What's your Immigration Policy?

It is midnight. You are a widow, who lives alone in her home. Your ringing doorbells awakens you from a sound sleep. You warily answer the door.

A woman and a teen-age boy are on your doorstep. The woman says to you, “My son and I have illegally crossed the Texas border into your country. We need a place to stay. Can we sleep in your house tonight? Can we live with you until we can find jobs?”

What do you do?


What should President Donald Trump do when thousands of illegal aliens show up in a caravan at our southern border?

You’ve just become president. What’s your policy?

An article that recently appeared in this paper explains, or at least attempts to explain, why aliens continue to illegally cross our southern border. In it, the ACLU quotes two-thirds of the parents who have sent their children across the U.S. border (those they have been able to find and speak with) as saying, as much as they would like to have their children with them, it’s too dangerous in their home country because of gangs.

But sometimes explanations raise further questions. So what conclusion would you draw?

Is the ACLU misquoting the parents? Is there is no gang violence in their native countries?

Is the ACLU exaggerating? If there is gang violence in those countries, is it really that bad?

I assume the ACLU is accurately quoting parents, and that gang violence is a serious danger to their children. But if the children sent into the U.S. should not be returned to their native countries, what conclusion would you draw from that?

If we keep our borders open, only good, law-abiding children will cross into the U.S. The violent gang members who imperil those children in their own native countries would never illegally cross into our country.

If we keep our borders open, the vicious gang members, from whom the children are escaping, will also illegally enter the U.S. and bring gang violence here.

Consider the murder of Mollie Tibbetts of Brooklyn, Iowa. Was Mollie murdered by a U.S. citizen or a vicious alien who had illegally entered the U.S.?

If Tibbets was murdered by an illegal alien, what conclusion would you draw?

If the illegal alien who murdered her had not been able to enter this country, Mollie would still be alive.

If he had not been able to enter the country, Mollie might have died from some other cause.


Finally, do we need to know who is coming into our country? What’s your position?

It doesn’t matter who comes in; they are all God’s children.

Most aliens entering the U.S. illegally are good people, coming here to escape gang violence in their own countries. If a few vicious gang members also sneak in, the evil they do will be outweighed by the good that we do in accepting those escaping violence in their own countries.

A wall would let us monitor who is entering our country. It would be useful in allowing us to vet, so as to at least bar entry to some gang members and dangerous criminals.

A wall should never be built. It is better to accept all God’s children without vetting. Why should Americans demand to be safe, while gang members are killing children south of our border?

Rather than turn away Central American children who may be at risk in their homelands, we should be willing to accept the risk that what happened to Mollie Tibbets will not happen to our own children.


You’ve just become president. You’ve taken an oath to “preserve and protect.”

How do you do that?


By the way ... did you let the mother and son into your home?

Posted: QCOline.com October 25, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Who wants to live in Alinsky's America?

How far will the radical left go to gain power? To keep power? To win?

If you know where to look, the answers are there. There is a playbook.

In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote a little book called Rules for Radicals. No man has ever written a book which has more clearly and succinctly expressed his beliefs. Alinsky begins by stating the purpose of his book:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky minces no words as to what that involves. “In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution.”

But does he really mean revolution? Yes. For Alinsky, any means that the Have-Nots employ to seize power that will work to achieve that end are acceptable.

“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. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

But do truth and morals in any way limit the acceptability of the means? For Alinsky, they don’t. For Alinsky, there is no such thing as objective truth.

“An organizer ... does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.”

Alinsky’s radical dismisses all concerns of personal morality, conscience of the individual and personal salvation. This is a world “where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”

“One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”

So, does Alinsky admit to the existence of a good? Yes. It’s whatever the Have-Notes want to get.

“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”

Does the radical leader admit the existence of any form of objective good or truth? Yes. He assumes his cause to be perfect — even if he knows his assumption to be a lie. “A leader,” he said, “must assume that his cause is 100 percent positive and that the opposition 100 percent negative.”

But if the radical’s ends are achievable and worth the cost, does Alinsky give us any examples of what he means by workable means.

Yes: “Pick the target; freeze, personalize it, and polarize it.”

So is personal destruction or character assassination a permissible means so long as it is workable?

Here’s what Alinsky says to that point: “Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100 percent devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband’? This becomes political idiocy.”

But if character assassination fails, if the target isn’t destroyed, can the next obvious step be taken? If the end in revolution to seize power for the Have-Nots, if morality and conscience place no limits on the choice of the means, and if murder is workable, what objection can their be to using murder as the means?

In 1925, eight years before he became the German chancellor, Adolf Hitler published Mein Kampf and set out his future plans for Germany.

Most people in the West didn’t read it. Many of those who did read it, refused to believe Hitler really meant what he said.

Do your really want to live in Alinsky’s America?

An election’s coming.

Posted: QCOline.com October 18, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

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