FLU EPIDEMICS TODAY AND YESTERDAY

I have been asked to write on two questions:

First, by what authority did Gov. J.B. Ptitzker issue his "Stay at Home" and "Close all Non-Essential Businesses" Coronavirus Executive Order?

Second, were quarantine and isolation used by public authorities during the 1918-19 Spanish Flu Epidemic?

(1) Governor's Powers

As early as 1824, the Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Ogden referred to a state’s authority to quarantine under its "police powers." Each State has "police powers" to protect the health, safety and welfare of those people in the State. Then, In 1902, the Court in Compagnie Francaise v. Louisiana State Board of Health, directly addressed a state’s power to quarantine an entire geographic area. In that case, both the State law and its implementation were upheld as valid exercises of the State’s "police powers."

So, where exactly does Gov. Pritzker get power to issue his Coronavirus Executive Orders?

The Illinois Legislature has "conferred upon the Governor" specific powers to deal with emergencies and disasters in the Illinois Emergency Management Act. That Act defines "disasters" to include "epidemics or public health emergencies." It authorizes the Governor by "proclamation to declare that a disaster exists."

Once he so declares, the Act gives him power to "To control ingress or egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein."
It further give him power to "Control or restrict the sale or distribution of food, materials, goods or services; and to exercise ... any other powers ... as may be necessary to promote and secure safety and protection of the civilian population.

Clearly under these two grants of power, the Governor has power to order people to "stay at home," to "close non-essential business," and to order quarantine or isolation.

(2) Spanish Flu Quarentines

So what did Chicago authorities do when the Spanish Flu struck in 1918?

By 1918, Chicago had 2.7 million residents. The Flu arrived on September 18. It seemingly first showed at Great Lakes Naval Training Station when a few sailors got sick. Naval officials acted quickly in an attempt to contain the disease there by instituting isolation and quarantine of some 50,000 sailors.

By late-September, it appeared that the epidemic at Great Lakes station had crested. New cases were decreasing.

In Chicago, Health Commissioner Dr. John Dill Robertson announced that officials had “the Spanish influenza situation well in hand now.” To monitor the situation, Robertson made influenza a "reportable disease" on September 16, but took no further action.

Robertson guessed wrong. Chicago's epidemic was just beginning. By September 21, Chicago experienced a sudden marked rise in the number of deaths due to acute respiratory diseases. By September 30, there were 260 cases in the city. Robertson told residents to prepare to isolate themselves should they become sick. “Every victim of the disease is commanded to go to his home and stay there.” And he did ask the Chief of Police to have his officers stop all persistent sneezers and coughers who did not cover their faces with handkerchiefs. Churches, schools, theaters, restaurants, streetcars, and other places where people congregated were were allowed to remain open, but ordered to maintain proper ventilation.

As the flu worsened, Illinois Influenza Advisory Commission intervened. Its first step was to pass a binding resolution on October 11 banning public dancing in all clubs, cabarets, and halls and to prohibit all public funerals across the state. By then, Chicago physicians were reporting as many as 1200 new cases a day, and climbing.

On October 15, the IIAC closed all theaters, movie houses, night schools, and “all other places of public amusement.” Public schools were not closed, but attendance dropped 50%.

By October 29, new cases in Illinois were on the decline. The epidemic was abating.

The Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918-19 is thought to be the third worst pandemic in recorded history. It took between 40 and 50 million lives. The New World Smallpox Pandemic of 1520 is estimated to have killed 56 million. The Black Death from 1347-51 killed 200 million. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/


The Spanish Flu affected by my family. My grandmother died in 1919 in a rural area of Canada of complications from the Flu. Her obituary notice reads,

"One of the saddest deaths which has occurred for a long time, happened, on Wednesday, from the effects of influenza followed by pneumonia, when Mary L. died in her 41st year. ... The news of her death has cast a gloom over the countryside. A very sad feature in connection with her illness was that twin babies were born on Monday, and lived only long enough to be baptized. Besides her husband, 12 children, 5 girls and 7 boys are left motherless ...."

This piece was published originally in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 31, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

How We Live our Lives

Around the the beginning of the second century, an unknown teacher penned the Didache, a tract teaching Christians how they should live their lives.

It begins ...

"There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.

"The way of life is this. First of all, you shall love the God who made you. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. And all things you would not want done to you, do not do to another person."

It then explains what "loving your neighbor as yourself" entails:

"Do not murder," do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant, do not bear false witness, do not slander, do not plot against your neighbor. Do not be a liar.


My ethical training began with my mother. "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you." "If Tommy eats worms, are you going to eat worms?" "Always tell the truth, or you will be forced to cover your lies with more lies."

My dad taught by words, and by the way he lived his life. "We don't use the "N- word;" it's meant to hurt. At the country club, when a a gentile member verbally publicly abused a new Jewish member, my dad intervened, "Stan, cut it out. He has as much right to be here as you do."

I first learned of the Didache from my second grade nun. The nuns continued to build on the foundation my parents were laying. They taught us from the old Baltimore Catechism. "Who is God?" Why did God make you?" "Why did Christ suffer and die?"

Then came my days in high school. The priests and lay teachers reinforced the gospel message that I had been given by my parents and the nuns, and provided the future tools needed for my entry and success at the University of Notre Dame, and its law school.

If I have succeeded in my profession, it is because I was carefully taught and was given the ethical and intellectual tools to succeed by my parents, and my teachers.

But today, almost everything I was taught by my parents, the nuns and the priests has come, or is coming, under assault in our country. I was consistently taught that we are not permitted to employ evil "means" to achieve a good "end." Today that principle is scoffed at by an ever-increasing segment of the American people and their elected officials. Today, if the "means" will work to achieve the "end," then they are acceptable and "good."

Libel, slander and character assassination have become an everyday political "means" choice. If a lie will achieve the political "end," then lie. And pander. Say, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I believe that a woman has an absolute right to choose for whatever reason, even if that choice entails directing her doctor to kill the new-born child (a U.S. citizen) after a botched abortion."

Such things are permissible if "the ends indeed justify the means." Read what Saul Alinsky, the apostle of Radical Social Change, has written:

"Life and how you live it is the story of 'means' and 'ends.' The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of 'means' and 'ends' in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; ... He asks of 'ends' only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of 'means,' only whether they will work."

"We live in a world where 'good' is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get."

For Alinsky, "good" is subjective. Whatever each of us wants becomes "good." But if each of us decide what is "good" and what is "evil," are we not all Gods? With the right to eat the fruit we desire from any tree in the garden? A good "end" is whatever we want. As to "means," the only question is "whether they will work."

But I was taught that "good" is objective. God is good. Therefore, his commands are good. They include that we love him, and that we love our neighbor as ourself.

When we compare Alinsky's way, and the way of the Didache, we find "a great difference between the two ways."

An election is coming. If a political party is willing to lie, and to falsely destroy reputations to

achieve its political ends, how can anybody trust them? How can you? Lies and character assassination extinguish political civility.

A jury can only guess at the proper verdict where all the witnesses are liars. The same is true of voters in a democracy beset by liars.

This piece was published originally in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 27, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Getting rid of Gerrymandering isn't easy

Imagine that a state had two congressional districts in 1960, which contained an equal number of voters. Imagine further that, owing to the state legislature's failure to redistrict over the ensuing 60 years, population growth and population shifts, that first district has 300,000 voters and the second has a million voters. Do you see a problem?

Does it bother you that the district with 300,000 voters gets one congressman, while the district with a million voters only gets one congressman, too?

In Baker v. Carr (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a complaint alleging failure of the Tennessee Legislature to redraw legislative districts for a period of 60 years, which diminished the value of the vote in more populous districts, stated a "justiciable" cause of action for a denial of equal protection, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Baker v. Carr was followed by two related decisions.

In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. In Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), the Court ruled that electoral districts for the U.S. House of Representatives must also be roughly equal in population.


The rule that emerged from this trio of cases was "one man-one vote!" State legislative and U.S. House districts must be roughly equal in population as a matter of equal protection. (Districts disenfranchising minorities have been barred by a second line of cases).

But "one man-one vote" does nothing to prevent gerrymandering. Gerrymandered districts have roughly equal populations, but with district lines drawn to include or exclude Republicans or Democrats in order to favor the party in power.


To prevent gerrymandering, Article IV of the Illinois Constitution provides that "Legislative Districts shall be compact ...."

It also provides that, "In the year following each Federal decennial census year, the General Assembly by law shall redistrict the Legislative and Representative Districts" by June 30. If it fails to do so, an 8-person commission is appointed by the Illinois House and Senate leaders. If that commission fails to get the job done, the Supreme Court nominates two persons, not of the same political party; one is drawn by lot by the Secretary of State to be the ninth member of the commission.

The official comments to Article IV, show that in 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001, those procedures have failed.


Why? Because of the human element, the political element. Republicans want legislative districts that give them power; Democrats want the same. Therefore, since 1812, the gerrymander.


The solution is to remove the human element. Let the map be drawn by computers, programed (a) to make each district equal in population to within 1%, and (b) to draw no district with more than four sides, with all four sides joined at right angles.

In other words, make each district truly "compact" as is also required by the state constitution.

Why? As stated by the Illinois Supreme Court, in Schrage v. State Board of Elections (1981), "In addition to the necessity for complying with the requirements of the Constitution, there are pragmatic reasons for taking cognizance of compactness. As recognized in both the 1870 and 1970 constitutions, requiring compactness prevents gerrymandering. In fact, compactness is 'almost universally recognized' as an appropriate anti-gerrymandering standard."


So what's the problem? Simply this: We can't trust the Illinois Supreme Court to insist that districts be compact. History shows that rather than giving the word "compact" its common, ordinary meaning, the Illinois high court since 1870 has opted to be political and define the word "compact" to mean "not really compact." For example, in 1895, it defined "compact" to mean "closely united, territorially" — whatever that means. In 1971, the court held that "compactness" didn't require "perfect compactness." "Reasonable compactness" would be sufficient. This was a license to gerrymander. See the maps for Illinois' congressional districts from 1970 through 2010 for proof.


Can you sue in federal court to stop gerrymandering? Not really.

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles," that the federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider such claims, because they present nonjusticiable, political questions.

The U.S. Constitution vests the states and Congress, and not the courts, with power or jurisdiction to decide "political questions" and to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.


So if you wish to stop gerrymandering in Illinois, it appears you have two options: (a) elect holy angels; or (b) amend the Illinois Constitution to provide:

All districts shall be compact squares, rectangles or triangles. No district shall have more than four sides. All sides shall be straight lines. No arcs, no curves, no squiggles. The only factor, beyond shape, that may be considered in drawing the district's lines is population equality.

This piece was published originally in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 5, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Gerrymandering : "Some are more Equal than Others"

"Redistricting" is the process by which congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn after each decennial census. Federal law requires that districts must have nearly equal populations, and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.


Presently, Illinois elects 18 U. S. Representatives and 177 state legislators. They are elected from Congressional and State Legislative districts. (U. S. Senators are elected statewide - not from districts).


From the earliest days of the Republic, the political party in power in a state has engaged in "Gerrymandering." "Gerrymandering" is the "art" of drawing or re-drawing the lines of Congressional and Legislative districts to enhance the chances of the party in power remaining in power at subsequent elections. It is rather like tilting the pool table so all the balls roll into the desired hole.


Imagine a state with three Congressmen, elected from three districts. Imagine further a state roughly split 50/50 between Republican and Democrat voters. Also imagine that the Republicans control the state legislature, which is charged with re-drawing the districts. Finally, imagine them re-drawing the district lines to create one district where Democrat voters have a 70-30% majority, and two districts where the Republicans have 60-40% majorities.

Governor Gerry of Massachusetts did essentially 1812. To accomplish his purpose, Gerry drew a misshapen districts. Because it appeared to have the shape of a salamander, an outranged Federalist editor labeled his efforts, "Gerrymandering."


Madeleine Doubek, is the executive director of a group known as the "Coalition for Honest and New Government Ethics."Her group, "Change Illinois," wants to reform the way that Illinois draws its State legislative and Federal congressional districts to eliminate "Gerrymandering."


Under Change Illinois' plan, the senior Democratic and senior Republican justices on the Illinois Supreme Court would name 17 members to an "independent commission" that would draw the maps, with 11 of the 17 needed to approve a map.


The plan would require the commission to follow the provisions of the Illinois Voting Rights Act to preserve "minority districts." Prison inmates would be counted for redistricting purposes. Elected public officials would be banned from serving on the commission. If you believe that this plan will result in non-partisan redistricting, you probably also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.


Supposition #1: The Senior Democrat and Republican justices on the Illinois Supreme Court will make their selections in a non-partisan fashion. Really? When was the last time, the Illinois Supreme Court decided a "redistricting case," other than along party lines? Why in a recent Supreme Court "retention" election, did a justice receive $10,000,000 in campaign donation? To guaranty he'd be "non-partisan?"


Supposition #2. Barring elected officials from serving on the commission will insure that those appointed will be non-partisan. Do you really think a partisan Supreme Court Justice will be unable to find partisan appointed public officials to serve? A partisan businessmen? A partisan union official? A partisan next door neighbor?


Supposition #3. It's okay to Gerrymander to "preserve minority districts." But if you draw lines to incorporate a sufficient number of a given minority to "preserve a minority district," don't you at the same time disadvantage everybody else, including other minorities, in that district? Taken to its logical conclusion, if you "preserve" District #1for minority "A," don't you have to "preserve" District 2 for minority "B?" Or are you only anxious to guaranty representation for Minority "A" while at the same time telling Minorities "B," "C," "D, and "E," "Not all minorities deserve their own Districts." Then again, if you create a half dozen districts to insure "representation" for all your
favored minorities, what of the rights of the majority?


Today, the Republicans Gerrymander to facilitate the election of Republicans, and the Democrats Gerrymander to facilitate the Election of Democrats. If such traditional Gerrymandering is bad, why is it okay to Gerrymander to create safe Districts to guaranty minority representation, when you know damn well you are doing it because you have a firm expectation that "that minority" will vote for your party? How does this jive with Federal law that provides that the re-districting must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.


It is an undeniable truth that if a district is re-drawn to favor Minority A, that that re-districting will disfavor the majority as well as all other minorities. As the pigs wrote in Orwell's "Animal Farm:" "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


If you really want to get politics out of re-districting, and exterminate the "evil Gerrymander," there's a simple, fool-proof way of doing it. I've explained before. I'll explain again next time.

This piece was published originally in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 28, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

The "Priest Shortage" - What Hasn't Already Been Tried?

Recently the Catholic bishop of Peoria sent his representative to our parish to encourage vocations to the priesthood. He preached to a congregation of men and women, 60 to 80 years-old.

The Catholic Church is short of priests. So, what's the solution?

Through most of the first-half of the twentieth century, the US Catholic Church had an adequate number of priests. In the 1950s, my parish had a pastor and three assistants. When Father Lee first came to Sacred Heart as Pastor, he generally had two assistants. Our two most recent pastors have generally had one assistant, but our former pastor at times worked alone. Presently our assistant is a missionary.

The shortage, however, is not confined to the US.

In October 2019, Pope Francis convened a synod of South American bishops to discuss, among other issues, the shortage of priests in the Amazon region.

Cardinal Hummes, (retired Archbishop, Sao Paulo) the lead organizer of the synod, stated the priest shortage has led to an “almost total absence of the Eucharist and other sacraments essential for daily Christian life [in the Amazon region]. ... It will be necessary to define new paths for the future.” Hence, the Synod's Working Paper stated:

"Affirming that celibacy is a gift for the Church, it is requested that for the most remote areas of the region, the possibility of priestly ordination be studied for older people, preferably indigenous, respected and accepted by the community, even if they have an existing and stable family, in order to insure the availability of Sacraments that ... sustain Christian life."

On 26 October 2019, by an affirmative vote of 128 to 41, the Synod, in its Final Document, took a half-step, proposing that married permanent deacons be ordained as priests for the region "in extreme situations.

"Many of the Church communities in the Amazonian territory have enormous difficulties in attending the Eucharist. Sometimes it takes ... several years before a priest can return to a community to celebrate the Eucharist, [hear confessions] or anoint the sick ....

"We appreciate celibacy as a gift of God ... [It] enables the missionary, ordained to the priesthood, to dedicate himself fully to the service of the Holy People of God. ....

"[But] we know that this discipline "is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood" although there are many practical reasons for it. In his encyclical on priestly celibacy, St. Paul VI ... set out theological, spiritual and pastoral motivations that support it. ... St. John Paul II ... confirmed this tradition in the Latin Church.

"Considering that legitimate diversity does not harm the ... unity of the Church, but rather ... serves it - witness the plurality of existing rites and disciplines.

"[Therefore] we propose that criteria ... be established by competent authority, within the framework of Lumen Gentium 26, to ordain as priests suitable and respected men of the community with a legitimately constituted and stable family, who have had a fruitful permanent diaconate and receive an adequate formation for the priesthood, in order to sustain the life of the Christian community through the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Sacraments in the most remote areas of the Amazon region."

The Final Paper, not unexpectedly, did not meet with unanimous approval.

Some felt ordaining only those married men with previous service as permanent deacons, would not produce enough priests to alleviate the crisis. Others, like Cardinal Walter Brandmüller condemned the proposal as "heretical," contradicting "binding Church teaching in decisive points."

Pope Francis has now replied to the synod, writing Querida Amazonia"

"87. ... the exclusive character received in Holy Orders qualifies the priest alone to preside at the Eucharist. That is his particular, principal and non-delegable function.



"89. In the specific circumstances of the Amazon region, particularly in its forests and more remote places, a way must be found to ensure this priestly ministry.

"90. This urgent need leads me to urge all bishops, especially those in Latin America, not only to promote prayer for priestly vocations, but also to be more generous in encouraging those who display a missionary vocation to opt for the Amazon region"

But hasn't praying for priestly vocations, and encouraging missionary vocations already been tried? Time will tell if more prayers and encouragement do the job?

A married Anglican friend, after retiring from a long teaching career, decided to serve his church as a deacon. To his proposal, his bishop responded, "I don't need deacons; I need priests." After completing the prescribed training, my friend was ordained. He now serves as an Anglican priest.

Another friend, a long-time Anglican priest, wanted to become a Catholic priest. With Pope Benedict XVI's permission, though married with teenage children, he was ordained a Catholic priest. He served our parish as such until he re-located to serve in Colorado.

An abbreviate verison of this piece was published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 23, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Illinois' new version of the "Trojan Horse"

                            

Illinois presently has a 4.95% "Flat Rate" income tax. 

In the November 2020 election, Illinois voters will be asked to approve a new "Progressive" income tax. A "progressive income tax" is a "graduated income tax," as opposed to a "flat rate tax." Our Democrat Governor and his Democrat cronies in the legislature call their new "graduated income tax"  a "Fair Tax" to gull the gullible.

But what is a "Fair Tax?" This "Fair Tax" is any "graduated income" tax at whatever rates the legislature hereafter approves and the governor signs. 

Here's how the con works. Your Democrat Legislature, at the request of Democrat Governor Pritzker, has by law already set the "graduated income tax rates" which will take effect as soon as the voters approve amending the Illinois Constitution to permit their "Fair Tax." Those rates are a scam. 

To induce the gullible to approves their "Fair ("graduated") Income Tax" referendum, the Democrats in the Legislature have set the following rates:

For single or joint filers with incomes up to $10,000, the rate will be 4.75%. (Present "Flat Tax" rate: 4.95%.) If your income is $10K, your tax savings will be $20.

For single or joint filers with incomes over $10,000 and up to $100,000, the rate will be 4.90%. On $100K, you'd save $50.

For single or joint filers with incomes $100,000 and up to $250,000. the rate will be 4.95%.Your tax savings will be $0.

The rate increases to 7.75% if you file single and have an income over $250K up to $350K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $250K  and up to $500K.

The rate increases to 7.85% if you file single and have an income over $350K up to $750K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $500K  and up to $1M..

The rate increases to 7.99% if you file single and have an income over $750K; or if you file jointly, and your income is over $1M.

So, if your income is not greater than $250,000, you may ask what's so bad about ole Pritzker's "Fair Tax?"

Imagine that you are in the market for a new home. You find one you really like. The "asking price" for the house is$150,000. You arrive at closing, but a hitch develops:

Seller. Oh, by the way, the "asking price" was only my "asking price;" it is not my "final price."

You. What? Well, what is your final price?

Seller. I can only give you a "ball park" price now. Sign the papers, and I'll give you the "final price" maybe a month from now.

Would you sign the closing papers and agree to buy a house without knowing the"final price?"

Or would you be a bit wary that the seller might be engaging in the old "bait and switch?" Recall the "asking price" was $150,000? Would you sign the papers in blank trusting that his "final price"would not be $300,000? $500,000?

If you put a new furnace in your home, would you make a check out to "Harry's Furnace Service," sign your name and tell Harry, "Just put in whatever amount you feel is fair."

Now why am I giving examples of "bait and switch?

Right now - unless you approve the November referendum - the  Democrats in the Illinois legislature cannot impose any "graduated" or "progressive" income tax. To get power to impose their "Fair ("graduated") Tax," the Democrats in the Legislature need you to approve their referendum. Approval requires either the approval of 60% of voters voting on the question, or greater than 50% approval from all voters who cast ballots in the election.

Once you have approved their referendum, you have given them a "blank check."Stuck your head in the lion's mouth. Opened the gates of Troy and welcomed in the Trojan Horse with rapacious Greeks lurking in its belly.

Once you hand Democrats the Constitutional power to impose a "graduated" or "progressive" income tax, they can change the rate at their will. The day after you approve the Constitutional Amendment authorizing a "Graduated Income Tax," the Democrat legislators can go back into session and double, triple or quadruple the rates. You are giving them a "blank check" to insert whatever rates they want. 

If you don't think Democrats will raise the rate whenever they think they need more money, think again. Look what happened after the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed authorizing the Federal Graduated Income Tax. In 1913, the bottom bracket paid 1%; the top, 7%. Today, Federal rates range from 10% to 37%! During WWII, the top bracket was 90%.

I don't mention Republicans because the are a virtually extinct species in Springfield. 

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 14, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea

Soleimani's "Take-out" was "Morally, Constitutionally and Strategically Correct"

Surprise! U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff. D-California, now wants to investigate President Trump's justification for assassinating General Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. He was designated by President Barack Obama as a terrorist.

If you don't know why Obama designated Gen. Soleimani as a terrorist, you need to do some simple research. Find out how many American soldiers and civilians, and how many other civilians around the globe, he has been responsible for murdering over the last 20 years.

Soleimani was killed a couple days after the American Embassy in Baghdad was attacked by pro-Iranian proxies in Baghdad. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's "Popular Mobilization Forces," the control entity of several Iran-financed "militia" groups operating in Iraq, was also killed in the U.S. drone strike.

But what was Iran's "minister of terror," Soleimani, doing in Baghdad anyway?

The Trump administration says he was planning attacks on American military and civilian targets throughout the Middle East. It justifies his assassination as one to eliminate a "clear and present danger" to American lives and property.


Now let's compare and contrast Trump's assassination of Soleimani, with Obama's "take-out" of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya.

On March 19, 2011, Obama authorized the bombing of Libya. He had no authorization from Congress to do so. Rather, he relied upon a United Nations Security Council resolution, passed at the behest of his administration, that authorized military intervention in Libya. Two days later, the United States, Britain and France began to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya by Gadhafi's air force.
The U.S. also started to bomb his "assets." For the next seven months, the U.S rained bombs on Libya. That bombing killed several thousand people, supported a rebel offensive and effected regime change.

In October 2011, rebel forces conquered Libya, located Gadhafi and killed him. Thereafter, Libya descended into chaos. During the chaos, the American consulate in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador and others were murdered by pro-Iranian militia in response to the U.S providing missiles to anti-Assad forces in Syria (Iran's ally).

So why did the U.S. go to war in Libya? According to Secretary of State John Kerry, we didn't. The U.S. bombing campaign was merely a "major counterterrorism operation" that had "many different moving parts." Apparently, the bombs falling all over Libya were the "moving parts."

Speaking on March 28, 2011, at the National Defense University in Washington, Obama justified his bombings:

"The United States and the world faced a choice. Gadhafi declared he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people. He compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. ... It was not in our national interest to let that [massacre] happen."

So where was super-duper investigator Schiff during Obama's seven month war? Why didn't he investigate Obama's "abuse of war powers?"

Obama's Libya bombing "to save the lives of Libyans" went on for seven months. It resulted in the deaths of thousand of Libyan civilians. Obama killed the very people he went to war to keep Gadhafi from killing. Inexplicably, that was in "our national interest."


Trump embarked on a successful 30-second bombing campaign to kill an Obama-designated master terrorist who provided countless IEDs to our enemies in Iraq, which killed over 600 American soldiers while maiming thousands of others, and whose proxy militias just attacked our embassy in Baghdad and were planning to kill other Americans throughout the Middle East.

And the Democrats claim Trump exceeded his powers under the Constitution and laws of the U.S? After the president ordered the assassination of Soleimini, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reflexively bleated he should have asked permission from Congress before ordering the drone strike.


Did Obama ask permission, Ms. Speaker? And do you remember his air strikes on Iraq and Syria to kill ISIS "terrorists?" Where was Pelosi when Obama bombed ISIS targets for 10 months? When Obama ordered 2,800 air attacks on the Islamic State?


When Trump was first elected, a story went around of how he walked on water to save a drowning man, and how the New York Times wrote "Trump can't swim!"

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman sums it up best: "President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats."

Sen. Lieberman sadly appears to be the last Democrat who is a straight-shooter.

Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 17, 2020

Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea