Where exactly do Harris, Walz stand on the key issues?

Imagine: You are in the market for a new house. You contact a realtor Larson E. Conjob. He tells you, “I’ve got the perfect house for you. It’s a steal at $550,000.” Enthused, you ask him to show you the house. He replies: “Trust me. I can’t show it to you now; but you can see it right after you buy it! Trust me. You’ll be overJOYed!”

That is Kamela Harris’s campaign pitch; she’s selling “JOY!” And she is demanding that you wait until after you vote; then she will disclose her “program!” Rather like Nancy Pelosi, speaking of the Obamacare bill: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it!” Or Joe Biden passing himself off as a moderate, while hiding in the basement; then governing from the far left.

The American voters — Democrats, Republicans and Independents — are entitled to know Harris’ positions on the key issue before they vote. And HOW she plans to deal with those issues.

Our Southern Border: Will she leave our southern border wide open? Or, close it? If so, how? Build a wall? Shut off welfare benefits to those who cross illegally? Immediately deport all who cross illegally? Revive the stay in Mexico policy? Stand on the border saying, “Don’t?”

Inflation: How is she going to beat inflation? Be “Joyful?” Print more money? Adopt Trump’s policy of “Drill Baby, Drill!? Raise corporate income taxes to 28%? Give first-time home buyers a $25,000 credit? Raise the top marginal individual tax rate to 44.6%? Raise capital gains tax rates (including “surcharges”) on realized gains up to 45%? Impose a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains? Impose price controls? Pray for “Hope and Change?”

Israel/Hamas War: Give Israel whatever support it needs? Support Hamas?” Give Iran billions to “play nice?” Borrow Trump’s policy of “maximum sanctions against Iran?” How?

Iran becoming a nuclear state: Let it happen? Do what must be done to guarantee it will never happen? Hope that Israel “nukes” Iran? How?

Men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.: Support men calling themselves “women?” Force the women to let men participate in women’s competitions? Stand up for women and girls?

Defund the Police: Four years ago, she was “for it.” Is she still for “defunding?”

“Cashless Bail:” Four years ago, when rioters were burning down American cities, she invited donations to provide bail to get the rioters out of jail. She also supported “cashless bail.” Has she seen the light? Or is she “doubling down?”

Fracking: She was against it four years ago? Whither blow the winds now?

“Medicare for All:” Four years ago, she was for abolishing all “private insurance,” and legislating “Medicare for All.” What, Kamala, is your position today?

Prevent Medicare and Social Security from going broke: Make both available to illegal immigrants? Deny both to illegal immigrants?

War in Ukraine: Would you “wash your hands of it?” Continue the current level of military aid?
Provide greater aid? Tell Putin, “Don’t?”

Taiwan: Most of our computer chips come from Taiwan. What if China invades? Let China take Taiwan? Go to war if necessary to keep Taiwan free?

Electric Cars: Is she still planning to phase out all gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2030? 2035? Allow the market to determine whether cars purchased are electric, or gas/diesel powered? Is there even enough electric power available if all cars were electric?

First Amendment: Is “hate speech” beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Is misinformation? Disinformation? Or has the U.S. Supreme Court over the last two hundred years correctly determined the categories of speech that are beyond the “pale of the 1st Amendment?” Can the U.S. Government use privately-owned business to limit free speech — something the Government itself is prohibited from doing?

Climate change: Should all gas stoves be eliminated? Replaced with electric stoves? Should Americans be limited as to how low they can set their air-conditioners?

There is something very wrong with a presidential candidate who refuses to truthfully tell the voters what she plans to do if elected? There is something equally bizarre with voters voting for a candidate who refused to tell the voters what her program is. (Note: many of her proposals come from her “surrogates.” That allows her to say, “I never said that!”)

We in America have never experienced a communist national government running our country. Everywhere else, once you get a communist government, you stuck with it — like incurable cancer.

Vice Presidential candidate Walz has made over 30 trips to China. Is he a Communist? A Communist fellow-traveler? Is this something a rational voter should want to know? When’s the last time the Communists were voted “out” in China?

America was built on the idea expressed in our Declaration of Independence that our rights are inalienable and “God-given” — our rights weren’t given us by kings, presidents or congresses. The only thing that stands between us and totalitarianism is what is written on a few sheets of paper — our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So long as our founding documents are construed consistently with the intent of the founders, our rights remain “God-given.” But when people come to power who believe that the Constitution should be construed consistently with their “more enlightened” notions, you will have lost your freedoms — even if you were promised “Joy and Freedom.”

Don Wooten is worried about AI being an uncontrollable ugly monster. I have the same concerns about candidate Harris who is afraid stand in front of the voters — sans teleprompter — and tell the American people where she stands on the key issues, and more importantly; HOW she intends to deal with them.




First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 11, 2024.
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Harris needs to say if she'll rewrite Title IX

                          Note: Title as Submited: "Candidate Harris, … Define “Woman.”



The Biden Administration’s new Regulations “re-writing” “Title IX” went into effect on August 1, 2024.

Title IX is the federal law that requires universities and colleges that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities to female students. These include equal opportunities in sports. As such, an educational institution must provide male and female athletes with equal access to financial aid. This means that funds allocated to athletic scholarships must be proportionate to the participation of male and female athletes. In other words, if a university allocates $500,000 to athletic scholarships, and 45 percent of its athletes are female, it must allocate $225,000 of that amount to female athletes. (Outside the financial aid context, an institution does not need to spend the same amount of funds on male and female athletes).

In the words of Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA),

“The Biden-Harris administration might not be able to define what a woman is, but they are waging a systematic and deliberate campaign to eliminate Title IX and destroy women’s sports.

“50 years ago, Title IX created opportunity and allowed girls across America to dream. And we’re all watching the Olympics right now, and I can’t help but think that we are all witnessing those dreams become reality for so many of our young female athletes. … But just think about it: If Biden and Harris had their way, Katie Ledecky might have never earned a single medal for our nation had she been forced to compete against biological males.”

President Trump vows that he will immediately undo the Biden re-write of Title IX.

But what is candidate Harris position on the issue?

Is she for or against the re-write? The American people are entitled to know the Harris’ position. Or is she going to pull a “Biden,” and hide in the basement? Why isn’t the Mainstream Media insisting that she tell the voters exactly where she stands on the issue?


If ever there was a ‘woman’s right issue,” this is it. Biden’s re-write of Title IX will affect over 35 million girls and women students. By comparison, there are less than 1M abortions per year in the U.S.

Are men going to be allowed participate in — and dominate — women’s college and high school sports?

Will your daughter be required to share the locker room with male athletes? The shower? Rest rooms?

Will your daughter be forced to share a dorm room with a male when she goes to college?”

Can you your daughter be compelled to believe that a man who declares himself to be a woman is ipso facto a woman? Can she be punished for using the wrong pronoun in referring to the erstwhile male?

Conservatives believe that our U.S. Constitution should be construed consistently with the intent of the founding fathers. Progressives believe it should be construed in accordance with their own “more enlightened notions” of due process and equal protections.

Until the Obama years, there were only two sexes. It was a “settled question.” Since, Progressives, with their more “enlightened notions,” now insist that there are many more.

For many Americans, there are only two sexes: men and women. A man has a penis and testicles and cannot birth or bear offspring. A woman has a vagina and female organs, can conceive, carry and bear a child, and can nourish it with breast milk. A man has XY chromosomes; a woman, XX.

For the “more enlightened” Progressives there are additional sexes. Moreover, a person can change his sex. A man can undergo surgery, or he simply can declare himself to be a woman.

But are Progressives truly “more enlightened” or are they “science deniers?”

As a very little boy I can never recall not knowing the difference between a man and a woman. My mother was a woman. My father was a man.

When I was no more than two or three my mother explained to me “where babies came from.” When I noticed an aunt with a very large belly, my mother explained to me that my aunt was “pregnant and was going to have a baby.” She explained that the baby developed inside his mother’s womb. She told me that only women could have babies, and she told me some women fed their newborn babies with milk they produced in their breasts; others used baby bottles.

Eighty years of my life have confirmed to me the truth of what my mother told me. And eighty years of my life have confirmed to me the truth of Genesis 1:27.

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) sums the issues up well:

“The big concern that I have is that the rule applies to bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower areas, which means that schools and colleges could lose federal funding if they require students to use the facilities corresponding to their biological sex.

“And then it also expands the definition of sexual harassment to include addressing someone with the pronouns that align with his or her sex, that conflicts with his or her preferred gender.

“This is bending the norms of life that have existed for millennia.”

Since the days of Jefferson, Americans have always enjoyed freedom of belief, conscience and speech. If any American man wishes to believe that he is a woman, he has a right to do so.

Our 1st Amendment guarantees that right, as well as his right to declare himself a woman. That same 1st Amendment, however, guarantees that you and I can believe otherwise (believe our own eyes), and say that he isn’t.

Title IX took — as a given — that there were just two sexes. It requires schools that receive federal funding to provide equal opportunities to female students. It was not passed allow either men or women to “redefine themselves.” Such a re-write can only be done by Congress. 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 1, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

When there is no transparency

On July 13, 2024, I wasn’t planning to watch President Trump’s Butler, PA rally. I just happened to turn the TV on. When the picture came up, Mr. Trump’s rally had just begun. Within two minutes, I watch the ex-President grab for his ear and then duck for cover.

I immediately that guessed, that Mr. Trump had been the target of an assassination attempt. For the next hour or so, I watched glued to the coverage.

The first question I asked myself was “Where did the shot come from?” I’m old enough to clearly remember the day that President Kennedy was shot from a window of the book depository.

As I listened on July 13, a “detective” was interviewed within minutes of the shooting. The key point that he made was that the Secret Service and FBI must be “entirely transparent during every minute of their investigations.” And yet, somehow, 18 days after the shooting, I find myself relying on CNN, PBS, AP and the NY Times to construct a timeline of events surrounding the attempted assassination

By the time I turned the coverage off, I had five glaring questions:

1. How could even an utterly incompetent Secret Service Head of security for the rally leave a building 147 yards from Trump’s podium — a prime shooting location — entirely unguarded?

2. Precisely at what minute was the SS notified that there was a “suspicious male loitering about the rally?”

3. Precisely at what minute was the SS notified that there was “a man with a rifle?”

4. Why was Trump allowed to go on stage, given the reports of a “suspicious male loitering about the rally?”

5. The minute the SS was notified of “a man with a rifle,” why didn’t the SS prevent Trump from going on stage? If he was already on stage, why wasn’t he dragged off or otherwise protected?

Then, CNN stated:

“US authorities obtained intelligence … in recent weeks of a plot by Iran to try to assassinate Donald Trump.

“NSC directly contacted USSS [Secret Service], at a senior level, to be absolutely sure they continued to track the latest reporting. USSS shared this information with the detail lead … In response to the increased threat, USSS [allegedly] surged resources and assets for the protection of former President Trump. All of this was before 7/13/24.”

But if the SS had indeed been provided with credible information of an Iranian plot, and the “SS shared this information with the detail lead” [the leader of Trump’s SS security detail], how is it possible that that “leader” left a rooftop” podium — the prime shooting location — unguarded?

Consider Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s July 22, 2024 “testimony” before the House Oversight Committee. Again, in the words of CNN:

“Cheatle [sparked] frustration among lawmakers for repeatedly dodging questions. … Cheatle is facing a flurry of criticism about how a gunman was able to get a clear line of sight to Trump at the rally.”

Why does a high officer of state, sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” dodge Congressional questions? Obfuscate?

Did Cheatle have any duty higher than protecting Biden? Trump? Did she not take a separate oath to do that?

The NY Times, citing text messages from local law enforcement officers, writes that at “5:38 p.m., photos are shared via a group chat, along with a text saying a man has been seen with a “range finder looking towards the stage. … man is no longer in sight and that Secret Service snipers should be notified.” (NP & Times).

6:02 p.m.— Trump takes the stage. “God Bless the U.S.A. plays;” Trump waves at the cheering crowd. Trump begins his rally speech. (AP)

6:09 p.m. — Witnesses report seeing a man climbing onto the roof of the one-story building closest to the stage. That man (Crooks) then sets up his AR-style rifle and lays on the rooftop, an estimated 147 yards from where Trump is speaking. (AP)

— Rallygoers yell to officers— pointing and shouting — that an armed man is on the roof. Witnesses capture his image in cellphone video. (AP)

— A local officer climbs to the roof. Crooks turns his gun toward the officer. Officer drops to avoid being shot. (AP)

6:10-6:11 p.m. — Crooks shoots Trump. (AP)

6:12 p.m. — SS advises, “Shooter is down.” (AP)

So, why, nearly 3 full weeks after the attempted assassination, do we have to get our facts from CNN, AP, NY Times and PBS? Why not from the SS or FBI?

Secrecy incubates “conspiracy theories.” Secrecy here breed distrust of both the Secret Service and the FBI. Sunlight and transparency ensure public trust.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 4, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

One Nation, Indivisible?

On July 14, 2024, one day after the attempted assassination of President Trump, President Biden, in an Oval Office address, told Americans that US politics must never become a "killing field.” He warned that "political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated, and urged Americans to "take a step back. … No matter how strong our convictions, we must never descend into violence. … We cannot, must not, go down this road again (referring to recent acts of political violence).” … “In America we resolve our differences at the ballot box; not with bullets."

But why has it taken eight years from President Biden to deliver this speech?

Compare President Biden’s July 14 speech, with his political rant in Michigan on July 12 — one day before the attempted assassination of Trump.

“We’re going to stand up for our Constitution and … democracy … Donald Trump is a loser. … a convicted criminal. …. Convicted … of 34 felonies of paying hush money to a porn star, … Mr. Trump raped her.                                                                                                                                          

“Donald Trump is a business fraud. … He was fined $400M for providing false information to banks. 

“He’s still facing charges of mishandling classified information, … charges for … trying to overthrow the election on January 6, and … charges in Georgia for election interference.\

 “Trump is a threat to this nation. He ran a violent mile on January 6th to overturn the results of the election — to hold on to power. …. We saw with our own eyes how he sent thousands of people to attack the Capitol. We saw the police being attacked; the Capitol being ransacked; a mob hunting for speaker Pelosi; gallows being set up for vice-president Pence.

“Trump is … unhinged. He’s snapped. He refuses … to say he’ll accept the result of this election. He says if he loses there will be a bloodbath; if he’s elected, he will be a dictator on day-one. … [O]ver my dead body! … Trump … will deploy the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump’s enemies. … Trump will eliminate the Civil Service, … hire tens of thousands of civil servants who are loyal only to him. They’ll have to take a loyalty oath. He’ll … round up over 10,000,000 people … and put them in detention camps. … Trump calls [illegal aliens] “animals.” … America… wake up and realize what Trump and his MAGA Republicans want to do!”

"Americans want a President and not a dictator. …. No self-respecting American President would ever be a Putin (puppet? puppy?), like this guy is. … I’ll be damned if I will allow Donald Trump to take this nation away." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UFF6GEcazc

So, for the next 100 days, now that President Biden has pulled out of the race, how will the Democrats behave? Will they behave like the sober Biden of July 14, or will they ape the Joe Biden of July 12?

And which President Trump will we see? A pre-July 13 Trump or a post-July 13 Trump?

I have said before, no American politician is “Hitler.” It is long past-time to stop the vile name-calling? Time to honestly debate the issues on the merits.

Our Supreme Court has said that the remedy for speech that is misinformation/lies is “counter- speech.” Let them, for example, discuss “illegal aliens.” If 10 million illegal aliens are good for the country, the new Democrat nominee — whether Vice President Harris or whoever — should be able to adduce facts to justify her/his policy; if bad, President Trump should be able to adduce facts to show the detriment to the country.

Prediction: Between now and the election, I predict that we will see a kinder, gentler, more human Donald Trump. Sadly, I predict that Democrats will revert to President Biden’s Michigan form — “Trump is Hitler — unhinged — a threat to democracy, etc.!”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 26, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

An opinion devoid of the slightest factual basis

Earlier this week, MSNBC host Joy Reid, on Tik Tok, proudly told the world that to avoid another term of Donald Trump being President, that she’d “vote for [President Joe] Biden in a coma.”

To those in the Democrat Party who wish to replace President Biden on the Presidential ticket, Reid said “Let me know, when you guys are finished fighting amongst yourselves, who I gotta vote for in November to keep Hitler out the White House.”

Joy Reid’s comparison of Trump to Hitler is her opinion. But Donald Trump has a political record. Accordingly, hard facts abound showing exactly what Trump did during his four years as President. Which of those facts would give an iota of support to Reid’s inane assertion that “Trump is Hitler?”

Joy Reid is a 1991 Harvard Univ. graduate with a “concentration” on “film studies.” What seems patently clear is that Reid seems to lack even the least passing knowledge of Hitler and his Third Reich. No person with a scintilla of intellectual integrity who has read William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or studied WWII, would ever compare Trump — or any other American politician — to Adolf Hitler.

Here is a timeline of Hitler and his deeds:

January 1933: Hitler become German Chancellor;

February 1933: Reichstag destroyed by fire; Nazis blame Communists;

March 10, 1933: Nazi burn books opposite Berlin University;

March 1933: Enabling Act passed. Hitler given power to rule by decree for 4 years;

Hitler proclaims Nazi Party the only permitted political party in Germany. All other parties and trade unions are banned. German states stripped of autonomous powers. Nazi officials become state governors;

February & March 1933: Mass arrests of Left-Wing opponents;

March 1933. Dachau Concentration Camp [“CC”] goes into operation;

April 1933: Communist Party banned;

May 1933: Socialists, trade unions and strikes banned;

Spring/Summer 1933: Early “CCs” are set up throughout Germany;

June 1934: Hitler eliminates all opposition within Nazi Party. Hitler personally arrests Ernst Roehm, his Chief of Staff. When Roehm refuses to use the pistol offered him to end his own life, he is shot to death — executed — without prior trial;

July 1934: President Hindenburg dies. Hitler abolished the office of the President, and names himself “Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor;”

1935: Hitler decrees military conscription;

September 1935: Nuremburg Laws strip Jews of citizenship; makes them “subjects:”

July 1936: Sachsenhausen “CC” begins operations;

July 1937: Buchenwald “CC” starts operations;

December 1, 1937: 7746 prisoners now in “CC;”

March 1938: Hitler orders the German Army to invade and seize Austria. Austria annexed;

June 1, 1938: First official execution in “CC;”

June 30, 1938: About 24,000 prisoners now in “CC;”


September 1938. Hitler threatens war with Czechoslovakia. To avoid war, Chamberlain and France agree that the Czechs shall cede the Sudetenland to Germany. Hitler promises he has “no further ter-ritorial ambitions in Europe;”

November 1938: Crystal Night. 7,500 Jewish shops are destroyed; 400 synagogues are burnt. The attack is portrayed as a spontaneous reaction to the death of a German diplomat by a Jewish refugee in Paris. It is actually orchestrated by the Nazi party;

November 1938: About 50,000 prisoners now in “CC;”

March 1939: In violation of the Munich Agreement, Hitler troops the seize rest of Czechoslovakia;

May 1939: Ravensbrück “CC” for women starts operations;

August 23, 1939. Germany and Russia sign a “Non-Aggression Pact;”

September 1, 1939. Hitler “blitzes”/overruns Poland;

April 9, 1940: Hitler attacks and occupies neutral Denmark and Norway:

May 10, 1940: Neutral countries Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg are bombed and invaded in furtherance of Hitler’s invasion/war on France:

June 1940: Auschwitz “CC,” in German occupied-Poland, begins operation;

September 7, 1940 to May 11, 1941: Hitler’s air force bombs/blitzes England, including London and Coventry;


June 1941: Beginning of “euthanasia” of mentally-deficient and ill prisoners;

June 1941. In violation of his Non-aggression Pact, Hitler invades Russia;

September 1941: First mass-gassing of Soviet prisoners-of-war in “CCs;”

December 1941: Some 80K prisoners in “CCs:”

January 1942: Wannsee Conference to provide for the “Final Solution” for “Jewish question;”

Spring 1942: Mass transportation of Jews to Auschwitz begins;

Spring/Summer of 1942: SS establishes first gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau;

September 1942: About 110,000 prisoners in “CCs;”

February 1943: Mass deportations of Gypsies to Auschwitz begins;

August 1944: 524,000 prisoners in “CCs;”

Early 1945: 700,000 prisoners in “CCs;”



So, Ms. Reid, when during his four years in office, did Trump commit any act comparable to any of the acts committed by Hitler, listed above?

When did Trump order the mass-burning of disapproved books? Rule by decree under an Enabling Act? Outlaw opposing political parties? Ban unions? Strikes? Order Mass arrests of political opponents? Of Democrats? Of Republicans? Set up concentration camps? Order the mass arrest of Jews? Invade neutral countries? Bomb them to bits? Order mass execution of any prisoners? Pass a law stripping anybody of their citizenship? Bomb population centers? Exterminate the mentally ill? Gypsies? Millions of Jews? Approve a “Final Solution?”

Joy Reid has expressed her opinion of Trump comparing him to Hitler. Where are the underlying facts to support her opinion? Or is her opinion of Trump based solely on irrational political hatred?

Trump can fairly be accused on childishly calling his opponents names — of being a “bull in a china shop.” But neither Biden nor Trump can rationally be compared to Hitler.

And Ms. Reid, if Biden goes “comatose,” what unnamed, unelected individual will be our secret “acting” president? It doesn’t seem to matter to Ms. Reid.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 10, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Lies, Opinions and Political Puffing

We all know what a lie is. When someone states as fact something that he knows to be untrue, that is a lie.

But what about opinions? If a weather man predicts a bright sunny day, and it rains all day instead, is he a liar? Not if he gave his honest opinion based on the best meteorological available to him. But what if all the meteorological data indicates a day of heavy rain, and our weatherman nevertheless, with no meteorological basis, predicts a clear, sunny day? Is he a liar?

When I was a boy, my mother played golf at Tam O’Shanter Country Club in Niles, Illinois during the hey-day of the club. I can say, without lying, that on one occasion, mom was the women’s club champion. I was there when she finished. And I still have her trophy showing she was club champ, and the small plaque that for one year graced her locker in the women’s locker room. My recollection is that mom won the championship twice, but I have no evidence that she did. I therefore cannot honestly say she was two-time club champ.

I can recall as a boy asking mom what was the lowest handicap she ever carried. She replied, “Six.” I was a bit surprised, because par was 72, and I did not recall her shooting in the 70s. But handicaps fluctuated, and I knew she generally played around 80-82. And I also knew that my mother never lied. In fact, the rule among her many friends was, “If you don’t want Marge’s honest opinion, don’t ask for it!”

Which brings us to last Thursday’s Presidential Debate.

As a judge, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, I always took account of two “cautions:” (1) A man who lies about little, insignificant things, is also apt to lie about important things, when the lie will benefit him; (2) A man careless enough to lie about a fact which can easily be disproved, will probably lie whenever he believes it is to his advantage.

A number of seemingly unimportant statements were made at the very end of the debate:

(1) Biden averred he had “his handicap down to a 6 while VP:”

(2) Trump to averred he “hit the ball 280 years:”

(3) Trump averred he “just won two club championships — not even senior events;”

(4) Biden implied he could carry his bag of golf clubs during the round of golf, and Trump couldn’t.

All four of these claims are subject to being easily proved or disproved. The voters are entitled to see if one or both of these guys were lying — stating as fact things they knew to be untrue.

I suggest they take a day off and play a televised round of golf at Saukie Golf Course in Rock Island. They could each carry a “Sunday Bag” (2 woods, a putter and five irons). This would not be impossible. I know an 84-year man who does just that 5 days a week.

If Trump is indeed a club champion-type who hits the ball 280 from the tee, he can show his prowess. If Biden indeed is a 6, or even a 10 handicap, he can prove it. Whether either has the stamina to be President, will be quickly shown as they trudge up and down Saukie’s ravines. And just in case the ravines prove to be too much for either man, the political parties could pay for paramedics and ambulances to stand by. And perhaps, the candidates could have a side bet: the loser drops out of the Presidential race.

It is time for these two guys to “put up, or shut up.”

Now a few thoughts about other “statements” made at the debate:

1. President Biden’s stated that he was "the only President this century" and "this decade" that did not have any troops "dying anywhere in the world." Were not 13 killed during the Afghan pullout? 3 more in Iran? Was that knowingly-made false statement of fact? A mere opinion? A mere lapse of memory?

2. President Trump’s claim that before Covid we had “the greatest economy that we've had in our history, the best.” False statement of fact made knowingly? Trump’s opinion? Obvious political puffing?

3. President Biden claimed that “The U.S. economy added 15 million jobs between the time U.S. President Joe Biden took office and May 2024.”

As per Snopes: “As the U.S. economy kept on recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, it had gained 15.6 million jobs as of May 2024. However, about 9 million of those jobs were lost during the pandemic, so the net jobs gain from pre-pandemic levels was 6.2 million.”

Was Biden expressing a mere opinion? If he was making a statement of fact, was it a material misstatement of fact to take credit for 15 million jobs, when only 6.2 were new jobs? A lie? Would an honest man have stated the case the way Snopes did?

4. Trump’s statement that the Ukraine War and the War in Gaza would have never happened had he been President. Statements of fact? Or self-serving opinion? Unprovable either way?

My point is this: politicians who knowingly lie are scoundrels unworthy of election. Politicians who merely give opinions are the norm. But are politicians who state “opinions” without factual underpinnings, in the face of clear, contrary underlying facts, tantamount to liars?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 3, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

A Theology of Love rather than a Theology of Sacrifice and Atonement

It has now been a bit more than five-years, since my daughter’s God-mother died following a long and miserable battle with cancer.

When I was told her death was imminent, I stopped by her home one night to say good-bye. I don’t recall how our discussion began, but the two of us eventually began discussing how an all-loving, all-just God could require his blameless son to die ignominiously, nailed to a cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind.

During the discussion, we also wondered how an all-loving, all-just God could have punished men and women for all generations for the “sin of Adam and Eve” — for eating fruit from the forbidden tree. How could an all-loving, all-just God impute the “sin” of Adam to men and women who did not exist at the time of “Adam’s sin,” and who had no part in committing that sin?

Both before and after that night, I have pondered these questions. I have never been quite able to accept that an all-loving, all-just God demanded a blood sacrifice of his only, and entirely innocent and blameless, son to restore God’s children to God’s friendship.

So, did Christ come into the world to be sacrificed? Not if we take Christ at his word. At John 14: 6, 7, Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

I have never doubted that God and Christ were omniscient. Afterall, Christ told his apostles that “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.” Mark 9:31.Actually, Christ predicted his death and resurrection three times.

Over time, I have concluded that God sent his son incarnate to show mankind the way that God wants us to walk, the truth that we have an all-loving, all just father, and that if we walk His way, our reward is eternal life.

That God sent his wholly-blameless son into the world to be “murdered” and “sacrificed,” seems utterly inconsistent with Christ’s teaching that God is an all-loving father. What all- loving father would require his son to be crucified — sacrificed?

So, did God intend that Christ be sacrificed? Or did he, in his omniscience, simply know that it would happen?

Did God really intend that his son be crucified as a condition of restoring his own children to his friendship? That’s the essence of “atonement theology.” In the words of my daughter’s God-Mother, “surely an omniscient, all-loving God could have come up with another way to reconcile mankind to Himself, short of ordaining his son’s crucifixion.”

But if God did not intend his son be sacrificed, who did?

Did the Romans and/or Jews who killed Christ think they were offering a “sacrifice” to God? Or did the Jewish leaders insist on Christ death because they believed him guilty of blasphemy?

Certainly, Pilate did not order Christ execution as a “sacrifice” to the Jewish God or any Roman God. Christ was condemned as a criminal.

Did Christ intend to sacrifice himself? Was Christ suicidal? If so, why did he pray that the Father might let the cup pass by?

Is it not equally probable that Christ became incarnate to show mankind the “way” to please God, and the “true way” to achieve everlasting life, knowing that men would put him to death, but also knowing that God would place His supreme “stamp of approval” upon all He did during his mission on Earth, by raising him from the dead, on the third day — precisely as he had predicted.

This op ed was prompted by a short article that a Protestant-thinker and lawyer-friend sent me earlier today.https://cac.org/daily-meditations/at-one-ment-not-atonement-breaking-up-old-logic-2020-02-05/

I had not realized that as early as the 13th century, there were theologians who questioned how an all-loving, all-just God could send his beloved son to Earth, and demand his crucifixion. Among them, were the scholar and theologian, Duns Scotus, and members of his Franciscan Order.

The Center for Action and Contemplation sums up Dun Scotus’ position thusly:

“Duns Scotus was not guided by the (Jewish) Temple language of debt, atonement, and blood sacrifice, which was understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul. Instead, he was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18). While the Church has never rejected the Franciscan position, it has remained a minority view.”

“Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely andfreely acts out of love. 

“Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God! God is not someone to be afraid of, but is … on our side.”

Whether all this plays any part in church closings, I leave for you to decide.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 19, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea