Connection between Politics, Greed and Rape of Social Justice

What happens when you couple Tammany Hall with social justice? Tammany Hall was the Democrat Party’s political machine.


Tammany played a major role in controlling New York city and state politics by providing social justice to immigrants, most notably the Irish, from 1864 until 1933. Tammany Hall became a facilitator for immigrants, helping them become naturalized citizens.


During the Tweed regime, naturalization committees were established, made up of Tammany operatives. They did the paperwork, provided witnesses, and advanced the fees required for citizenship. Public officials were bribed or otherwise compelled to cooperate. In return, immigrants dutifully supported Tammany candidates.


As a “Mick” myself, it’s hard for me to get too upset with the state doling out money to deserving Irishmen -- like myself! I can easily see that what Tammany did for the Irish was sage politics. A lot of Irishmen, just off the boat, got a lot of help for the meager price of their vote.


So just how, does Tammany Hall corrupt something as noble as social justice?


Imagine that every year, for five years, as an act of Christian charity, you donate $10,000 to your church, but that in the sixth year, you make no donation. Your church, however, has become

dependent on your annual donation. Without it, it will be forced to cut important programs. Does your church have a right to sue you to force you to donate $10,000 in year six? If your annual donation is a “gift,” the answer is, “no.”


Social justice is the Catholic Church’s effort to extend the duty of Christian charity beyond the individual to the society. The state (society) should provide “the conditions that allow ... individuals to obtain what is their due.” Society should act so that “each should receive what he needs from others.” The state should “reduce ... economic inequalities” and eliminate ‘sinful inequalities.” But what exactly is their due? Their needs from others? Excessive economic inequality? “Sinful inequality?


The state’s primary tool to ensure that each receives what he needs from others is income redistribution via taxation. Taxation is also the primary tool to reduce excessive economic equality, and to “eliminate sinful inequality.”


But taxation involves taking money from the one who earned it, and giving it to one who didn’t earn it. And while taxing to provide what is truly needed or to eliminate excessive income inequality can be justified as social justice, taking one cent more is plunder.


There is a selflessness inherent in Christian charity which is soon lost in Social Justice. The state, unlike the individual, has no soul -- has no expectation of heavenly reward. Accordingly, the political parties rather than looking for eternal reward, look instead for something temporal -- votes. Votes may not be a formally bargained for “consideration” -- but votes, as in the case of Tammany, quickly become the anticipated quid pro quo.


Politics and greed sadly have a corrosive effect on social justice. Rerum Novarum never contemplated employers paying living wages to workers who opted not to work. Leo XIII’s encyclical does not deal with society’s duty to provide perpetual welfare benefits to the able-bodied who chose not to work. (I am not referring to the disabled).



What came to be known as a living wage required reciprocity; the worker had a co-relative duty to fully and faithfully perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon.


There are obvious problems with social justice income redistributions. If the state has a duty to make redistributions, the recipient seems to have a co-relative right to receive them. In time, that right comes to be understood as inalienable.


What is due or necessary, in time, always comes to mean more. What is excessive inequality, obtains a more expansive definition as the recipients increase in political power. And the worker is despoiled of the fruits of his labors.


Christian charity is an act of loving one’s neighbor. Today’s income redistribution aspect of social justice has little in common with love of neighbor. It has become the tool with which cynical politicians use other peoples’ money to buy votes.


Jack Kennedy told us, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, 50 years later, say, “Vote for me and your country will give you free everything.”


Posted March 22, 2016 QCOline.com


Copyright 2016 John Donald O'Shea

Why America needs another Jack Kennedy

The nation is $20 trillion in debt. What is the best way to cut the deficit, while funding necessary government programs?

Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes on the rich and on wealthy corporations. Jack Kennedy espoused cutting personal and corporate income taxes across the board.

                           (Note: This op-ed assumes existing tax rates.)

Assume a corporation has net income of $100,000, and pays taxes at the rate of 25 percent. If you increase it to 30 percent, you will seemingly increase government tax revenues. That's Sanders' idea. In that example, he would leave the corporation with $70,000 after-tax income as opposed to $75,000. But every dollar of net income taken for taxes is $1 less available to the corporation for expansion, hiring employees or paying dividends.

Sanders is demanding the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share (i.e., more) in taxes. But he would reduce corporate net incomes by increasing the federal minimum wage to $15. He would further reduce net income by requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks paid family and medical leave, two weeks paid vacation, and seven paid sick days.

Additionally, he promises to invest $1 trillion to put 13 million people back to work. And another $5.5 billion to provide jobs for disadvantaged youth. He would spend unspecified billions, providing Medicare  as a right of citizenship. He'd provide free universal health care, prekindergarten programs and college tuition.

Jack Kennedy, believed lower tax rates would create substantial increases in corporate net  income. The government would take in substantially greater tax revenues because it would be taxing on substantially larger net incomes. Expanding businesses hire more workers who pay income tax. If you hire 40 of the 96 million unemployed, and if they each pay $1,000 in income taxes, that results in increased government revenues, and decreased welfare payments.

President Kennedy, speaking to the Economic Club of New York (Dec. '62), said:

 "There are a number of ways by which the federal government can  [encourage] ... economic growth.

 "The most direct and significant ... is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand.

"The ... best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business, is ... an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes ...

"Our present tax system ... siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power ... It  reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.

"To increase demand -- lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to [increase] in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

"Consumers are spending between 92 and 94 percent of their after-tax income ...  After-tax income could and should be greater  .... When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more ...  capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high."

President Kennedy concluded:

"The lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are ... caused by ...  slow economic growth and periodic recessions ... (and not by lower tax rates).

"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 [ultimately] achieve ... a budget surplus.

Mr. Sanders blithely promises everything to everybody, seemingly unaware  there is no free lunch, oblivious to the fact that reduced corporate net income" equal reduced federal tax revenues -- the very revenues he needs to play Santa Claus.

Every dollar siphoned off for taxes or  new benefits is one less dollar the corporation can expend on hiring, plant expansion, modernization or dividends. Dollars paid to new employees,  expansion laborers and dividends, all increase income tax revenues.

Moreover, if corporate taxes are raised too high, plants close, workers are laid off, no dividends are paid, there is no net income to tax, and government revenues decline.

It is an undeniable truth that "the power to tax, is the power to destroy." If man earns $1, and the government takes that $1 in taxes, the man has nothing left. So why would the sane man work to earn a second dollar?

Want plant closures and more unemployment? Vote for Bernie. Want a thriving economy, vote for the next Jack Kennedy.

Posted: March 10, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016,  John Donald O'Shea

WHY THIS DEMOCRAT WOULD STAY THE COURSE

 

                                  Note: The op ed below was originally published on Jan. 25, 2008. 
                                            I believe time and events have  proved me right
                           

A few years ago, our President began a nationwide address, saying 

“I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation 

of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; 

and what we aim to accomplish.”

The President then gave his explanation.

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or 

             the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

The President then acknowledged that  other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, but pointed out why such weapons in Saddam’s hands posed a danger that required immediate military action.  

“With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but

repeatedly.Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during 

a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud

  missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only

against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish

civilians in Northern Iraq.”

The President then discussed Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the U. N. Inspection team, saying

“Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the

inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.”

The President gave a bleak assessment of the situation.  

“This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability 

of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international

             community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with 

the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.”

And finally, the President warned

“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever

                American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the 

loss of life. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must 

be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies 

the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater 

threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors.

He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he 

will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, 

and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely 

that we will face these dangers in the future.”

Did the President lie when he said these things on December 16, 1998? I don’t think so. When he spoke, I believe President Clinton spoke in utter good faith. For the same reason, I don’t believe President Bush lied after  9-11-2001  when he later said the same things.

We have now been in Iraq for five years. As we approach the mid term elections nearly 3000 of our troops have been killed and thousands of others have been severely wounded. The increase in violence this October is reminiscent of the “Tet Offensive” during the Vietnam War era. The goal is the same: turn the American public against the war. 

But what is the correct course? Should we “stay the course,” as President Bush suggests?  Should we set a “time table for withdrawal” as others suggest? Should we “re-deploy to Okinawa” as Congressman Murtha suggests? Should we partition the country into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish districts?

In Robert Graves’ autobiographical novel of the Roman Emperor Claudius, Graves attributes the following quote to Claudius, as an instruction to his Roman generals. 

 

“I would merely decide whether the expedition was to be 

one of conquest  or whether it would have a purely punitive  character. 

In the former case, vigor was to be tempered with humanity -- as 

little damage as possible was to be done to captured villages and towns and to

                standing crops, the local Gods were not to be humiliated, and no butchery 

must be allowed once the enemy was broken in battle. In the case, however, of a

                punitive  expedition no mercy whatsoever need be shown: as much damage

as possible must be done to crops, villages, towns and temples, and such of the

                inhabitants as were not worth taking home as slaves were to be massacred.” 

Claudius the God, by Robert Graves

While “Claudius the God”  is a work of fiction, there is a great deal of truth in the words Graves attributes to the Emperor. When a country goes to war, it has two choices: it can embark on a war of extermination, or it can go to war for more limited purposes. More often than not, a country embarks on a limited war in the hope of avoiding  a greater war at some later date. We fight limited wars to avoid having to fight unlimited wars or wars of extermination.  

If World War II, wasn’t a war of “extermination,” it came close to being one. Hitler destroyed London, and turned Stalingrad to rubble. We dropped atom bombs on two Japanese cities, and Stalin turned Berlin into a pile of debris. The war ended with “unconditional surrender” of Germany and Japan. 

Since World War II, our country has been involved in a number of limited wars. We fought the Korean war to keep the North Koreans from over running South Korea. We fought the Vietnam War to keep South Vietnam a noncommunist state.  We fought the first Gulf War to get Iraq out of Kuwait. All were fought in hopes of avoiding a later greater war. 

Our present war in Iraq is also for limited purposes. Presidents Clinton and Bush spoke of the necessity of keeping Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction. We also went into Iraq to replace a murderous dictator, and to try to stabilize the middle east by creating a democracy in the heart of the region. We have no desire to exterminate the Iraqi population, and therein lies our problem. When things don’t go well, we can’t drop the atom bomb on a suburb of Baghdad. 

I think it is clear at this point in time that President Bush and his advisers seriously under- estimated the difficulty of the task. Many Iraqis, a substantial number of foreign fighters, and Iran and Syria are doing everything in their power to insure that a fundamentalist Islamic state rather than a democracy comes into being in Iraq. 

President Bush, if he didn’t before, now clearly understands the wisdom of President Clinton warning to the American public:

               “Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the 

loss of life. ... “

President Clinton, notwithstanding the risks to our troops, ordered air attacks.

               “Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against 

the price of inaction.”

The perceived “good” of coming home with the job undone is clear. No more of our troops will be killed or maimed in the deserts and cities of Iraq. 

But what will happen to those people in Iraq who have thrown their lot in with us?

There are 26,000,000 people living in Iraq.  It is estimated that as many as 5,000,000 of these are Kurds. The Kurdish northern part of the country has been peaceful. They’ve been our friends, and supporters. If we retreat to Okinawa, do we thrown them to the wolves? Fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces are peaceful.  If we pull out, will violence spread there?

Many ordinary Iraqis  joined the new government, served in the security forces, and joined the new Iraqi army. Some of these undoubtedly have been playing a double game. But what about those Iraqis who truly risked their lives because they bought-in to our notions of individual freedoms and democracy? Who will protect them if we leave? Will they be executed in reprisal?

Who will take over power in Iraq if we leave? The followers of bin Laden? The followers of Muqtada al-Sadr? The remnants of Saddam’s regime? The most vicious Islamist private militia in the country? 

And if an Islamist government takes power, will it be like Iran? Will it be Iran? Will it be like the Taliban? Will it be a sworn enemy to the United States? 

Presently, we are the strongest power in Iraq. But if we announce a time table for withdrawal, will that not force all those who have sided with us to realign themselves with the next strongest force? What if that next strongest force is Iran, or bin Laden?

Our withdrawal will also have ramifications out side of Iraq, for both our friends and our enemies.

We have given our word to the people of Iraq to build a democracy for them. What if we break our word? Will our ally Israel be able to depend on us, or will they lose faith? Will the friendly oil rich gulf states be able to trust in our protection in the face of Iranian nuclear threats?

Will withdrawal end the war on terror? Or will we create a sanctuary where terrorists can train to strike our country and our assets around the world?

Will our failure in Iraq encourage Iran to complete their quest for the bomb, knowing that American no longer keeps its word? Will it encourage North Korea to do likewise? Will it embolden Bin Laden and his ilk?

When the men in Congress who don’t support our present policy of seeing the matter through can assure me that our country will be better off if we leave Iraq now, I’ll join their calls for getting out. When they can assure me that none of the evils that Presidents Clinton and Bush foresaw will occur, I will support withdrawal. When they assure me that my fears are chimerical, I’ll join their numbers. 

But I don’t want to leave and cause the deaths of a million of our friends in Iraq. I don’t want to leave and destroy the confidence our allies have in us defending them. I don’t want to leave and give our enemies a victory and a new base. And I don’t want to withdraw from a limited war only to be required to fight a broader and more dangerous war a few years from now.  That is why this Democrat would stay the course.

Posted: January 25, 2008. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2008, 

John Donald O'Shea

 

Many Alternatives to Selling the Hauberg

The main arguments in favor of Rock Island selling off the Hauberg Civic Center are financial. 

They go as follows: during the 2013-15 fiscal years the Hauberg facility "lost" $251,931; costs to repair the Hauberg are estimated at $937,500; if the city sells the Hauberg to Bridges Catering, the Healy family promises to spend nearly $1 million to make needed repairs; and the prospective purchaser promises to bring nearly 100  jobs to Rock Island.

The same argument could be made for selling off almost any or all of the park and recreational facilities owned by the city.

Rock Island's Total Park and Recreation Expenditures for FY 2013-14 were $6,839,282. Total Revenues were $5,689,473. That was a loss of more than $1 million. (I use "actuals" because I don't trust projections.) For FY2013-14:

-- Highland Springs Golf Course had revenues of $837,536 and expenditures of $900,008.

-- Saukie Golf Course  had revenues of $512,069 and expenditures of $614,698.

-- RI Fitness Center had revenues of $1,211,132 and expenditures of $1,398,002.

-- Schwiebert Riverfront Park had revenues of $113,075 and expenditures of $116,476.

-- Parks and Recreation program showed revenues of $1,219,389 and expenditures  of just $772,442, BUT property taxes of $883,892 made up 72.5 percent of those revenues.

Expenditures exceed revenues for all the recreational facilities listed above. How could Lincoln Park, for example, ever be expected to operate at a profit? And while the wading pool has been out of service for years, and would cost a fortune to restore, does that justify selling off Lincoln Park as surplus property? Parks, in general, are money-losing propositions. But cities nevertheless maintain parks for the public welfare -- even though they are nonprofit centers. And didn't the city realize when it accepted the Hauberg property that it was unlikely to be a money-maker?

So if it makes sense to sell the Hauberg Center as surplus property and pocket the cash, perhaps Rock Island should sell off all its golf courses and all its parks and recreational facilities. After all, the  businessmen could build catering facilities on the lands of Saukie or Highland Springs, or in Lincoln or Schwiebert parks.

The Hauberg Center and its grounds are unique. It is a splendid 20-room mansion with a carriage house, sitting on 10 acres. If Rock Island sells it off, what home of comparable quality sitting on 10 acres in Rock Island could the city ever buy to replace it? Once the city sells off its park lands, where can it possibly find comparable lands to buy? If the mansion were to "fall down" tomorrow, the 10 acres still would make a lovely park. Selling it off makes about as much sense as selling Lincoln Park or Schwiebert Part.

As for the entrepreneurial Healys, finding an historic building which they can use for a catering business, shouldn't be too hard. The county has a charming, historic courthouse it would like to replace. It surely could easily accommodate 100  employees, and leave Rock Island with perhaps the finest home in the city, its carriage house, and its grounds.

Then again, Moline has the decrepit John Deere Mansion going to ruin atop the bluff. Why not buy and renovate that? If the Hauberg becomes a catering facility, how much of the intact original will be left? With the courthouse and Deere House almost nothing original remains.

Whether or not there is a clause in the original deed that would allow sale after 50 years, is irrelevant. The property was conveyed to the city, if not in express trust, then, in implied trust. It clearly was the grantor's intent that the property was being conveyed for the use and benefit of the people of Rock Island.  It was not conveyed to be handed over to the first canny businessman who might come along after 50 years.

It is argued that usage is down. If so then perhaps the marketing director should be sold off rather than the facility. Perhaps a new marketing plan should be devised.

But most importantly, once gone, where will the city ever find a comparable house on 10-acre grounds? Indeed, where will the city even find 10 acres? How much would it cost the city to buy 10 acres in the neighborhood?

If the city really doesn't want the Hauberg, the people of Rock Island should be given first option and time to create a charitable foundation to keep the house for public use -- such as the one that maintains the Butterworth Center and the Deere-Wiman House. Anything less is a betrayal of trust.

Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:10 am | Updated: 12:10 am, Wed Feb 17, 2016 QCOline.com

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea

Democracy Only Works if Voters Get the Whole Truth

Perhaps, because I spent 26 years on the bench, I have never had an iota of use for political correctness or lies. I believe they stand in the way of finding facts -- of determining the truth.

For a verdict to be just, it must be based on the truth. On a larger scale, for a democracy to function, the voters must also have the truth. Do not misunderstand. I have no use for liars.

But in silencing a speaker as a “liar,” “bigot,”  “fear-monger,” or  “war-monger,” the politically correct, true-believer may well be squelching truth and imperiling the nation.

Our Supreme Court has said our judicial system “assumes that adversarial testing [of evidence] will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness. Our belief [is] that debate between adversaries is ... essential to the truth-seeking function of trials.”

An English Judge, Lord Eldon, perhaps put it best: “Truth is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.”

Our Supreme Court summed it up: “The very premise of our adversary system ... is that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective.”

Nearly 100 years ago, in his great dissenting opinion in Abrams v. U.S. (1919) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. ...

“But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe ... that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

“That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment ... While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

In 2012, in U.S. v. Alvarez, our Supreme Court once again, in a case involving a man prosecuted for lying about having received the Congressional Medal of Honor, followed the lead of Justice Holmes.

“Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few ‘historic and traditional categories [of expression] long familiar to the bar,’ ... Among these categories are advocacy intended, and likely, to incite imminent lawless action, ... obscenity, ... defamation, ... speech integral to criminal conduct, ... so-called ‘fighting words,’ ... child pornography ... fraud, ...  and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the government has the power to prevent ...

“Absent ... is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.

“The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. ... Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person.”

The danger of political correctness is best illustrated by the case of Winston Churchill. During the 1930s, Churchill  was a voice crying in the wilderness. For his incessant attempts to warn the British people against Adolf Hitler’s intentions, Churchill was labeled a “war-monger,” a “militarist,” a “fear-monger.”

In the first volume of his history of WWII, Churchill writes, “The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest ... facts, and their leaders seeking there votes, did not dare to undeceive them. The newspapers, after their fashion, reflected and emphasized the prevailing opinions. ... No one in great authority had the wit, ascendancy or detachment from public folly to declare these fundamental brutal facts to the electorate; nor would anyone have been believed if they had.”

In reference to Britain’s utter unpreparedness to oppose Hitler, Churchill writes with bitterness of what we now call political correctness:

“We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct [of all parties], both in and out of office. Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and  pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation.”

When Hitler struck in 1939, Churchill was vindicated. His warning came true.

Those who sought to silence him, had been wrong. And in being wrong, they enabled Hitler to ravage Europe, murder 6 million Jews and nearly win the war.

Posted: Saturday, February 6, 2016 12:00 am.

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea

The Hauberg Center Was Given as a "Public Trust" -- Express or Implied

When I first came to Rock Island a half century ago, the first great home dedicated to public use I became acquainted with was Butterworth Center. Then, later, the Deere-Wiman House, and eventually the Hauberg Center.

Today, the Butterworth and Deere-Wiman properties are managed and maintained by the William Butterworth Foundation for public use and enjoyment.

“In 1951, John Deere’s granddaughter, Katherine Deere Butterworth, moved by her community involvement and philanthropy, established the William Butterworth Foundation in memory of her husband. In 1956, her home -- formerly known as ‘Hillcrest’ -- opened as Butterworth Center, a bustling civic center which now hosts scores of cultural and educational activities each year, along with historical tours and meeting space for not-for-profit groups.

“In 1976, Pattie Southall Wiman, widow of Charles Deere Wiman, donated her nearby home, ‘Overlook,’ to the William Butterworth Foundation. Known today as the Deere-Wiman House, it also serves as a civic center for the promotion of education, culture, and perpetuation of the John Deere family legacy.”

The two facilities, together with their carriage houses and grounds, are the outstanding public jewels of our community, and grand gifts to the community and the people of the community.

Somewhat more recently, I became aware of the beautiful Hauberg Center and its grounds in Rock Island. I made my first visit when I was sent by a Genesius Guild costumer to get a costume from storage at the carriage house/garage. Since, I have attended a number of Genesius Guild events in the house proper. The house is a thing of beauty.

For my money, the Hauberg Center (with its carriage house and grounds) is the outstanding jewel of the Rock Island park system.

The mansion was the home of John Hauberg and his wife, Susanne Denkmann Hauberg. Both were philanthropists.

Mrs. Hauberg’s philanthropies include establishment of the West End Settlement, the Rock Island YWCA, children’s camps, and (with her siblings) donation of the Denkmann Memorial Library at Augustana College.

John Hauberg was instrumental in securing Black Hawk’s Watch Tower as a state park in 1927. Much of his personal collection helped create the John Hauberg Indian Museum. One of his lasting legacies was as the recorder of the oral histories of the area’s pioneers, housed at the Rock Island Historical Society.

The Hauberg children donated the home, an architectural masterpiece, to the city of Rock Island to be used as the Hauberg (Civic) Center in 1956.

Given the history of the Hauberg’s largess, there is no doubt whatever in the mind of any rational person whatsoever, that the mansion (with its garage and grounds) were given to the city in trust -- either express or implied -- for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public in perpetuity; not to be disposed of as “surplus property” by unappreciative politicians.

The city itself describes the property as follows:

“The siting of this house is splendid -- it wraps around a curving hillside on a very disciplined but irregular plan. This Prairie style masterpiece is the work of Chicago architect Robert C. Spencer, a contemporary of Frank Lloyd Wright. Spencer was known for blending the ‘modern’ Prairie style with historical elements, particularly half-timbering. Mrs. Hauberg’s favorite flower -- the tulip -- is featured stylistically throughout the exterior and interior. Spencer adapted the tulip to stone insets, plaster molding, wood organ screens, fixtures, decorative tiles and much more.

“Landscape architect Jens Jensen, also from Chicago and very famous in his own right, laid out the 10 acre tract to appear as a native Wisconsin woodland. Some elements of Jensen’s landscape remain on the west side of the house, particularly, a winding path and stone bridge.”

To dispose of the property as surplus would be a gross and irresponsible breach of the public trust. If the city can’t maintain this wonderful facility, then, as Mark Schwiebert suggests, the city/park board should turn the facility over to a charitable foundation, and lead the effort to insure the proper funding of the foundation.

One thing is certain, the Hauberg family wanted the facility held in trust for the use and benefit of the people of Rock Island. If Mr. and Mrs. Hauberg (or their heirs) had wished it to be sold or leased to the first prosaic businessman who came along, they could have easily done that themselves -- and pocketed the proceeds.

Posted: Monday, February 1, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 12:00 am, Mon Feb 1, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, 

John Donald O'Shea

It's Time for a Little International 'Gun Control'

President Obama has just, with his pen, issued a new gun control executive order. His justification is, “I intend ... to ... stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans.”

It is hard to quibble with the proposition that guns should be kept out of the hands of those suffering from “any abnormal condition of the mind involving a loss of contact with reality.”

And it is hard to quibble with the notion that we should keep guns and other dangerous weapons out of the hands of radical Muslims, such as the two who recently murdered 14 Americans at a San Bernardino Christmas party in the name of Allah.

But if we should keep assault rifles out of the hands of the mentally ill, and out of the hands of radical Muslim religious fanatics, what about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un and Iran’s supreme religious leader, the Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei?

On Sept. 15, 2015, according to Reuters, North Korea issued a statement saying that North Korea has “been working studiously to improve the ‘quality and quantity’ of its nuclear weapons, and wouldn’t hesitate to launch them against the United States ‘any time.’”

Can you recall North Korea promising Presidents Clinton and Bush that they would not build nuclear weapons?

On Jan. 5, Gen. Mohammad Naghdi, the commander of Iran’s Basij force, told the Fars (Iranian) News Agency, “Our ideal is not centrifuges, but the destruction of the White House and the annihilation of Zionism [Israel].”

Then Iran’s Ali Khamenei added, “This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. ... This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and a need for great strides.”

Most of the Western world sees our President as the second-coming of Neville Chamberlain; the Grand Ayatollah sees Mr. Obama as an “oppressor” with “claws!” Is Ali Khamenei in contact with reality?

So why worry about assault rifles, when foreign dictators are threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons? How about a little gun control for North Koreans and Iranians threatening to nuke the American people?

President Obama is fond of telling the American people that ISIS is not an “existential threat” to the American people. Are two Muslim fanatics with assault rifles?

But what about the little megalomaniac hunkered in Pyongyang building and testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs which he proclaims are to be used to attack the U.S?

What about an apocalyptic Muslim zealot secretly building nuclear bombs and test-firing ballistic missiles in Tehran?

Is it an “existential threat” if Iran merely nukes the White House? If North Korea nukes just Honolulu? Or do we have to wait until Iran and North Korea have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all our major cities? At what point do these little totalitarians become “existential threats?”

And while Iranian threats fly, is it wise for President Obama to release $150 billion in frozen assets? Even Secretary John Kerry concedes,  “I think that some of it will end up in the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps or other entities, some of which are  ... terrorists.”

Indeed, even if this $150 billion is scrupulously used for domestic purposes, doesn’t the release allow the Iranians to reallocate $150 billion previously allocated  for domestic purposes  for weapons development?) When since the fall of the shah (1979), have we ever been able to deal with or trust Iran? When since the Korean War began (June 25, 1950), have we ever been able to deal with or trust North Korea?

Do we have to await a nuclear attack? Or can we act in self-defense to preempt any clear and present danger? Under Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter, doesn’t our country have the inherent right of self-defense?

The time has come for Mr. Obama to get out his pen and write one more executive order -- an order closely resembling an ultimatum:

“If this country perceives that North Korea or Iran is on the verge of becoming an existential threat to the U.S. people, the U.S will do what must be done to instantly eliminate the nuclear threat against the American people. That would include an attack against any part of our homeland.”

Or does it make sense to wait until the North Koreans have nuked San Francisco, or have the means at hand to do so?

It’s time for a little international gun control to protect innocent Americans. The alternative may be a nuclear World War III.

And by the way ... do you see anyone threatening to nuke Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

Posted: Saturday, January 23, 2016 12:00 am.  QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea