For Wal-Mart, the Best of Times; for Kmart, the Worst!

“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” -- 

“A Tale of Two Cities,” Charles Dickens

For Rock Island’s Kmart, it was the worst of times. On July 31, that city’s Kmart will close its doors. The 84,000 square foot business, which has served the people of Rock Island since 1976, is being closed by its parent company:

“Today’s announcement follows a comprehensive evaluation ... that took into account historical and recent store performance, and the time of lease expiration.”


Rock Island Mayor Dennis Pauley is quoted as saying, “The city didn’t see the closure coming.” Perhaps not. Perhaps the city was too busy trying to package additional incentives to induce Wal-Mart to locate on the former Watch Tower Plaza site.

For Wal-Mart, it’s the best of times. For a $4.5 million purchase price, Wal-Mart expects to acquire land recently purchased and cleared by the city at a cost of 15 million taxpayer dollars!

In addition, by a May 9th deadline (now extended), under its agreement with Wal-Mart, the city was to secure a series of incentives for the development, including property tax rebates with the city and the Rock Island/Milan School District, investment tax credits, a retail sales tax waiver and a job tax credit.

The city, for its investment, “expects to recoup $1.4 million annually in estimated sales tax, along with adding 400 new jobs to the city.”

While it went unsaid in The Dispatch’s April 22 account of the July 31st Kmart closing, it is fair to ask why the mayor and council couldn’t see this coming.

Didn’t Kmart’s parent company earlier announce that 68 Kmarts and 10 Sears stores would be closed this summer? Couldn’t city officials see that if a gleaming new Wal-Mart were situated just down the road from a struggling Kmart, the Rock Island Kmart would be one of the 68 stores closed? If the Kmart (38th Avenue – 46th Street), was experiencing weak profitability, would building a shiny new Wal-Mart just down the road signal Kmart’s death knell? Did they care?

RI is making an $11.5 million “gift” of land to Wal-Mart. “Gift,” because RI is “selling” land that it acquired and prepared at a cost of $15 million to Wal-Mart for $4.5 million.

Kmart served the community faithfully for 40 years. What has the city given Kmart to induce it to keep its doors open? To keep providing jobs? To keep providing sales tax revenue to the city?

Has Kmart been offered property tax rebates with the city and the Rock Island/Milan School District? Investment tax credits? A retail sales tax waiver, or a job tax credit?


If not, how is Kmart supposed to compete with the new Wal-Mart? Why is it good policy to offer incentives to attract a new business, while offering zilch to assist a business that has been important to RI and paid taxes for the last 40 years?

“Crony capitalism” is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.

What’s going on in RI seems to fit that definition. Even without a single additional “incentive,” Rock Island has already offered Wal-Mart $11.5 million to come to the city.

If Wal-mart says, “No,” will RI then offer Kmart the same $11.5 million to stay?

As Kmart management watches RI’s mating dance with Wal-mart, how do the Kmart execs feel? The price of every item sold at Kmart reflects all the taxes Kmart pays. How can the retailer keep its prices competitive with a Wal-Mart which gets tax rebates, credits and waivers?

With crony capitalism it is the best of time for Business “W,” while being the worst of times for Business “K.”

Crony capitalism means that government picks the winners and the losers. In RI, Wal-Mart is the chosen winner; Kmart, the loser.

Posted, May 19, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Emptying Prisons Will Empty Pockets

Every few months, there is a call in Illinois to reduce criminal penalties for what advocates label nonviolent felonies, non-serious crimes, minor drug offenses, etc.

California's Proposition 47 was passed to do precisely that. Californians for Safety and Justice members were ecstatic. Crimes, such as "simple drug possession, or property crimes involving less than $950, such as theft, shoplifting, burglary to a motor vehicle, writing bad checks, or receiving stolen property, are now misdemeanors.

Misdemeanors carry jail time of one year or less.

Additionally, California felons previously convicted of those offenses are now eligible to have their felony sentences reduced to misdemeanors, unless they have a prior conviction for murder, rape or child molestation, etc.

Emptying and closing prisons, was ballyhooed. It would save California up to $200 million a year. Sadly, there seem to be a number of unintended consequences.

The Los Angels Times quotes of new member of the "misdemeanor class," Semis Sina, who has gone into the business of stealing bicycles (16 arrests!) to support his meth habit:

"Now, you can get away with it because of Proposition 47!

"It's cool ... I can go do a [commercial] burglary and know that if it's not over $900, they'll just give me a ticket and let me go."

After a May 7, 2015 arrest, Sina spent two months behind bars. Released on July 9, he immediately returned to work. On July 31, he pleaded guilty to stealing a bicycle at a shopping mall. A judge sentenced him to nine months behind bars.

Four months later, he was released from jail to finish his sentence in a work program.

Sina has been sentenced to drug rehab five times in 2015; he has not reported for a single session. "I know it's up to me to change. I wasn't ready. I probably still am not."

Sina personifies the principle: without the threat of a felony conviction and serious prison time, fewer California drug offenders are enrolling in court-ordered treatment. Why? Because there is no hammer to force meth, cocaine and heroin addicts to enter and complete treatment.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry Smerling states that judges have long used the threat of a significant time behind bars to encourage offenders to enroll. With the passage of Prop 47, many drug offenders have declined to enroll, preferring a short stint in jail to the longer treatment program. Across Los Angeles County, enrollment in specialized drug court programs has plummeted by 50 percent.

The fact is that repeat offenders, like Sina, make it their profession to break the law; they have no fear of the consequences. So, while the state saves money releasing prisoners, the cost of their continuing criminal activity is shifted to the law-abiding citizens of California -- its storekeepers, auto owners, bike owners. Since the passage of Prop 47, LAPD has reported a double-digit increase in property crimes.

The March 18 San Francisco Chronicle reports the FBI states that San Francisco is "the city with the highest increase in property crime rates in the U.S."

In San Francisco, increased crime rates, for the first six months of 2015, cost the public more than $120 million. In Los Angeles, County, more than $250 million.

"In truth, Prop 47 and the other reckless experiments in criminal justice reform such as prison realignment, merely shifted the cost from society at large -- which funds the criminal justice system -- to individual victims." (sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/An-explosion-of-California-property-crimes-6922062.php)

California was already an advanced practitioner of social justice and income redistribution. Prop 47 has, in effect, eliminated the need for the state to act as a middleman. The state itself no longer needs to tax and redistribute. The new misdemeanants are now redistributing directly to themselves any property they covet.

If you are foolish enough to leave your golf clubs valued at less than $950 in your car, expect them to be stolen. If you’re a store-owner, it's help-yourself-time for shoplifters.

To avoid being robbed blind, you must ensure that every item you offer for sale, is marked $951 or more!

Posted: May 7, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, 

John Donald O'Shea

Drug Cartels Wouldn't Exist Without Recreational Pot Users

In Illinois, any person who knowingly manufactures, delivers, or possesses with intent to deliver any substance containing cannabis commits either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Referred to below as “delivery”.)

Delivery of not more than 2.5 grams is a class B misdemeanor. More than 2.5 but less than 10 grams is a class A misdemeanor.

Delivery  of more than 10 but not more than 30 grams is a class 4 felony. More than 30 but not more than 500 grams is a class 3 felony. More than 500 but not more than 2,000 grams is a class 2 felony. More than 2,000 but not more than 5,000 grams is a class 1 felony. More than 5,000 is a class X felony. (6-30 years mandatory).

A class B misdemeanor carries imprisonment up to 6 months and/or a fine up to $1,500. A class A misdemeanor, up to one year and/or a fine up to $2,500. But jail time is not mandatory; both offenses are probationable. And if jailed, a 30 day sentence, with routine day-for-day credit, means just 15 days.

In Illinois, it is also “unlawful for any person knowingly to possess cannabis.” Possessing not more that 2.5 grams is a class C misdemeanor (maximum imprisonment -- 30 days). Possessing more than 2.5 but not more than 10 grams is a Class B misdemeanor. Possessing more than 10 but not more than 30 grams is a Class A, but a subsequent offense is a Class 4 felony.

Recently, the Illinois Senate voted to decriminalize “minor marijuana possession,” “replacing the concept of incarceration with a monetary slap on the wrist,” according to High Times. “Under the new legislation, anyone caught possessing 10 grams of marijuana or less would be issued a ticket with a fine of somewhere between $100-$200.”

Common arguments in favor of decriminalization run as follows:

-- Illinois spends way too much money imposing costly criminal penalties on people who are found in possession of a personal amount of marijuana;

-- Serious penalties should be reserved for people who commit serious crimes; not used to punish marijuana consumers;

-- Nobody should face a life-long criminal record simply for possessing a substance that is “less harmful than alcohol.”

I suggest those arguments fail to look at the entire picture. It is crucial  to inquire as to the source of the pot. If it’s home-grown, that’s one thing. If it’s drug cartel pot, that’s an entirely different thing. For purposes hereof, assume that it’s Mexican drug cartel pot.

Mexican drug cartels would cease to exist if nobody smoked pot. There would no point in paying mules to deliver cannabis from Mexico to the Quad-Cities, if nobody bought/used it once it arrived here. Without users, including “recreational users,” small street-corner dealers would have no customers -- no business. And if the small dealers  have no business, the larger dealers up the chain, including the Mexican cartel bosses, would have no business -- no motive to sell pot.

It is small street-corner sales that keep the cartels in business, and with them, the drug violence.

Fox News Latino recently headlined is “Cartel drug war erupts in Acapulco; Gunmen attack police headquarters, hotel.”

On April 24, the Wall Street Journal headlined, “Texas Murder Trial to Shed Light on Mexican Drug Cartels -- Authorities charge men with killing lawyer in 2013; allege wide-ranging criminal operation in U.S.”

On April 17,  Reuters wrote, “Mexico Drug-Related Murder Rate -- From 2006 to 2010, for every 100,000 people living in Mexico, an average of nearly 31 were murdered in drug-related killing.” (reuters.com/subjects/mexico-drug-war.

So is purchasing 10 grams of cannabis from your friendly street-corner dealer really just a harmless recreational thing? No worse than liquor?

Hardly!  Not if it’s purchased from a dealer who purchased it -- directly or indirectly -- from a Mexican drug cartel.

So is it fair to say the our “poor little recreational user,” who purchases Mexican drug cartel pot, is morally complicity in the murderous violence of the cartel? I think so. Without users, the cartels would lack their reason for being.


Posted April 1, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Best "Mess Fixer?" Madigan or Rauner?

Illinois' finances are an utter mess. Each party blames the other. So, who can fix it? Democrats or Republicans?

In 2013, then-Illinois Comptroller Judy Barr Topinka published a "Fiscal Focus" report which began:

"$127 Billion in Debt - Who Pays it Back? - You Do."

In that clear and chilling document, Comptroller Topinka wrote:

"Dollars today, cost us bigger dollars tomorrow.

"The State of Illinois ... provides funding for items such as roads, schools, mass transit projects, and environmental initiatives. However, as long as the state government must borrow money to provide for these ... needs, the interest costs will continue to eat away at our budget. In fiscal year 2013, Illinois spent $1.45 billion on its general obligation bonds’ interest payments alone. Every dollar spent on interest payments is a dollar not spent on some other pressing need."

Ms. Topinka went on to say, "Over the last four years, state officials have borrowed money for various purposes, totaling $16.1 billion. ... Taxpayers are on the hook for the principal and interest payments of these loans for the next 25 years."

She then asked, "What is in the number -- $127 billion?"

She explained:

"At any point in time, Illinois has various types of debt and obligations ...

"This Fiscal Focus ... primarily looks at bonded debt issued directly by the state that must be repaid by the state’s taxpayers. This bonded debt, $29.7 billion, is a firm number as there is a specific repayment schedule in place to repay this debt."

Comptroller Topinka went on to discuss a second, distinct and more worrisome sort of state debt -- pension liabilities.

"Most bigger [debt] numbers out there include the state’s pension unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL). This is an estimate of the shortfall in pension assets to cover the estimates of the accrued liabilities ... As of June 30, 2013, this number, $97.5 billion, included the UAAL of the five state systems -- (1) the Downstate Teachers’ Retirement System, (2) the State Universities Retirement System, the (3) State Employees’ Retirement System, (4) the Judges’ Retirement System, and (5) the General Assembly Retirement System."

Comptroller Topinka was telling us that Illinois was in debt $127 billion at the time of her 2013 report; $29.7 billion of that, the state's bonded indebtedness, was a firm number. The remaining $97.5 billion was an estimated indebtedness. It was the best estimate of actuaries and accountant. It is what they believed was the underfunded amount owed to the beneficiaries of Illinois' five state pension systems.

So, has the Illinois debt situation improved?  No.

In the Illinois Comptroller's report of April 6, current Comptroller Leslie Munger writes, in a piece entitled "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," that Illinois now has $158 billion of unfunded retirement benefits due.

Comptroller Munger states, on the asset side of the state's balance sheet, Illinois holds $76.5 billion, but only $29.5 billion of that sum is "Available to Pay Bills." The state's bills, total $215.7 billion, therefore Illinois bills exceed available assets by $184.2  billion.

On the liability side of the balance sheet, the numbers are frightening and numbing. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on its other liabilities This does not include the $111.5 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.

Presently, there is budget deadlock between the state's new Republican governor, and the Democratic state Legislature. So who is to blame?

As much as I'd like to apportion the blame, I find it hard to blame the Republicans. There haven't been  enough of them in Springfield to matter. From January 2003 until January 2015, Democrats controlled the governorship and both houses of the state Legislature. During that period Illinois unfunded pension liabilities have risen from about $43 billion to about $108 billion.

To blame Republicans for Illinois' present fiscal mess you have to go back before 2002. Republican held the governorship from 1977 thru 2002,  and the state Senate from 1993 through 2002.

The Illinois House -- where all money bills start --  has been controlled by Democrats for 32 of 34 years; the Senate, for 24 of 34 years.

Can Gov. Bruce Rauner do any worse?

Posted: April 21, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016,  John Donald O'Shea

Danger of Putting Consumers Ahead of Jobs

"Ford Motor Co. plans to build a $1.6-billion auto assembly plant in Mexico, creating about 2,800 jobs there and shifting small-car production away from the United States at a time when moving jobs south of the border has become a major issue in the U.S. presidential campaign." -- Associated Press, Feb. 7, 2016

With every free-trade act, more American manufacturing businesses either go under or relocate to foreign countries. In America, the consumer appears to have won; the manufacturer, to have lost.

By way of illustration, consider GM and Ford -- two great U.S. corporations, who have had a history of being vital to the American's way of life and national defense.

In Feb. 2011, Dan Ackerson, GM's former CEO told an audience in China:

"Almost seven out of every ten automobiles ... were made outside the U.S.

"We have 11 joint ventures with SAIC [Shanghai Auto Industry Corp.] and FAW [another Chinese entity] ... We're involved in vehicle manufacturing, sales, distribution, engineering design, downstream businesses such as telematics, financing and used cars. We operate 11 assembly plants in China. Four Power train plants in eight cities across the country. We have more than 2700 dealerships and sales outlets across [China].

"We regard our 11 joint ventures as our 11 keys to success -- not just in China, but globally. Our commitment of working in China, with China and for China remains strong and focused on the future."

"We're now building out of the advanced technology center, which will bring our research and development, that is centered largely in the United States -- we're going to diversify that -- more into China because we think this market is so critically important to the success of our company."



So, why does our government allow our great corporations to relocate -- expand -- overseas? Doesn't our government realize that when GM situates its plant in China, jobs in "manufacturing, sales, distribution, engineering design, and downstream businesses go to Chinese workers rather than American workers? Don't American workers lose high-paying jobs when seven of every ten automobiles are made outside the U.S?

Who benefits in America when American companies relocate to China or Mexico? When cheaper Chinese or Mexican goods flood into the U.S.?

Certainly not U.S auto workers. They lose their jobs. American consumers are the beneficiaries. Labor is cheaper abroad, therefore, given "free trade," Mexican and Chinese goods sold and imported into the U.S. are less expensive, and that benefits U.S. consumers. And since there are more consumers who want to buy at lower prices than there are laborers, politicians have catered to the consumers.

But consider an inherent danger.

During World War II, it was American industry and innovation that made certain America would win the war. In his message to Congress of May 16, 1940, FDR spoke of the U.S. producing 50,000 planes a year. That was only possible because America had industries -- such as the auto industry -- that could be converted to war production.

In 1941, 18,466 planes were produced. By 1943, 84,853. And in 1944, to 96,270. William S. Knudsen, FDR's Office of Production and Management chairman said, "We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, the like of which he had never seen, nor dreamed possible."

At Ford's Willow Run plant, bombers were produced at the rate of one an hour. By war's end, Ford alone had built 86,865 complete aircraft, 57,851 more airplane engines, thousands of engine superchargers and generators, and 4,291 military gliders.

So what happens when war comes, if all our auto plants are in China and Mexico? In WWII, we were the "Arsenal of Democracy." Will that be the case if we continue to allow all our manufacturers to relocate overseas? If all trained mechanics are in China and Mexico. French fries don't win wars.

America's choice to provide consumers low-cost goods at the expense of the American laborer may well have dire consequences.

Find Mr. Ackerson's remarks at youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo&feature=youtu.be. See what Fact Check.Org says about it at factcheck.org/2012/06/is-gm-becoming-china-motors/.


 Posted, April 15, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

"Divine Right" Judges - Death of Representative Government

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Constitution, as it was understood by the men who drafted and ratified it, is one vote away from being a dead letter.


In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Glossip v. Gross. The issue was whether the drug cocktail Oklahoma chose to effect a murderer’s execution, violated the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.


Not content with deciding that issue, Justice Stephen Breyer, employing his “modern view,” wanted to declare the death penalty unconstitutional in all cases:


“Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment.”


Justice Scalia relying on “original intent,” disagreed:


“Not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested that the death penalty was impermissible. The reason is obvious. It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime, unless on ... indictment of a Grand Jury, and that no person shall be deprived of life ... without due process of law.”


“Nevertheless, today Justice Bryer takes on the role of the abolitionist ... arguing that the text of the Constitution and two centuries of history must yield to his ‘20 years of experience on this Court.’”


Justice Scalia has been called an “originalist” -- that is, someone who tries to construe the Constitution consistently with the intent of the founding fathers.


What is original intent?


Many Americans, including many who should know better, choose not to understand the meaning of original intent. By way of example, the 4th Amendment provides “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


When the 4th Amendment was adopted in 1789, automobiles and airplanes didn’t exist. “Original intent” does not require that cars and planes be excluded from 4th Amendment protection; rather, it requires they be accorded protection comparable to that given to 18th century coaches.


Our Constitution was not a document drafted by philosophers. Almost every line included was designed to insure that the abuses of the English kings, who claimed to rule by divine right, did not come to America. America was to be ruled by law, not by royal whim. That is the meaning of Article VI supremacy clause, “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”



Constitution supreme law


Note that our constitution, and not the fiat of a king or president, is the “supreme law” of the land.


But if the “intent of the men who created the constitution” is to be abandoned for more “modern” or “progressive” constructions, then whose intent should be utilized? Barack Obama’s? Donald Trump’s? Jesse Jackson’s? David Duke’s?


There are nine Supreme Court justices. Does each have a right to construe the constitution according to his own lights? Did we eschew governance by the “divine right kings” only to replace it with the “divine right of judges?”


With Justice Scalia on the bench, Americans were assured of a judge who would attempt to follow the law as it was given him by the founders, rather than make it up or change it to comport with his more enlightened notions of what the law should be.


Presently there are four judges on the court who read the constitution in a way so that it comports with their more enlightened notions of what the law should be. If the Senate confirms a fifth, the constitution as the founders understood it, is a dead letter. It will be an era of “divine right” judges.



Posted: March 16, 2016, QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea

Why Indict Spies if Clinton Won't Protect our Secrets?

As I read two news stories, I was disgusted by the obvious double standard under which the Obama administration is operating -- a double standard which does plain violence to the rule of law.

The first, by the Associated Press, March 23, tells us that “Seven hackers tied to the Iranian government were [indicted] Thursday in a series of punishing cyberattacks on dozens of banks and a small dam outside New York City, intrusions that reached into America’s infrastructure and disrupted the financial system.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, “The attacks were relentless, systematic and widespread. They threatened our economic well-being and our ability to compete fairly in the global marketplace, both of which are directly linked to our national security.


“The seven accused hackers worked for a pair of Iranian computer companies linked to the Iranian government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ...”

“One of the ... hackers is accused of repeatedly gaining access to the control system of the Bowman Avenue Dam, a small flood-control structure ... about 20 miles north of New York City ... The hacker would have been able to operate the sluice gate ... but the gate had been disconnected for maintenance.”

The second, a Jan. 19 NBC News piece, captioned “Hillary Clinton emails held info beyond top secret: IG” said:

“Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at levels ... meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence ...

“In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified ‘Top Secret/Special Access Program,’ a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

“Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton’s server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.

“Clinton ... has repeatedly said that none of the information she sent or received while Secretary of State was marked ‘classified,’ ... But it’s become clear that classified information bled into the emails, which were sent over unencrypted channels open to interception by foreign intelligence agencies.

“Charles McCulllough, the intelligence community’s Inspector General, said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees that he has received sworn declarations ... [which] cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IG element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP [SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM] information.

“The special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough ... had to receive clearance ... before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.”


Why am I disgusted? What’s the double standard? Why is it criminal for Iranian spies to hack our economic secrets, while at the same time, our secretary of state acts with abject stupidity and utter recklessness sends/receives confidential, secret, top secret and special access program information” “over unencrypted channels open to interception by foreign intelligence agencies?”

Mrs. Clinton tells an all-too gullible American public that none of the information she sent or received on her personal server while secretary of state was marked “classified.” But that is not the test.

Whether a document is classified doesn’t depend on whether it is stamped or marked “classified.” It is determined by the degree of damage its disclosure would cause our national security. Additionally, classified information is released only on a need-to-know basis; not to everybody with an appropriate security clearance.

When Hillary sent or received emails on her private server she had a non-delegable duty to determine whether disclosure of the information could damage our national security. The Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives put it this way:

“In all cases, it is the sensitivity of the information that determines classification. An unmarked, handwritten page can just as easily contain classified national security information as a document containing classification markings. When in doubt, treat handwritten notes concerning intelligence, military, diplomatic, or emergency planning matters as classified national security information.”

It makes no sense to indict Iranians for espionage/hacking while our own secretary of state sends/receives our nation’s top secrets” information in unencrypted emails.

Posted: April 2, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, 

John Donald O'Shea