recently, Pope Francis announced, that “the death penalty is now inadmissible,” and that the church’s teaching on the death penalty, as set out in section 2267 of the church’s catechism, has been updated.


Here are the five changes, and my comments.


1. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”


If the state, after a full and fair trial, and exhaustive appeals, can’t impose the death penalty because of “the inviolability and dignity” of the murderer’s person, how can other agents of the state be permitted to kill?

How can a police officer kill a terrorist who is threatening to execute hostages? How can an officer shoot the armed robber who first shoots at the officer? After Pearl Harbor, how could our soldiers and sailors kill Japanese soldiers and sailors?

If the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, aren’t the responses of our police officers, and our soldiers and sailors also inadmissible as attacks on the inviolability and dignity of the terrorist, the armed robber, and the Japanese soldiers and sailors?

Or are such killings permitted out of necessity?


2. “The dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
What exactly is “the dignity of the person?”

It cannot be the same thing as the life of the person. Does the act of murder extinguish the dignity of his victim’s person, or only terminate his victim’s life?

“Dignity” is defined as the “quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” Does the murderer deprive his victim of being worthy of honor or respect? Does the murderer forfeit his own right to be deemed worthy of honor or respect?

Or is the pope saying that human life is sacred?

Is not God alone sacred? Worthy alone of adoration? Is man sacred if there is no God? Without his connection to God? Does not the power of life and death belong to God? Doesn’t the murderer usurp God’s power over life and death?

The church has always taught that murder is mortal sin, and that the mortal sinner loses God’s friendship. If man is sacred only by virtue of his connection to God, what becomes of that dignity when man severs his relationship with God?

But, then, if you deny the existence of God, is anything sacred?


3. “A new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. “

Exactly what is this new understanding?

In the years when I was on the bench, sentences were imposed to protect the pubic, punish the defendant, deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes, and rehabilitate the criminal.

Additionally, sentences were required to be “proportionate” to the severity of the offense.


4. “More effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens.”

A murderer is serving three life sentences without the possibility of parole for murdering and dismembering three children, ages 3 to 5. The murderer then murders a prison guard, and while he is awaiting trail for that murder, he murders a second guard. If the death penalty cannot be imposed, what meaningful penalty is there which “ensures due protection of citizens” — including guards?

Whether additional life sentences are served concurrently or consecutively, isn’t every life sentence after the first meaningless? How are four more meaningless life sentence “proportionate” to the four additional murders?

Where the only meaningful and proportionate sentence is a death sentence, then the death sentence is both reasonable and necessary to protect the public.


5. “More effective systems of detention have been developed which do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Is he referring to the murderer asking God for forgiveness? Statistics show that in Texas a murderer spends an average of 15.6 awaiting his execution. Isn’t that sufficient time for a murderer to ask God’s forgiveness?

Or by redemption, is the pope referring to rehabilitation? Richard Speck raped, tortured and murdered eight student nurses. Is the pope saying that if the parole board decided Speck was rehabilitated after 10 years he should have been paroled?

I have never believed that the death penalty should be the sentence in all cases of murder. I believe, however, it should be the penalty where it is the only sentence that is “necessary” and “proportionate.” In that, I am entirely consistent with Section 2266 of the church’s catechism. I suggest, the church’s catechism is now inconsistent with itself.

If only the death penalty is “proportionate” to the crime, then it must be “admissible,” and the now-repealed Section 2267 had it right.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 23, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Was JFK Right About Tax Cuts? If so, so Is Trump

When candidate Donald Trump promised 4 percent growth for the U.S. economy in September of 2016, CNN scoffed, “Trump promises 4 percent growth. Economists say no way.”


In an Oct. 11, 2016 op-ed, CNN continued, “No chance, say 11 economists surveyed by CNNMoney. ‘No, pigs do not fly,’ says Robert Brusca, senior economist at FAO Economics, a research firm. ‘Donald Trump is dreaming.’


“So what’s realistic? The San Francisco Fed estimates the ‘new normal’ for annual economic growth to be 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.”


Once elected, President Trump promised that if his tax plan were enacted, although taxes rates would be cut, there would nevertheless be an increase in federal revenues and a decrease in the deficit.


This increase in revenues would occur because the economy would grow, and businesses would see greater profits and pay more in taxes, not withstanding the lowering of the tax rates.


Now, the president’s first prediction, that the economy would take off, seems to be coming true to anyone with an open mind.


On July 27, the Department of Commerce announced that the “U.S. gross domestic product advanced by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018.” CNN now dismisses that 4.1 percent growth rate, trotting out economists who now claim that it is “unsustainable.” Probably the same 11!


Trump disagrees and says the 4 percent growth rate is sustainable and promises “it will get even better.” So who are you rooting for, the President or CNN?


But assuming that the President’s first prediction that economic growth would take off if his plan were approved is coming true, what about his prediction that the deficit would be reduced?


The belief that a decrease in tax rates could result in increased federal revenues, and a decrease in the deficit, is not an original Trump idea. President John F. Kennedy made the same prediction 56 years ago.


On December 14, 1962, Kennedy in an address to the Economic Club of New York laid out his case for a cuts in individual and corporate federal income taxes rates.


Kennedy explained, “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.



“Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.


“I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe ... this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”


Kennedy believed that high tax rates stifled the economy. He believed that lowering the tax rates would, in the short run, decrease tax revenues. But in the long run, lowering tax rates would unshackle the American economy.


He believed that if the government took less money from the private sector, the private sector would have more money to invest, expand, and hire workers. He believed in the long run that an expanding economy would produce far greater profits and far greater tax revenues sufficient to cut the deficit and even balance the budget.


To put this in concrete terms, the George W. Bush Presidential Center in 2013 projected that a 4 percent growth rate for 10 years would produce an additional 10 million jobs, $3 trillion in revenues, and a 30 percent reduction of the deficit. (And that does not take account of repatriated dollars.)


Trump is using Kennedy’s playbook. I have always believed Kennedy was right. If Kennedy was right, Trump is going to come out of this looking of a lot smarter than CNN’s gaggle of dismissive economists.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 16, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea