To Obama, Whatever You Think You Are, You Are

On May 13 President Obama's Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education issued a directive providing "significant guidance" to schools receiving federal funding.

The directive threatens, "As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations. The Departments treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity."One activity specifically dealt with in the directive is use of school bath and locker rooms:

"A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy."

Simply put, if a boy suddenly identifies himself as a girl, he ipso facto becomes a "she" and must not be denied access to female restrooms or locker rooms.

According to the directive, neither birth, genitalia nor DNA determine whether a child is male or female. Every boy can now choose to be a girl, and vice versa. Now, all that matters is how the child self-identifies.

For the Obama's bureaucrats, gender is not something with which one is born; it is merely something "assigned at birth" and recorded on one's birth certificate. As the directive explains:

"Gender identity refers to an individual's internal sense of gender. A person's gender identity may be different from or the same as the person's sex assigned at birth.

"Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation recorded on an infant's birth certificate should such a record be provided at birth.

"'Transgender' describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth."

In Obama's mind, genitals do not determine one's sex. Sex is originally determined by the accident of what a registrar writes on one's birth certificate. A transgender female is no more than a person who some recordkeeper arbitrarily designated at birth to be a "boy," who now -- without more -- identifies as a girl. The directive specifically explains:

"Gender transition refers to the process in which transgender individuals begin asserting the sex that corresponds to their gender identity instead of the sex they were assigned at birth. During gender transition, individuals begin to live and identify as the sex consistent with their gender identity and may dress differently, adopt a new name, and use pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Transgender individuals may undergo gender transition at any stage of their lives, and gender transition can happen swiftly or over a long duration of time."

No, a sex-change operation is not required; nor is a medical diagnosis. All that's required is self-identification. If a boy standing outside a girls' locker room suddenly "identifies" himself as a girl, he she would have the right to enter.

According to the directive:

" ... there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity. Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity ... requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX.

No, today is not April Fools' Day.


 Posted, May 17, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Rock Island County Making Itself the Target of a Lawsuit

Certain Rock Island County Board members and the Public Building Commission are playing a dangerous game.

Their actions could well result in all complicit members being sued for $28 million and millions in attorneys' fees (perhaps non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) for civil rights violations.

Every taxpayer forced to pay an unauthorized tax has standing to sue -- both for himself, and those "similarly situated."


The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process. Due process means "in accordance with the law of the land" (i.e., Illinois).

A county, if authorized by Illinois law, may impose and collect a tax. But unless a particular tax is authorized by the Constitution or laws of Illinois, a county is without power to impose it. For example, if the Constitution provides that no city can impose an income tax, then no city can impose an income tax.

The same is true when a county board is by law authorized to impose a tax only after a referendum. Against that, consider the following facts, most of which have been lifted from the "friendly" little lawsuit recently brought against the Public Building Commission.

(By "friendly" I mean, why no motion for an outside judge? Why no appeal?)

The Public Building Commission was created for the sole purpose of providing "a good and sufficient jail." When a building commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for that purpose only -- for a limited purpose.

Now that commission and the county board want to use the commission to build a Justice Center Annex containing courtrooms. No additional jail cells, (other than possible temporary holding cells for prisoners who are brought to court) are part of the planned Justice Center proposal.

There is a statutory procedure for a county to expand the purpose of a public building Commission:

"The purpose of a public building commission created by the county board ... may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose of the ... commission has been submitted to the electors ... at a regular election and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question."

Illinois law unambiguously states that the county board may not expand the purposes of a public building commission without a referendum.


When the board charges ahead, claiming no referendum is needed, and levies a tax to pay for the Public Building Commission's new jail annex project, it clearly purports to be acting "under color of (some) law," and in imposing their tax, it clearly will be taking "property" from persons.

It justifies its actions claiming the courthouse annex is really just a part of the jail. Really? A jail is a place where you put prisoners. A courthouse, in essence, is a place where judges and juries try lawsuits. (A courthouse need not include a recorder of deeds, or a county clerk's office; but it always includes courtrooms).

Jails, controlled by the sheriff, are part of the executive department. A jail doesn't become a courthouse simply because clever county board members say so.

People freely enter and leave a courthouse. Except for prisoners being brought to court, people entering the courthouse are not in handcuffs, are not under guard, and wear no orange suits,

A courthouse essentially consists of courtrooms, and facilities for judges and jurors. Judges and juries work in courtrooms; not in jail cells. Courtrooms, run by judges, are part of the judicial department. Courthouses are not places of imprisonment.

When the present county jail was built, everybody knew what the resolution meant when it said: For the "sole purpose" of providing "a good and sufficient jail." The original intent was clear. It was sold as a jail. A jail was authorized. A jail was built. Not a courthouse!

Now that resolution is seen by the judges and many members of the county board as a "living document," meaning, "anything they want it to mean."


Posted: May 10, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Great Chicago to Moline Train Boondoggle

If rail passenger service between Moline and Chicago is a money-making proposition, why was service dropped in 1978? Why hasn't some railroad or entrepreneur re-instituted service during the last 38 years?

A May 12 Dispatch/Argus editorial endorsed the project.

"The overall project cost is $222 million with $177 million coming from the federal government. The state's commitment is $45 million. The Moline ... station is also being funded by the state."

It is claimed that the new Amtrak route will bring "businessmen, families and tourists to and from the Quad-Cities, and provide jobs."

"It has been estimated the Q-C route would produce as many as 200,000 (548 per day) passengers per year."

Sound good? Here's what an April 14, 2008 Amtrak feasibility study projected:


1. One-way trip from Moline to Chicago:

a) 4 hours using existing tracks; b) 3 hours, 35 minutes on hours improved 60 mph tracks; c) or 3 

hours 20 minutes on improved 79 mph tracks.

2. Estimated the annual ridership (round trip):


a) 90,000 on existing tracks; b) 102,000 on 60 mph tracks; c) 110,000 on 79 mph tracks.


3. Projected route revenues:


a) $2.1 million on existing tracks; b) $2.4 million on 60 mph tracks; c) $2.6 million on 79 mph tracks.


4. Estimated annual operating expenses:


a) $8.4 million on unimproved tracks; b) $8.4 on 60 mph tracks; c) $8.5 million on 79 mph tracks. (amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267400916/1241245669129).


In short, as per the Amtrak feasibility study on unimproved, or on 60 mph tracks, the train to Chicago will lose $6 million annually; on 79 mph tracks, it will lose a mere $5.9 million.


What if the losses are understated? Rail and Reason, in an April 13, 2013 piece captioned, "Seat mile and passenger mile costs for Amtrak," says they are.


The Hoosier State Route (Chicago to Indianapolis) computes:


-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.835;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.153. (A loss of $0.682 per mile).


The Kansas City, Mo., to St. Louis Route seat mile and passenger totals were:



-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.427;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.138. (A loss of $0.289 per mile).


Assuming 79 mph tracks (best scenario) from Moline to Chicago, a round trip would take 6 hours and 40 minutes, excluding time going to the Moline station, going from the Chicago station to the ultimate Chicago destination, returning to the Chicago station, and getting home after disembarking at Moline.


The one-way adult fare for the 280 mile trip from St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo., is $72. For the 80 mile trip from Chicago to Milwaukee, $28. Fares, therefore, are roughly 25 cents a mile. Extrapolating, the cost of a 180-mile one-way trip from Moline to Chicago: $45 -- exclusive of bus or cab fare to get to and from the ultimate Chicago destination.


Based on these Amtrak figures, the Moline to Chicago route figures to lose $6 million annually. Assuming 100,000 round-trips per year, that means each round-trip loses $60. Each one-way trip, $30. If actual ridership is less than 200,000 one-way trips per year, the losses are proportionally greater.


There are but two ways for the proposed Moline/Chicago route to break even: set one-way prices at about $75 (and assume no ridership decrease), or subsidize the route -- indefinitely.


In her 2014 report, "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger painted a bleak picture of Illinois finances. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on other liabilities. This does not include the $111 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.


Illinois is broke. To waste $45 million as capital to get a passenger train running that is projected to lose $6 million a year is nuts. In my opinion, this smells of crony capitalism.


So, who really is pushing for the train? Who's going to get the $177 million federal and $45 million state investments? The owners of the historic O'Rourke building? Construction companies upgrading the track? Who?


And the taxpayers get to make up the annual $6 million losses!





Posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea

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