Help Save Depression-era Memories

I was born at the very end of the Great Depression, just a few months before the beginning of World War II. For that reason, I have no personal memories of the Depression.

What I learned early in my life about it, I learned from my parents. The things mom and dad experienced shaped the rest of their lives.

They lived according to the lessons they learned, and the economic rules that they fashioned for themselves based on their Depression-era experiences. And they followed those rules all their lives, even when they moved into the upper-middle class.

I've lived my life consistently with the lessons which my parents formulated and taught me based on their Depression-era experiences. And I have tried to pass those lessons and those values on to my daughter.

I believe that the lessons learned during the Depression will always be valuable to Americans, and must not be lost as those who lived through the Great Depression die off.

To that end, I began gathering "Memories of the Great Depression" some years ago, and to record them before they are lost forever. Here are a few of the things I learned from dad and mom.

Dad always said that the Depression was largely caused when people bought stocks on 10 percent margin ("10 percent down"), in the hope of making a killing in the ever-rising stock market. When it crashed, and they received their margin calls to pay the 90 percent balance owing on the stocks, they couldn’t.

Mom's corollary of that rule was, “Don’t buy anything on time. Pay cash.” I can remember mom saving pennies if she wanted something. She wanted a new radio, she bought it, only when she had saved enough pennies.

With the exception of buying a house in 1948 and taking a mortgage, I never knew mom or dad to buy anything on credit. If they bought a TV set, or golf clubs or a new car, they paid cash.

Obligating themselves to pay a finance charge, was something they adamantly refused to do. And they repeatedly warned me of the dangers and the added expense of paying a finance charge.

They all too clearly recalled what had happened when those who had bought stock faced a call for cash that they didn’t have. And the lesson they taught, stuck. Except for my first home, I have always paid cash.

Lesson 1: Pay cash for what you buy.


Don't buy on time; don't pay interest. I can clearly recall mom during the war years darning socks when they developed holes. Mom bought good food, and she cooked good meals. But we always ate up the leftovers; they weren't thrown away. There was nothing left to send to" the starving kids in China."


Lesson 2: Waste not, want not.


Mom and her siblings took care of each other all their lives. When her mother died, leaving 11 children, mom was only 12. Her older sisters raised mom and her younger sisters. Then the younger sisters raised their younger brothers.

When mom's younger brother's wife died leaving him with three children, his sisters took the children and raised them as their own. When another of my uncles needed funding for his business, the family provided funds. If a brother needed financial help, he got it.

When my mother needed physical help in her old age, two of her younger brothers, whom she had helped to raise, ferried her to doctor's appointments, and ran errands for her. These were proud people. They worked hard and earned comfortable lives. The thought of “living on welfare” would have been anathema to all of them.


Lesson 3: Families stick together and care for each other.


Mom and dad had one more rule: "Always tell the truth. If you lie, you will have to tell more lies to try and cover up your first lie." Mom's friends always said, "Don't ask for her opinion unless you really want it!"

Lesson 4: Always tell the truth.

I do not want to see these stories and values die when the people who lived through the Great Depression all finally die. By the time I hit upon the idea of doing a book to save memories of thet Depression, dad and mom were dead. I began gathering stories some years ago, but I'd like about 10 more.

If you have a good story that you are willing to share with me and let me use, please send it to pelagius17@gmail.com

Posted: QCOline.com   March 28, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Constitutionality, Original Intent -- Two Distinct Concepts

Contrary to what has been recently argued on this page, the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional is an entirely distinct matter from how judges should construe the Constitution.

The two shouldn't be confused.

A. Power to Declare a Law "Unconstitutional"

Our U.S. Constitution nowhere explicitly gives judges the power to declare laws made by Congress or state legislatures unconstitutional. That power flows of necessity from what is stated in Article VI: "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, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."


The power of judges to declare a laws unconstitutional (void) guarantees that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land until it is constitutionally repealed or amended.


If Congress or a state legislature has power to pass laws which contravene the Constitution, and if those laws are valid and effective law, then the Constitution is a dead letter.


To understand the necessity of our courts having power to declare laws null and void, it is only necessary to illustrate what would happen if our courts did not have that power.


The Constitution provides that U.S. representatives shall be elected for a two-year term. But what if Congress were to pass a law saying that all sitting representatives shall hold office for life? Does that law trump the Constitution? Would such a law have been made in pursuance of the Constitution or in contravention thereof?


If representatives are to hold office for life, how can the two-year term provision of the Constitution be anything but a dead letter? If Congress can make valid laws directly contrary to the Constitution, how can the Constitution be the supreme law of the land?


This judicial power to declare a law unconstitutional, however, is entirely distinct from the question of how judges should construe the Constitution.

B. Construction According to "Original Intent," or as a "Living Document"

Should it be construed according to the "original intent" of the men who wrote it? Or according to the more enlightened notions of modern progressives -- as a "living document?"


Once judges abandon original intent and embark upon construing the Constitution according to the notions of whoever happens to be judging the case, rather than legislative encroachments being the problem, we suddenly have a judicial encroachment problem.


Original intent judges have consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects political speech, even if the listener finds it offensive. They've ruled that the remedy is not suppression of offensive speech, but counter-political speech. But progressives, who believe the Constitution should be construed in a more enlightened, modern way, would shut down conservative speech they perceive to be offensive.


Progressive iconoclasts are already destroying Confederate monuments. Not even Thomas Jefferson's statue is safe. His greatness is ignored; all the left can see are his faults.


The Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, sided with progressives, and agreed to cover the murals in the university's Main Building depicting Columbus' arrival in the New World. Because the left believes Columbus mistreated the indigenous peoples, it demands the murals be removed.


The artist's First Amendment right to speak through his art must be suppressed. The right of viewers to view the artist's message must be denied for reasons of progressive political correctness.


So, are we better off if the courts can engage in the very meddling prohibited to Congress and the state legislatures?


Those who construe the Constitution according to original intent have given free speech a very expansive meaning. When the '60s left marched against the Vietnam War, wearing shirts embossed with expletives and burning flags, their conduct was held to be a form of political speech, protected by the First Amendment.


Today's progressives still demand that they be allowed to engage in unfettered speech ("Pigs in a blanket!"), but would limit any speech they adjudge politically incorrect. Ergo, no Confederate monuments; no statues of Jefferson; no murals of Columbus, no conservative speakers on campus.


The Constitution prescribes cumbersome procedures for its amendment. The natural consequence of the more enlightened, "living document" theory of Constitutional construction is that it renders the amendment process surplusage. It allows amendment anytime five progressive justices agree on a "more enlightened" meaning for the Constitution.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 21, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Make Republic Work again, End Gerrymandering

How democratic would our system of electing members of the House of Representatives be if it allowed the voters in the district to only elect a Democrat? A Republican? A socialist?

While we don't have such a system, we have permitted gerrymandering, which effectively achieves the same results: districts designed to elect the candidate of one party.

On June 30, 2014, PBS News Hour reported that "This year, Congress logged a confidence rating of 7 percent, the lowest Gallup has measured for any institution ever."

Yet, every two years Republicans and Democratic incumbents are re-elected to the U.S. House. Why? The answer is simple: gerrymandering!

Every 10 years, Republican-controlled state legislatures redraw their state's congressional districts to guarantee that a maximum number of those districts will be "safe" for Republican candidates.

And every 10 years, Democrat-controlled state legislatures redraw their state's congressional districts to guarantee that a maximum number of those districts will be "safe" for Democratic candidates.


On June 30, 2014, PBS News Hour reported, "Only about four dozen of the 435 House seats are considered in play this year, meaning either party might conceivably win them in November."

Only 48 of 435 total number of House seats were in play; that means, 407 of 435 weren't. They were safe.


For the year 2020, The Cook Political Report (Feb. 1) opines that only 20 out of 435 Congressional Districts will be truly competitive, and 349 others will be either solidly Democratic or Republican.

Of the remaining 70, a number of these seats are not considered competitive at this point, but have the potential to become so, while the rest are considered "competitive races, but where one party has the advantage."


The 15th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


It is time that the Supreme Court construes that consistently with its plain language.

Congressional districts drawn to favor white Americans necessarily discriminate against the blacks and all other Americans. Districts drawn to favor black Americans necessarily discriminate against all other Americans.

When read together with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, it should be clear that drawing districts that favor Republicans visits inequality upon Democrats; and vice versa.




There is only one way to create more competitive districts. Make all districts four-sided, with straight lines, and with the population of each being as equal as possible. Outlaw any Congressional map with districts shaped like those in Illinois.


The shapes of Illinois 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Congressional Districts would make Elbridge Gerry (the namesake of gerrymandering) giddy. But the 4th District's shape is the true pièce de résistance! (See it for yourself at wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27_congressional_districts.)


Shortly, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider two case -- a Maryland case and a North Carolina case -- involving claims of gerrymandering and denials of equal protection. Here's how justices should rule:


-- A. Shape of district:

All districts shall be square, or if that is not possible, rectangular. No district shall have more than four sides and four angles. No exceptions. All four sides shall be straight lines, unless one or more of the four sides is an irregular state border, such as a river or lake state border. In no event shall any district have five or more sides or angles. A district may have only three sides and angles where the state's boundaries or state boundary rivers or lakes dictate.


-- B. One man, one vote

All districts shall be equal in population, i.e., within 1 percent.


-- C. Factors to be considered:

The only factor that may be considered in setting the size of the squares or rectangles is population. Race, creed, color, national ancestry, religion, urban/suburban/rural considerations or any factor other than population may not be considered in creating the squares or triangles. Population means U.S. citizens eligible to vote


-- D. Use computers to draw lines:

The squares or rectangles shall be created by a computer, subject to the rules set out in sections A, B and C. The computer shall be programed to create squares or rectangles containing 710,000 U.S. citizens eligible to vote.


Do I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will have the guts require this? No. Would my plan make for competitive elections in all districts? No. (Even without cheating, some areas simply contain more Republicans or more Democrats. That's fine.)


But it would make for a lot more districts competitive.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 14, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats Call Trump "Barbaric?"

On Feb. 25, all but three Democratic U.S. senators voted against SB 130.

SB 130  said, "Congress finds the following: If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws."


SB 130 made an additional finding:

"Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care."

The bill then imposed requirements to protect children born alive after a failed late-term abortion attempt.

"Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall:

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."


SB 130 also provided for mandatory reporting of violations of the act.

"A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of [this Act] shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both."

And, "Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

"Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."


SB 130, however, barred prosecution of the child's mother.

"The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section ..."

Here are the names of the Democratic U.S. senators who voted against the bill: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Catherine Cortez-Masto, Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Maggie Hassan, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Ed Markey, Bob Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Patty Murray, Gary Peters, Jack Reed, Jacky Rosen, Bernie Sanders (I), Brian Schatz, Chuck Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen, Kyrsten Sinema, Tina Smith, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden.

Only three Democrats voted in favor of the bill: Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, and Bob Casey Jr.

Illinois' Sen. Duckworth justified her vote against the bill saying, it was "an obvious effort to bully doctors out of giving reproductive care.”

Washington state's Sen. Murray called the bill “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.” She bleated that the bill would “do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”

So where do you stand? Is it OK for a mother to tell her doctor to kill her baby AFTER that baby has been born? Is it ever right to kill the innocent?

In Matthew's Gospel we are told the story of Herod and the "innocents":

“Then Herod ... sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under."

It appears Herod has Democratic soulmates in the U.S. Senate.


Posted: QCOline.com   March 7, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Trust these Opinions on Need for Wall

Do we need a wall along our Mexican border, or don't we? That question isn't answered by op-ed writers claiming that President Donald Trump has "vilified" the "vast majority" of those arriving in the caravans.

Here are four fact-based opinions from Americans who have dedicated their lives to securing our borders -- people who by their training and experience are experts.

-- U.S. Customs and Border Control Commissioner Kevin McAleenan to Fox News, Dec. 17, 2018:
"We absolutely need a wall. This is what our agents on the ground have told me they need to control the border. ... I've been doing this for two decades. Border patrol agents have always wanted more barriers on the border to help them do their job. It's the only way you can stop large groups from flowing across. ...

"There are areas of the border where you've got large population centers on the south side, and immediate access to transportation hubs or neighborhoods on the north side. You got to have a wall in between those areas to help us slow down people from crossing. In other areas of the border, technology is a great solution."

When the interviewer suggested that 80 percent of fentanyl enters the U.S. at ports of entry, and that we'd be better off spending the money for detection equipment at the ports, McAleenan replied:

"We need both. The president's budget requests both. What we see are narcotics coming in between the ports in increasing numbers. They're using these groups of families to divert our agents, and then bring smugglers in behind with narcotics. ... Barriers prevent that kind of activity. The No. 1 priority sector is in the Rio Grande valley. That's the No. 1 crossing point for human smugglers. ...

"The $5 billion would help us shut down the south Texas corridor all the way to Laredo, and bolster security at El Paso and El Centro."


-- Trump's Border Patrol chief Carla Provost to Fox News, Dec. 13, 2018:

"We certainly do need a wall. Talk to any border agent and they will tell you that ... The new wall system integrates technology with the wall. It is much sturdier, has anti-dig features [and] detection technology, and is set up to attach additional technology. It's really [an entire] system. ...

"The president has listened to my men and women on the ground and has listened to me as we have described what we need to secure the border. We need the impedance that the wall brings, we need more technology and more agents on the grounds. ...

"In the first two month of the year we have apprehended over 100,000 people crossing between the ports of entry. ... Obviously we have a lot of bad actors in the group. The wall helps us as we operate .... it helps [us] do our job and makes the border communities safer."


-- U.S. Border Patrol Acting Chief Patrol Agent Raul Ortiz to Fox news, Jan. 12:

"We have 55 miles of fencing in this (McAllen, Texas) sector. We started this job in 2006; we need to finish it. We've got the personnel. We need the technology; we need the infrastructure to control and manage it. Part of our area is covered with fencing on our east side. That accounts for about 6 percent of our traffic. Where we have no fencing, over 90 percent of our traffic occurs in those areas."

-- President Barack Obama's Border Patrol chief Mark Morgan to Fox News, Jan. 12:

"Walls absolutely work. ... The president's right. ... The president of the Border Control Council is right. ... I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support a wall as part of a multi-layered border security [system] ... When the president says this is a national security issue, he is right.

"I agree 100 percent with what the president is trying to do with all things related to border security. ... This is based on 30 years of governmental service. It is based on walking the same ground you saw the president walking, talking to the ranchers, talking to the land owners, talking to the border patrol agents who risk their lives every single day.

"I'm telling you this is absolutely a national security and humanitarian crisis along the south west border. In 2006 ... the same language that is being used by our president today was being used by former presidents and politicians on both sides of the aisle saying that we needed a fence, a wall, a physical barrier. ...

"The strategy that they put forth a long time ago, of infrastructure, technology and personnel -- that multi-layered approach -- has been the approach since the beginning. That multi-layered approach works."

Morgan was with the FBI for 20 years. Watch the video (searchable at video.foxnews.com). This guy is impressive. He was special agent in charge of the El Paso office on the border.

Posted: QCOline.com   February 21, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Give Americans the Whole Truth About the Wall

In every jury trial, the jurors are the "finders of the facts" -- the sole judges of the facts.

That means that the jurors decide the case by hearing the witnesses, evaluating their truthfulness, and deciding the weight to be given to the testimony of each.

But occasionally, after hearing the evidence, the jury comes away with the impression that all the witnesses on both sides are telling half-truths, if not outright lies. How does a jury render a true verdict when every witness is either lying or telling half-truths?

In the realm of American politics, the voters are the judges of the facts. So how do the voters find the "true" facts when the Democrat and Republican politicians supported by their partisan medias each have their own parallel versions of "truth?"

I suggest that the voters are put in an impossible position. Decision making by the voters is reduced to a crap-shoot; to emotion, luck.

To illustrate my point, and not to criticize, I reference two recent opinion pieces that appeared on this page. Consider the two parallel impressions of the president's recent immigration speech to the nation.

Dan Lee: "As I watched President Donald Trump’s address to the nation last Tuesday evening, I was saddened by the spectacle that was unfolding in the Oval Office -- a spectacle that diminished the dignity of the highest office in our nation."

Jay Ambrose: "Donald Trump can look like a president. He can act like a president. He can talk like a president. He proved as much in last Tuesday’s TV speech on getting $5.7 billion for a more secure border...."

Lee: "After Trump stated that 'innocent people' are being 'horribly victimized' by immigrants who commit crimes, [Shepard] Smith [Fox News] observed, “The government’s statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population.”

Ambrose: "On the trip to America, up to six out of every 10 women are raped, according to Amnesty International. ... Over the past two years ICE officers arrested illegal aliens who had been charged or convicted of assault (100,000), sex crimes (30,000) and violent killings (4,000). A higher percentage of natives than illegal immigrants commit serious crimes, but that hardly means it is not a worry as still more Americans die."

Lee: "(There is a) flow of heroin and other illicit drugs through ports of entry. This is done in various ways. In some cases, heroin and other illicit drugs are hidden in secret compartments in cars going through the checkpoints. In other cases, it is mixed in with legitimate cargo in trucks crossing the border. ... This illicit activity must be stopped. Building a higher wall, however, will have no impact on it."

Ambrose: "(The President said) a whole slew of illegal drugs come across the border, and fact checkers said lots of them came from other places as well. But they did not deny Trump was right in saying that 90 percent of heroin comes across the border, killing 300 a week."

Lee: "An expensive wall will do nothing to stem the flow of heroin and other deadly drugs into this country."

Ambrose: "(Speaker Nancy) Pelosi, is wrong that walls are ineffective. They are highly effective."


So what is the American voter to do when politicians and members of the press have such radically different "expert" opinions? Do hard facts support either opinion?

Opinions aside, here are three examples of hard facts:

1. Israel has security barriers. In 2002, the year before construction was started, 457 Israelis were murdered by terrorists and suicide bombers; in 2009, after construction, only 9.

2. In 2014, the average cost of educating a child in U.S. public schools was $11,155. Therefore, the annual cost of educating 725,000 non-citizen illegal alien children was $8 billion. The cost of educating 3.2 million children born in the U. S. (and therefore, citizens) of illegal alien parents was an additional $35.7 billion.

3. U.S. citizens murdered or killed by illegal aliens include: Pierce Corcoran, Officer Ronil Singh, Justin Lee, Mollie Tibbitts, and most recently, Connie Koontz, Sophia Renken (age 74), Gerald and Sharon David (ages 80 and 81), et. al.

The American people need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A decision based on rank opinion and emotions will probably be political and wrong.

So, do we build a wall or not? The American people need honest facts. So, why not listen to the men and women charged with protecting our border?

See my next op-ed.

Posted: QCOline.com   February 14, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

A Baby after Birth is a "Person" possessed of all Constitutional Rights (Editor's caption: "There's no denying, this abortion bill murder")

Is it murder for a doctor and a mother to kill a baby minutes after its birth if its mother consents? You're damn right it is!


On this issue, those who believe in the right to life cannot compromise.


If you intentionally kill your mother without lawful justification, you have committed matricide. The act of intentionally killing one's father without lawful justification is patricide. Killing one's brother is fratricide. A parent who kills his son or daughter without justification commits filicide.


But are matricide, patricide, fratricide and filicide anything less than murder? Or does murder cease to be murder when we give it a fancy Latin name? Do we "justify” a father's murder of his 2-year-old son simply because we label the strangling of the child filicide? Do we excuse a married woman when she stabs her husband to death in his sleep, as "merely matricide?"


If the killing relieves "stress" or "anxiety," is that "lawful justification?"


In this country, a person who kills another person without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which cause death, he either:

1. Intends to kill or do great bodily harm to the other person, or

2. Knows that such acts will cause death to the other person, or

3. Knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the other.


The principle lawful justification is self defense. In Illinois a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.


On Jan. 28, Democratic state Rep. Kathy Tran testified before the Virginia House in support of a proposed bill to remove abortion restrictions. She was questioned by Todd Gilbert, the Republican chairman of a Virginia House committee.


Gilbert: "How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman?"


Tran: "The physical health ...."

Gilbert: "I'm talking about the mental health."

Tran: "So, I mean through the third trimester. The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."

Gilbert: "So, to the end of the third trimester?"

Tran: "Yes, I don't think we have a limit in the bill."

Gilbert: "So, where it is obvious a woman is about to give birth ... where she has physical signs she is about to give birth .... Would that be the point at which she could request an abortion if it was so certified? She's dilating ...."

Tran: "Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point ..."

Gilbert: "I understand that. I am asking if your bill allows that. "

Tran: "My bill would allow that, yes."


In the hours that followed, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam gave a radio interview in 

which he supported delegate Tran's bill, and even went a step further. 

           “So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what 

           would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. 

           The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and 

           then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”


Note what Northam said: "The infant would be delivered .... kept comfortable." It would then be up to the mother and the doctors to decide whether a baby should be killed.


At the time established by Northam, we are not talking about an embryo, or a fetus. We are talking about a completely born baby, a human person.


What Northam would allow is murder. Infanticide, no less than matricide, patricide and filicide, is murder. It is the intentional killing of another person without lawful justification.


The child is born. The mother survived. Where is the genuine threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm" to the mother at that point in time?


Or are we now going to permit mothers and fathers to justify murdering their children because the child creates stress, anxiety, or other emotional or financial problems for the family? And if you are justified in murdering your newborn because it cause stress or anxiety, why can't a father logically and justifiably kill his daughter to eliminate the stress caused by her marrying a Christian?


The very same progressives who would shower any 1-year-old child who crosses our southern border with free attorneys and a full panoply of Constitutional rights would deny those very same rights to any other child born in Virginia.


Once we deny the personhood of a baby that has just been born, we are no better than slave holders and Nazis. Killing Jews and babies without lawful justification is murder.


Posted: QCOline.com   February 7, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea