If the Movie Stinks, Why Make a Sequel?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team of prosecutors investigated President Donald Trump -- and everybody around him -- for 2.5 years, using the full investigatory powers of the United States government.

They found there was insufficient evidence to charge the president with conspiracy, or any other crime, relating to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

There are numerous redactions in the Mueller Report. But does any rational, neutral observer really believe that those portions would have been redacted if there had been competent evidence that the president, or those around him, had conspired with Russia or engaged in any other crime?

If the special counsel had had competent evidence to support Trump's guilt, the report would have trumpeted, "We charge that evil President Trump conspired with Russia!" And yet, there are those who still believe the Democrat fairy tale that Trump colluded with Russia. And there are those who believe that Rep. Adam Schiff and other Democrats on his House Intelligence Committee will still somehow dig up evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

NBC News described Mueller's team as the 18 "best prosecutors in the business." They had virtually unlimited subpoena power and power to haul witnesses before grand juries. Does any rational Democrat seriously believe that if Muller's expert prosecutors couldn't find competent evidence to charge the president during their exhaustive 30 months investigation, somehow Schiff will?

The phony Steele Dossier didn't get the job done. But wait! Schiff is here to save the day! And he has in hand (gasp!) a "letter" from a so-called whistleblower!


Never mind that Schiff's whistleblower has no personal knowledge of the things he alleges the president did wrong in speaking to the Ukraine president. Never mind that the whistleblower's allegations are rank hearsay. Never mind that hearsay is admissible only in kangaroo courts. Never mind that the transcript of that call utterly debunks and contradicts the whistleblower's hearsay claims.

Never mind that the whistleblower's statements were not made under oath. Never mind that neither the president, nor Republican members of Superhero Schiff's committee have been allowed to confront the accuser or cross-examine him.

Never mind that Schiff has lied about his, or his staff's, involvement with the whistleblower, or that Schiff's staff may have drafted or helped draft the whistleblower's "complaint," or directed the whistleblower to an anti-Trump lawyer to "refine" the allegations.

Never mind that the chairman is running a secret hearing -- closed to the press and public -- with only Schiff-approved "leaks" being made available to a partisan mainstream media. Never mind that Schiff repeatedly lied about having "evidence" in his possession that Trump colluded with Russia.



In case you haven't figured it out, Ukraine collusion is a sham. It is a remake of the Russian collusion sham. It's rather like the Hollywood remakes of "The Prisoner of Zenda." Hollywood first made the movie in 1922 with Ramon Navarro, then again in 1939 with Ronald Coleman, and again in 1952 with Stewart Granger: same movie, slightly updated script, new cast.


Here's Schiff's 2016 movie:

 "Trump Colludes with Russia": Evil racist, bigot, homophobe, white-supremacist Donald -- aka, Joseph Stalin Jr. -- Trump colluded with Russia to dig up dirt to steal the 2016 election from saintly Hillary Clinton. Script based on the fictional whistleblower Steele Dossier, paid for by Fusion GPS, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and sundry half-truth affidavits filed in the FISA court.


Here's Schiff's 2020 movie:

 "Trump Colludes with Ukraine” (still in production): Evil racist, bigot, homophobe, white supremacist Donald -- aka Adolf Hitler Jr. -- Trump colluded with Ukraine to dig up dirt to steal the 2020 election from former Vice President Joe Biden. Script based on a hearsay whistleblower complaint crafted by either Schiff himself, his staff, or his designated attorney, all without disclosing that the whistleblower appears to be an old crony of former-VP Biden.


The American people have seen enough. The 2016 version was garbage. The 2020 version bids fair to be even worse. With the Republicans in control of the Senate, and with 67 votes needed in the Senate to convict, Democrats know that any partisan impeachment is DOA.


The 2020 election is a year from now. If Trump is the consummate evil racist, white supremacist, traitor that the Democrats claim he is, he will be "impeached" by the voters!

Posted: QCOline.com   October 24th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Vote Democrat, GM - Get Bernie-care, and $15 an hour

You are a GM worker.

Are you really going to vote for a Democrat who is telling you that if elected he/she wants Medicare-for-All (Bernie-care) and is going to abolish all private medical insurance?

At a recent Democratic debate, moderator Lester Holt asked, "Who here would abolish their private insurance in favor of a government run health plan?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren's and Mayor Bill de Blasio's hands shot up. Warren bleated, “I’m with Bernie on Medicare-for-All.”

But how about the rest of the Democrats? Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposed legislation would abolish ALL private health insurance. Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Kristen Gillibrand are co-sponsors of Sanders’ bill. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell are sponsoring similar legislation in the House. Sen. Kamala Harris was for the Sanders' proposal before she was against it. Joe Biden says he's for Obamacare. But at least one Democrat candidate has some doubts. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar supports a Medicare public option, but as yet doesn't support Sander's Medicare-for-All bill

“I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off their health insurance in four years, which is what this bill says,” she said.


Would that include GM workers? Do UAW workers and retirees agree with Sanders, Warren, Booker, Gillibrand, Gabbard, Ryan, et al? Are they willing to hazard their GM insurance to elect a blithering socialist? Or will Sanders, Warren and the rest abolish all private insurance except that provided by the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust?

That trust provides health care benefits for current and future eligible UAW retiree members of Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford. The trust is an independent entity and not administered by the auto manufacturers or the UAW.

Medicare members can choose one of three plans: Medicare Advantage PPO, Traditional Care Network (TCN), or HMO. The monthly cost for TCN is $17 single and $34 family. There is no monthly cost for the MA PPO or the HMO options.

Non-Medicare members can have two options: Enhanced Care PPO (ECP), or HMO. Both require a monthly $17 single and $34 family payment. Due to word limitations, I am only going to discuss the primary plans. For Medicare members, the primary plan is MA PPO, for non-Medicare members, it is ECP PPO.

Here what the MA PPO provides: Deductible, $245/person; coinsurance (amount paid after deductible is met) 10%; out-of-pocket max before the plan covers 100 of covered costs, $630/person; primary care physician (PCP) office visit, $20 copay; specialist office visit, $25 copay; emergency room (waived if admitted), $50 copay.

ECP PPO provides: Deductible, $400 single, $675 family; coinsurance, 10%; out-of-pocket max, $800 single, $1,475 family; PCP office vsit, $25 copay; specialist office visit, $35 copay; urgent care, $50 copay.

Regardless of the medical plan option, the copay amounts for prescription drug benefits are the same. For a month supply: Tier 1 generics, $14; Tier 2 preferred brand, $45; Tier 1 non-preferred brand, $115.

The trust also provides hearing aid, vision and dental benefits. So what are the UAW workers and retirees going to do, play Russian roulette?

The progressives also demand the abolition of the use of fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. But with gasoline and an internal combustion engines gone, what's going to happen to auto worker jobs?

If we go to electric-powered or wind-powered cars, will auto workers even have to worry about Medicare-for-All wiping out their private health insurance? Do permanently laid-off workers still get company-provided health benefits? And if you get rid of internal combustion engines, what happens to the jobs of workers in the gasoline production industry? To their insurance?

And if you abolish all private insurance, what becomes of the jobs of workers who work for private health insurance companies? Of their private health insurance? In the past, the Democrats' answer has been to "set up new job-training classes."

A vote for any of these Democrats should mean job re-training will become the new growth industry" What, me worry?

Sanders has another brilliant plan: "Give everybody a $15 per hour government job!" That should really appeal to GM workers.

Posted: QCOline.com   October 17th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrat Leftist Mobs are the Best Gun Salesmen

The Democrats demand gun control. In particular, they demand banning AR-15-style rifles, and large-capacity magazines.

They argue that the average citizen has no legitimate reason for possessing such weapons and magazines. Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke now calls for outright confiscation.

Until recently, I had believed that most Americans were inclined to agree with the Democrats on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines. Then, within a brief period, Democrats, their street-mob allies, and their Hollywood henchmen go nuts and demonstrate that the NRA's concerns may very be well-founded.

They give Americans who rationally fear mob violence and unconstitutional confiscation of their guns (in violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments) excellent motivation to run out and buy AR-15-style weapons with large-capacity magazines for the protection of themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses against leftist mobs and government overreach.

Indeed, rather than dissuading the sale and possession of such weapons, the Democrats and their allies now seem intent on inducing every "deplorable" in America to purchase the very weapons the Democrats have been railing against.

Here are four recent incidents that illustrate the point.


1. Recently a mob of extremist leftists gathered outside the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Louisville, Ky. During the mob action, which was calculated to shatter the nighttime quiet of the neighborhood and to disrupt the ability of McConnell, his family and his neighbors to sleep peacefully in their homes, a female mob-member can be heard, in the video of the incident, saying “just stabs the mother f----r in the heart, please.”


2. Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro, brother of Julian Castro, has tweeted, "Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump. ... Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanics as 'invaders.' ... In 2019, these 44 San Antonio donors contributed the most allowable by federal law."

He then lists the donors' names. (Making his actions even more irresponsible, his list erroneously included people who weren't donors). Castro published his "little list of society offenders" for one reason. He wanted leftist mobs, to target Trump donors to intimidate them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to support the candidate(s) of their choice. Castro wanted their homes and businesses mobbed, and their businesses boycotted. If they were bullied in restaurants, good.

3. Then, leftist at the Universal Studio, announced a new movie, "The Hunt," in which rich, elitist leftist thrill-seekers take a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a "deeply rewarding" expedition that involves hunting down and killing "deplorables" (Hillary Clinton's term for Trump supporters). The movie glorifies hate, political violence and the mass murder of those with whom you disagree. (Universal has had second thoughts -- at least until the heat dies down).


4. Then, during the last Democratic presidential debate, socialist candidate Beto O'Rourke vowed that if elected, he would "take away" from every law-abiding citizen any gun he believes is "not needed for hunting." That would include AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles that have a cosmetic similarity to actual military weapons.


Imagine now you are one of Hillary's "deplorables." Imagine further a political climate in which a supposedly responsible members of Congress puts you name and address on a list as a "contributor to a campaign of hate against Hispanics" with the implication that you, like McConnell, deserve to be confronted by the mob in your home in the middle of the night, or when you are dining in a restaurant. Or that you deserve to have your business boycotted -- or worse.

Add to that a toxic political climate in which the Hollywood left produces a movie in which conservatives are treated as subhumans to be shot to death for sport and amusement.

And to top it off, imagine a howling mob descending upon your front door in the dead of night, led by a 21st century "Madame Defarge," who rather than knitting, encourages the mob to stab you in the heart. Or imagine that in the dead of night, 10 members of the mob kick in your front door and come for you. Would an AR-15 with a large-capacity magazine be your weapon of choice?

When mob violence is encouraged by politicians who would tear up the Bill of Rights, the mob and demagogue politicians become the best salesman for AR-15-style weapons and magazines, and the unwitting ally of the NRA.

Posted: QCOline.com   October 10th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Medicare-for-All Lesson Lurking in Your Cable Bill

If you think dealing with your local cable provider is hell, Medicare-for-All will be worse.

You call yourself a Democratic Socialist. You assure the American people that if we can only put Medicare-for-All in place, and get rid of the predatory private health insurance industry, our health-care costs will drop substantially, and the quality of care will be far better.

You are advocating creation of a health-care monopoly. It would be the biggest monopoly in the United States. Do you really believe your dream monopoly will be responsive to your individual needs? When you have a problem, will you be able to call customer assistance, and speak to somebody with willingness, power and incentive to deal with your complaint?

If you do, you've never dealt with your local internet, phone and cable provider, particularly one that has a virtual monopoly in your area.

What do you do if you are unhappy with your service? Let just imagine that you are reasonably happy paying for one of its packages. Then, one day, out of the blue, your rate is raised by 13 percent. When did your employer last give you a 13% pay raise?

When you call to see what can be done, after a modest wait, you get to speak to a "customer representative." You tell her you feel the new rate is unreasonable. She says it really isn't a new rate; they're just taking away a portion of your "customer loyalty discount."

You point out that it is still costing you $20 more per month. She says there is nothing she can do for you, but since you have been a customer for more than 30 years (you were charged $19.99 per month back in 1988), she'll refer you to a "customer loyalty representative."

After another modest wait, that representative finally picks up her phone. You repeat that you are unhappy about the price increase. She repeats that it really isn't a price increase; it's a loyalty discount decrease.

You point out that "loyalty" here seems to be a "one-way street." Your "reward" for being a "loyal customer" is being diminished. She advises that your "loyalty discount" will again decrease next month.

You ask, "What happens if I drop my phone service to save money?" She replies, "If you change your service, you can get a new subscriber promotional discount, but it will only be good for one year. After that your rate will go up $20."

It seems bizarre to you that a new customer will pay less than a loyal customer and that your rate will continue to go up until all your loyalty discount goes bye-bye.

You try again, "What about getting rid of channels you will never use in a thousand years?" She replies, "You probably lose channels that you do watch." 

You ask to speak to a supervisor. She insists a supervisor "will tell you exactly what I am telling you." You insist. She tells you all their lines are busy. You still insist. She tells you, "A supervisor's line just came open; I'll transfer you."

That line rings and rings. Eventually you get voice mail. You dutifully leave your name and number and briefly summarize the nature of your call. No one ever calls back.

Now imagine what happens when Medicare-for-All denies a drug or treatment for your 85-year-old parent. You call Medicare-for-All. And guess what's going to happen when "Bernie" answers? No, not that Bernie. This one is my cable company representative's brother.

When you create a monopoly, you destroy all competition. 

When I have called my health insurance provider, I have always been treated with respect. I have sensed its representatives want to be helpful. They know that a dissatisfied customer can go to another health insurance provider.

But with your cable provider, it's their way or the highway. And with Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-All, you probably will not even have the choice of opting out and going without insurance.

There'll be no highway.

Posted: QCOline.com   September 9th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

How about Some Reparations for Irish Americans?

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, interviewed on CNN, says that she wants a "reparations council made up of 30 to 50 people who are descendants of American slaves."

She also proposes that $200 billion to $500 billion be dispersed over a period of 20 years. Her council would decide how the money is disbursed, with the stipulation that the funds would be used for "economic and education renewal" -- whatever that is. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker have also indicated support for the concept of reparations.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a cosponsor of legislation in Congress to study and develop a reparations proposals. Sen. Bernie Sanders is a co-sponsor for the Senate version of the bill. Sen. Kamala Harris says she supports reparations.

Beto O'Rourke is "open to considering some form of reparations." Warren has gone one step further, saying that reparations for Native Americans should be a part of the reparation conversation as well.


As a former Democrat and a strong believer in "equal protection," I support and thoroughly endorse reparations for both groups -- so long as the aforementioned Democratic candidates are willing to modify their otherwise inane proposals to include reparations to the descendants of oppressed Irishmen.

That, of course, would include me, since my grandfather came from the "Old Sod." I think our government should hand out big bushel baskets of $100 bills to every person of Irish descent in America.

Furthermore, I think the government of Great Britain should also kick in. Because history is no longer seriously taught in our schools, few Americans realize the sad plight of the 19th century Irish small farmer, both before and after he came to America.

From 1846 through the mid-1850s, the Irish potato crop suffered a devastating blight. This fungus was transported to Ireland from the Eastern United States.

In 1846, three-quarters of the Irish potato crop had failed. Three million rural Irish were left to starve -- even though Ireland at this time grew abundant wheat, beef cattle and other livestock.

Throughout the famine, the British continued the export of Irish foodstuffs, notwithstanding the starvation of the Irish people. To exacerbate the situation, Irish farmers, unable to pay their rents owing to the crop failure, were evicted by their English landlords.


To escape starvation, Irish peasant emigrated to America. Coming from rural backgrounds, most lacked the necessary skills required by industrializing America. They had to take unskilled jobs, paving the streets and digging the canals, while the women were forced into menial jobs as maids and laundresses.

And there was prejudice against the Irish. America was largely Protestant. The Irish were Catholics. Many Americans believed the Irish owed their allegiance to the Pope.

Additionally, the Irish immigrants threatened to take jobs from American citizens. Fearing that they would also take political power, there was a backlash, which produced the Know-Nothing Party, whose very reason for being was anti-immigration xenophobia.

"Help Wanted" signs were modified to add, "No Irish need apply!" Then came the Civil War. As Irishmen disembarked, they were met by Union military recruiters who offered them $300 to join the Union Army. And they did.

Irish regiments were formed: the New York 63rd, 69th, and 88th and the 116th Pennsylvania. Soon they were grouped into the Irish Brigade. Over 150,000 Irish, who had never owned a slave, fought for the Union cause.

At Antietam (1862), about 60 percent of 63rd and 69th New York regiments fell; almost 600 men were killed in battle. A few months later, at Fredericksburg, 545 of the brigade’s 1,200 men were killed or wounded. Then, in July 1863, at Gettysburg, 320 of the Irish Brigade's remaining 530 were killed.

Irish losses in the Civil War and in WWI each totaled about 35,000. Irish men were "welcomed" into America to serve as cannon fodder. Unlike the immigrants crossing our southern border today, the 19th century Irish got no food stamps, no free housing and no free medical care.

And of course, once you provide people of Irish descent with reparations, don't forget the Jewish people.

I can distinctly remember as a boy the prejudice in America against people of the Jewish faith. There weren't welcomed in many of the best country clubs. A few blocks from our home, they had to build their own Jewish country club.

So, do I really believe in reparations? No. But if you are going to give them to one group, equal protection should require they be given to any group that America was not fair to at any time. But, of course, when you provide free housing, food stamps, education and medical care to any group for any prolonged period, isn't that a sort of pre-reparation?


Posted: QCOline.com   September 12th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats are Hypocrites on President Trump's Immigration Policy

Is President Donald Trump really a racist or a white supremacist for saying he is for an "orderly admission of aliens across our southern border, but that we must keep drug dealers, and criminals out?"

Every 2020 Democrat presidential candidate claims Trump is. Do you agree? Before you answer, here is what three prominent Americans said about illegal immigration a few years ago.

Prominent American No. 1:

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.


"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

Prominent American No. 2:


"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."

And, "Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. We don't know how many of these kids didn't make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking, or killed because they fell off a train. We have no way of tracking them."


Prominent American No. 3: 

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers'" we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.


Were these three racists? White supremacists? How do their positions meaningfully differ from Trump's current position? Were they speaking reasonably? Truthfully? If so, why does every Democratic candidate today stand in anal opposition to these statements made by the nation's most prominent Democrats just a few years ago?


Did these three care less about suffering children than the present crop of Democratic candidates? Or did these Americans not perceive that if the country were flooded with illegal immigrants, eventually these immigrants would probably vote Democratic and in all likelihood vote to insure irreversible Democratic control of all branches of the U.S. government?


Oh! By the way, the first prominent American quoted was President Bill Clinton from his 1995 State of the Union Address. The second person quoted was President Barack Obama. The first statement (2005) was made while he was a U.S. senator; the second (2014) while he was president. The third quote is from Sen. Chuck Schumer (2009).


Not yet convinced hypocrisy's afoot? I just received another video from a former colleague showing what four more prominent Democrats told the American people a few years ago:

Sen. Harry Reid: "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you enter our country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. Citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides."

Sen. Diane Feinstein: "I think we can enforce our borders.  To have a situation where 40% of the babies born on Medicaid in California today are born of illegal immigrants, creates a very real problem."

Hillary Clinton: "Look, I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think you have to control your borders."

Bernie Sanders: "I believe we have very serious immigration problems in this country. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are virtually non-existent. Our border is very porous.”

Posted: QCOline.com   September 5th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

What Happens When There Are No More Police?

A new attitude is becoming mainstream in leftist America. It is an anti-police, anti-ICE and anti-law-enforcement attitude. It is producing fell consequences.


The FBI states that in 2018, 55 police officers died as the result of felonious acts. Firearms were used to murder 51 of those officers. In 2019, through July 8, 24 officers have been shot to death.

Do you recall the Black Lives Matter video where the "protesters" chanted, "Pigs in a Blanket, Fry 'em like Bacon?" Or a second one, where New York "protestors" chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." (See https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Manhattan-Dead-Cops-Video-Millions-March-Protest-285805731.html.)

Now there's a new game in New York. When the police arrive to answer a call for assistance, crowds gather and douse them with buckets of water (https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-police-pelted-objects-drenched-water-video-reprehensible).


On July 1, Dante DeBlasio, the 21-year-old son of New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio, penned an op-ed which appeared in USA Today. He recounted his visit to San Francisco at age 18:

"I ... found myself walking through a neighborhood called the Tenderloin. All the storefront windows had bars on them, there was a man on one street yelling at passersby, trying to goad them into a fight, and homeless people were openly doing hard drugs on the sidewalk. But honestly, I wasn’t that scared. I was from Brooklyn, and I truly believed that I knew how to carry myself well enough not to be messed with. And due to the sheer force of my confidence, nobody messed with me (it also probably doesn’t hurt to be 6’3”)."

He eventually arrived at his friend's home. "In fact, the only time I felt fear during that entire night was at the very end of the walk ... at the keypad outside my family friend’s apartment building. My hosts had texted me the code ... but there were no instructions, so I was just standing there with my suitcase and ... pressing different buttons.

"I had been standing there for about 10 minutes when a police cruiser slowly rolled down the empty block. I figured it must be heading somewhere else but, no, it pulled over right in front of me. For years, I had been aware of the fear I caused as a young black man -- I had seen people cross the street to avoid me, I had been followed around stores -- yet I could still hardly believe someone thought that I was trying to break into a home. But ... somebody had called the police on me."

Dante is a mixed-race person. His wariness of the police is understandable. By the time he was in eighth grade, he had been instructed by his father and cousins to be extra-polite and deliberate when addressing police officers; not funny or casual. He also had been cautioned to avoid sudden movements, back-talking, or reaching for anything without first telling the officer what he was about to do. He was warned that small mistakes could result in his being arrested or even shot.

These were commonsense instructions. My dad told me essentially the same thing. But while being wary or respectful when confronted by a policeman is acting with commonsense, dousing officers, chanting that you want dead cops, assaulting officers or murdering them are all acts animated by hatred.


Drive the police out of your neighborhood; then what? Who will intervene to stop wife beating or the armed robbery at the 7-Eleven? Or keep the drug dealers and gang-bangers from selling cocaine at your front door? Or stop street gangs from shooting it out outside your home?

Read again Dante's description of the Tenderloin District. Do you want to live in a town with all home and business windows barred? Where thugs on the street goad passersby to fight? Where the homeless are openly doing hard drugs on every corner?

Is living in a Tenderloin District as described by Dante preferable to treating police officers with civility? What if officers refuse to come when you really need them?

Nine people were murdered in Dayton in the 32 seconds before the police killed the killer. How many more would have died had there been no police?

And now six officers were shot in Philadelphia, while the crowd taunted, and yelled at officers who were facing gunfire, according to CBS3 reporter Alexandria Hoff who was at the scene. (https://www.newsweek.com/philadelphia-shooting-crowd-taunted-police-report-1454473).


Posted: QCOline.com   August 22, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea