A warning from Justice Thomas

When he was in office, former-President Trump made great use of his Twitter account. Twitter's rules allow the user who generates the original message to manually block others from republishing it or responding to it.


Trump blocked several users from interacting with his Twitter account. They sued. The Second Circuit held that Trump's comment threads were "public forums" and he violated the First Amendment by using his control of the Twitter account to block the plaintiffs from accessing his comment threads.


On April 5, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit. Then, in a two-sentence order, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and directed it to dismiss the case as moot because Trump no longer is president. But what is most interesting about the Supreme Court's two-sentence order, was that Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. It sets out what Thomas feels were important issues not considered by the Court of Appeals.


Thomas' concurrence appears to be either a shot across the bow of Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon, or a GPS showing the issues the court wants raised in future cases against the giant digital platforms — or both.


Thomas begins by noting that under its terms of service, Twitter can remove any person from its platform — including the president of the United States — "at any time for any or no reason." But that while Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages, Twitter permanently removed Trump's account from its platform.

"The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least. Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages. Twitter barred Mr. Trump not only from interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all Twitter users from interacting with his messages."

But if the lower court was correct in holding that Trump could not block certain people from interacting with his Twitter comments because he used Twitter as a public forum, then by what right did Twitter have to bar the president from using that same public forum, and everybody from interacting?


Thomas notes the lower court gave no consideration to that First Amendment issue.


Thomas next opines that the court will soon have no choice but to address how existing legal doctrines apply to "highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure, such as digital platforms." He then discusses other important related issues not raised or dealt with by the Second Circuit.



He begins by noting that First Amendment considerations do not normally apply when free speech is stifled by a private party. But he then points out that two classes of private businesses have traditionally been subject to special regulation: "common carriers" and "places of public accommodation." Regulation of those two classes of businesses is traditionally justified either because the private business possesses "substantial market power" or "holds itself out as a common carrier."



The justice then notes that there are clear historical precedents for regulating transportation and communications networks as if they were common carriers. The comparison between the traditional communication networks and today's digital networks is obvious.

"In many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers. Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom communications networks, and they 'carry' information from one user to another."

Given the fact that Facebook has three billion users, and Google Search has a 90% market share, he concludes that "these companies have a substantial market share and no comparable competitors. He notes that one man controls Facebook and two control Google.

"Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time. It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results. Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means." 

Thomas further notes even if digital platforms are found not to be "common carriers," legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like "places of public accommodation." And he warns, "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms."


Finally, he notes that Congress has already given the digital platforms special "immunity from certain types of suits, but it has not imposed corresponding responsibilities, like nondiscrimination, that would matter here."


The digital platforms obtained that immunity from suit by holding themselves out before Congress to be "common carriers."


Free speech in America includes disfavored speech.


Thomas seems to be warning the digital platforms to limit their speech censorship to those few categories of speech that the court has held to be beyond the pale of First Amendment free speech, lest the court intervene.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 7, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Your Gamble with Biden

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the "Modern Monetary Theorists," and now Joe Biden and his Democrat Party are gambling that trillions of dollars can be created out of "thin air" to fund their wishlist of programs — without causing hyper-inflation. They are asking every American who has worked a lifetime to save money to hazard their savings.

From very earlier times, governments have found ways to debase their coinage to benefit the government. A base metal, usually copper, was added to the gold melt. This increased the volume of the melt, and allowed the government to mint more "gold" coins. (The alloy also made the coins more durable).

The earliest "paper money" was what we today would call a "promissory note" — a written
unconditional promise to pay the bearer a sum certain. By the 7th century, merchants in China, who engaged in large commercial transactions, would deposit their money with a banker who would give them his note (a banknote), which required the banker to unconditionally repay the sum stated in the note to the person presenting the note for payment. It was a far more convenient to journey carrying a bank note than to lug about a horde of gold coins. 

In time, governments began issuing their own bank notes. These were also known as "bills," "notes," "paper currency," or "paper money." At first, paper money was backed by the government's promise to unconditionally pay the note in gold or silver. To induce acceptance, the paper money was made "legal tender," — it could be legally used to pay taxes and private debts. 

But with the benefits of paper money, came problems. One of the governmental benefits of using paper money was that it expanded the money supply. Before its use, the government's supply of gold and silver strictly limited the governments ability to coin. If it had a ton of gold, it could only issue a ton of coins -- unless it debased its coinage. But if it debased its coins too much, people wouldn't accept them at full value and inflation resulted.

With paper money, there was no such limit. A government ability to print currency was limited only by its supply of paper and ink. As long at the paper money could be unconditionally exchanged for gold coins, the public had confidence in the paper money. But there was only so much gold. When the face value of the paper money issued, exceeded the value of the gold on hand, then what? The promise to repay "in gold" was replaced by the promise that the paper money was "backed by the full faith and credit of the government." But what happens when so much paper money is printed that the public loses faith in the government's ability to make good its promise? Inflation, or worse hyper-inflation.

To finance our Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress printed paper money — "Continentals." The expression says it all: "Not worth a Continental." The Confederate Dollar fared no better. After WWI, hyperinflation destroyed the Weimar Republic; today it ravages Venezuela.

In the last few months, Presidents Trump and Biden have respectively signed into law "Covid Relief Bills" for $900B and $1.9T. Where will that money come from? What backs it?

Today, to put money into circulation, the government could run the presses, but the job is normally done by the Federal Reserve (the "Fed"). To put money into circulation, the Fed purchases "assets." The Fed is the bank for the bankers. The Fed holds deposits for banks rather like your bank holds the deposits you make. When a bank owns a government bond, the FED can purchase that bond ("asset") from the bank. First, with a computer key stroke, the Fed creates money out of thin air for itself. Then it
uses that key-stroke-made money to buy the bond from the bank. In doing so, it increases the amount of money in circulation.


During the Bank Crisis of the Obama/Bush II years, this is how the Fed saved the banks from their own imprudent investments. It was called Quantitative Easing ("QE"). It caused some moderate inflation — as you can see when you buy groceries.

But if key-stroke money can be used by the Fed to save banks by buying up worthless mortgage-backed securities, why can't it used to fund underfunded State and local pension plans, to rebuild decaying roads and bridges, to finance the Green New deal, and to provide every American a guaranteed monthly income?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Modern Monetary Theorists believe key-stroke money can finance their schemes. They ask the American people to make a leap of faith. They assure us that creating hitherto unimaginable deficits will not lead America to hyper-inflation.

Those without savings have nothing to lose. If inflation wipes out all the savings of those who do, so what? The Progressives will have obtained their goal of perfect economic equality — everybody will be poor. This is the gamble you chose to take when you voted for Mr. Biden.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 30, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

A Poorly Thought out Bill

Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, has introduced House Bill 1727 in Springfield. His bill would abolish qualified immunity for police officers, and immunity for the governmental bodies that employ them, if the officers deprive any person of "rights" guaranteed in the Illinois Constitution, or fail to intervene to prevent the deprivation.

So what exactly is this qualified immunity that presently protects police officers?

The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision Harlow v. Fitzgerald created the rule and remains operative today. Prior to Harlow, a public official enjoyed qualified immunity only if the official believed in good faith that his conduct was lawful, and the conduct was objectively reasonable.

But that rule created a serious problem if there was an allegation that the police officer acted in bad faith. What a person's state of mind was as he acted, is almost always a question of fact. Where a question of fact exists, either party is entitled to a jury trial and full pretrial discovery. The Supreme Court found that these jury proceedings distracted officials from performing their duties, inhibited discretionary action, and deterred able people from entering public service.

For those reasons, the court fashioned the current rule for qualified immunity: "We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

"Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.

"If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to 'know' that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful. Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.

"If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

"Nevertheless, if the official pleading the defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard, the defense should be sustained. But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors."

Rep. Tarver's poorly thought-out "bad apple" bill would deprive a police officer who exists to be sent into harm's way of all legal immunities. He could be sued not only for making a mistake, but also for his inaction. And he could be sued, even if he made no mistake, anytime a person he had dealings with believed himself aggrieved.

By the very nature of the job, police officers are the ones who are sent to deal with life-threatening emergencies. The primary purpose of having police officers is to protect the law-abiding citizens from criminals. In almost all cases, that is exactly what they do.

When a woman calls 911 pleading for police assistance because her husband is beating the hell out of her, it is the police officer who is dispatched. When there is a shooting spree in a school, it is the police officer who answers the desperate call. When there is an armed robbery in progress, when an alarm comes in, it is the police officer who responds. Even the speeder is stopped by a cop.

Every one of these situations has the potential for escalation — for the responding officer to be seriously injured or killed. Weekly we hear reports of an officer being shot or killed while responding to a domestic abuse call, an armed robbery, or a school shooting in progress. Even as they issue speeding tickets.

Without qualified immunity, every officer's traffic stop, every arrest, every use of force has the potential of seeing the responding officer facing a jury trial. All that is required is that the aggrieved person makes the allegation that the officer acted with an improper state of mind. A jury trial will probably follow — even if the allegation is entirely baseless.

The chance of the officer being sued is substantially aggravated because he is very often dealing with irrational people, major and minor criminals, and people who hate cops.

Tarver finds the necessity for HB 1727 in the George Floyd case in Minnesota. But Floyd's civil suit was just settled for $27 million, even though the officer enjoyed qualified immunity. So what is the necessity to deprive all good cops of their qualified immunity?

If an officer has to worry about being sued every time he believes he has cause to arrest, or to use force to stop a bar fight, or fire his weapon to stop a school shooting, why would he act? Why would he even take the job?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 9, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

How about a little Equal Justice

Since the Jan. 6 chaotic and criminal invasion of the halls of Congress in our nation's Capitol, the FBI has been diligently and properly investigating who was responsible for the criminal activity.


What bothers me is that other activity over the last couple years has denied other Americans' rights guaranteed to them by our U. S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, and the FBI and Department of Justice have turned a blind eye.


Where are the conspiracy prosecution of groups who have gone about in uniforms and masks on the public streets and highways, destroying, burning and looting businesses and shops and depriving the owners and leaseholders of those entities of their rights under the Fifth Amendment to own property?


Where are the conspiracy prosecutions against Silicon Valley billionaires and their minions who, under the guise of shutting down "unfactual" and/or "untruthful" speech, have taken it upon themselves on Twitter, Facebook and like sites, to police and censor the speech of their fellow Americans, and to deny them the right to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free press on those alleged common carrier public forums?


On the FBI's website, the FBI states that it investigates violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights.

That statute provides:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

"If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

"They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."


In U.S. v. Guest, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 241 requires proof of "specific intent" to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. But "specific intent" can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

A "conspiracy" is an agreement between two or more persona to do an illegal act. That conspiracy becomes criminal when any member of the group does an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Given the agreement, the act of one becomes the act of all. And that agreement — like specific intent — can be proved by circumstantial evidence — circumstances tending to show there was an agreement.

Now consider the language of Section 241: "If two or more persons conspire to ... oppress, ... any person in any State ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right ... secured to him by the Constitution ... of the United States ...."

So when an order comes from on high at Twitter to block speech of an American who states an opinion that Covid-19 shut downs are "insane, unconstitutional and based on false science," and that that directive is executed by low-echelon employees, or by an algorithm created by them, why isn't this a Section 241 violation?

There is an "agreement" between the party who issues the order, and the lackeys who execute it, there is a specific intent to limit free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and there is an "overt act" in furtherance of the agreement/conspiracy. Result: an American citizen is denied his First Amendment rights to speak freely.

Now consider paragraph 2 of Section 24: "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right ... so secured ...."

How can there be no conspiracy when a gang of thugs gets into "black uniforms," puts on matching masks, and takes to the streets after arranging for the delivery of rocks or incendiary materials to the location of the "protest," and when the weapons are used then by one or more of the similarly attired thugs to destroy property, commit arson, or loot businesses.

The jerks who broke into the Capitol, and wrecked it, richly deserve prosecution. But jerks who conspire to deprive ordinary Americans of their constitutional rights deserve the same attention from the FBI and Department of Justice. Or in America, does only Congress get protection?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 26, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Reaching across the aisle

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, and other "progressive" Democrats recently proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million; a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion.

They state that the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act aims at "reining in a widening U.S. wealth gap."

According to Warren, "The ultra-rich and powerful have "rigged the rules" in their favor so much that the top 1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began."

Warren's statement implies that anybody who is "ultra-rich" has acquired the entirety of their "ultra-wealth" by "rigging the rules" — that their wealth is therefore "ill-gotten."

But if the"ultra rich" 1% have been looting the system to the detriment of the 99%, why impose a piddling 2% or 3% tax? If restitution is in order, returning 2% or 3% is not restitution. Warren and Sanders should be howling that "rigged rule wealth" be taxed at a rate of 100%. Or is it okay to steal a billion dollars, if you share 3% of the loot with the U.S. government?

But I suggest that there are even better reasons for imposing a 100% tax on "ultra-wealth." "Ultra-wealth" gives "the 1%" anti-democratic political power. The 1% can use their ultra-wealth to self-fund their political campaigns. And worse, once they buy their way into Congress, they make tax laws to help themselves and their cronies, and to acquire personal fortunes while holding public office that they never could amass on the salaries of their office.

Take a look at Illinois. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has purported net worth of $400 million. Pritzker, a Democrat, has a reputed net worth of $3.4 billion. They both bought themselves governorships.

And what about our esteemed members of Congress. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, here are the 10 members with the highest estimated wealth in 2018: Mark Warner, D-Virgina, $214.1 million; Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, $189.3 million; Paul Mitchell, R-Michigan, $179.6 million; Vernon Buchanan, R-Florida, $157.2 million; Chris Collins, R-New York, $154.5 million; Don Beyer, D-Virginia, $124.9 million; Nancy Pelosi, D-California, $114.7 million; Dianne Feinstein, D-California, $87.9 million; Suzan DelBene, D-Delaware, $79.4 million; and Fred Upton, R-Michigan, $79 million.

Fifty members of Congress have a net worth of $10.7 million or greater.

According to an OpenSecrets.org report (April, 23, 2020), "a majority of lawmakers in the 116th Congress are millionaires." Sen. Rick Scott, R-Florida, is now the richest at $260 million. Scott bought/won an election after spending $64 million of his own money. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, with a net worth of $137 million, "donated" $10.5 million to obtain his office. Sen. Matt Romney, R-Utah, has a $174 million stash.

Between 2004 and 2020, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's wealth grew from $3 million to $34 million while Speaker Pelosi's grew from $41 million to $114 million. But even the poor get richer in Congress. Colin Peterson, D-Minn., chair of the House Agriculture Committee was worth $123,000 in 2008; now, he has net assets averaging $4.2 million.

Forbes estimated former President Donald Trump's wealth to be $2.5 billion. In 2016, he donated $66 million to his own campaign (but nothing in 2020!) Mike Bloomberg donated $1.1 billion to his 2020 campaign, while Tom Steyer gave $342 million.

If you wanted to be president, could you donate $1.1 billion to your own campaign?

So, if you really want to "even the playing field" in American politics, the proposal by Warren and Sanders won't do it. Money is power. You and I can't spend $28 million to buy political ads. But that's what the Silicon Valley's "ultra-rich" did to elect a Democrat in Texas.

If they really want "equality," they should be proposing a 100% excise tax on accumulated wealth over $2 million and a 100% graduated income tax rate on personal incomes of over $250,000.

If all "loot" derived by "rigging the rules" is taxed at the rate of 100%, "rigging the rules" to enable looting become pointless.

Better yet, it would effectively prevent "public servants" from becoming "rich" while in public office.

And one other benefit: All the ultra-rich who run Facebook, Twitter and other social medial platforms, who have used their wealth and power to trample the First Amendment speech rights of their fellow Americans, would suddenly find themselves as poor as the rest of us.

Of course, such taxes might permanently destroy our economy, but when has that ever bothered our "solons on the hill."

They could call their tax "The Ill-gotten Gains and Salvation of the Democracy Revenue Act." And unless inflation sets in, a person should get on reasonably well with $2 million in the bank and and annual income of $250,000.

The real beauty of my proposal is that it snags millionaire demagogues like Warren and Sanders. Think of me as a "progressive" conservative reaching across the aisle.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 19, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Can Eminent Domain by used to Protect Jobs?

           "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use
           without just compensation ...." IL. Constitution, Art. 1 §15

On his first day in office, President Biden revoked the permit to finish building the 1700 mile Keystone Pipeline to carry oil from Alberta, Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. The Laborers’ International Union of North America condemned Mr. Biden's action. The union says Mr. Biden's Executive Order will destroy 1,000 existing and 10,000 new construction jobs. AFL-CIO President Trumka agrees.


Sen. Joe Manchin (D. WV) has asked Mr. Biden to reconsider, and has set out facts to show that pipelines “continue to be the safest mode to transport our oil and natural gas resources, and they support thousands of high-paying, American union jobs.″ If Manchin is correct and the pipeline is the environ-mentally safest way to move oil and gas, it cannot honestly be regulated out of existence in the name of safety concerns.


But what remedy is available to Keystone workers whose jobs have been "taken" or destroyed by President Biden? How about Eminent Domain?

If the government takes your property for a public use. it has to pay you "just compensation." The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "nor shall property be taken for public use without just compensation."


If you own a house, and the government wants to build a new highway across your property, the government can take all or part of your property. This is known as the power of Eminent Domain. The government passes a law finding that it needs to take your property for a public purpose. But then, it must pay you the "fair cash market value" ("FCMV") for the whole, or for whatever portion of your property it takes. You have the right to have a jury trial to determine what the "just compensation" is for your loss.


And if the taking also diminishes the value of your property beyond the "just compensation" for the part actually taken, you are entitled to additional damages "to the remainder." 

Assume that your house and lot had a "FCMV" of $500K before the government takes of thirty feet of your lawn. Assume further that the "FCMV" of the parcel taken is $30K. Finally, assume that competent appraisers determine that the "FCMV" of your home and the remaining portion of your lot after the take is $400K. Therefore, besides being paid $30K for the portion of the land actually taken, you would be entitled to an additional $70K for "damages to the remainder."


And there are even times when a property owner may be entitled to damages when no part of his property has been taken. Assume you own a gas station. You have ingress/egress to an adjacent highway. You lose that access when the government makes it "limited access." Motorist to get to your station, now have to leave the highway 3 miles East of your station, and use winding back roads to get there. This reduces the "FCMV" of your property 75%. You are entitled to compensation.


From the above, it can be seen that the 5th Amendment affords the landowner whose real property has been taken/damaged broad protections.


But what if the property taken isn't "real estate?" The destruction of easements, leaseholds, or the taking/destruction of "personal property," including crops, franchise rights, patent rights, and trade secrets, all require the payment of "just compensation." 

But does a citizen whose job is destroyed by the President's Executive Order have a compensable property right in his employment?


In 1937, FDR's Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins, thought so when she said that striking "workers had a property right to their jobs."


In 1975, the California Supreme Court said that public employees, who have attained regular status, "have a property right to their jobs."


So, assume that the State of Illinois decides it "needs" the John Deere Administrative Center for a new executive office suite for Gov. J. B. Pritzker. Clearly John Deere would be entitled to just compensation for the taking of its lands and building. But what if Deere relocates to China, and 2000 of its employees permanently lose their employment? Would the employees be entitled to "just compensation" for the "taking" of their jobs for "public use?"


In 2005, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Kelo v. New London that "expropriation of private holdings as part of urban development is justified for the public purpose of increasing jobs and tax revenues."


I would suggest that when a President destroys thousands of jobs in an industry to "Save the Environment" and to create an unknown number of "High Paying Green Jobs," those "jobs"that are destroyed should be considered "property."


If Eminent Domain can be used for the "public purpose" of "increasing jobs" (as per Kelo), Eminent Domain should also be available to compensate workers when the government intentionally choses to their jobs.


If the government wants create a new group of workers, and destroy an older one, for the"benefit of the larger community," the benefiting community should compensate the workers who are being damaged. The purposes of Eminent Domain is to shift the burden of a public improvement from the person whose property is taken to the entire community for whose benefit the public improvement is allegedly being made.


If the Laborers’ Int'l Union, is worthy of its name, it should bring a "reverse" Eminent Domain class action on behalf of its members whose jobs are being destroyed. It should test whether under the Constitution, "just compensation" must be paid when the Government intentionally destroys those jobs for an alleged "public purpose," designed to benefit the entire community.


I find no precedents for such an action. But it's sure worth a try! There is nothing in the 5th Amendment that says "a man's job is not his property." 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 26, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea  

"Chicken Little is alive and well, and in Washington D.C.

Who said fairy tales never come true? Remember the story of "Chicken Little?"

       "Once upon a time there was a little chicken. Everybody called him-- 

        'Chicken Little.' One day, while he was out walking, a bird flew over and
        it dropped an acorn that bopped 'Chicken Little' on his head. 'Chicken
        Little' looked up, and didn’t see anything. And when he didn't, he
        panicked and began yelling, “Help, help the sky is falling! The sky is
        falling! I have to tell the King!” And he went running down the road,
        looking for the King."

Chicken Little, it seems, is alive and well. In fact, it appears he has taken employment within the Biden Administration, and is now running the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Here is the Department's version of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

        "Some ideologically-motivated extremists with objections to the exercise of
        governmental authority and presidential transition ... could continue to mobilize
        to incite or commit violence."

But wait, It's not only DHS that's gone bonkers! Our esteemed Governor, J. B. Pritzker (D) is dispatching 500 Illinois National Guardsmen to augment the 7000 National Guardsmen from sister states who are already in the District to insure that the Bogeyman (a/k/a former President Trump) and his minions (who haven't been seen or heard from since President Biden's Inauguration) don't rise out of the Washington Tidal Basin on a fogey night, and drag President Biden from the White House basement, and tow the Capitol building off to Texas with their pickups.

Now if only the Guardsmen can set up a few hundred machine guns in concrete pill boxes on the Capitol grounds, behind the concrete wall, "unscalable fence," and the guardhouses that have already been erected, our fearless Congressional representatives should be safe, from the hordes of "insurrectionists" wearing MAGA hats, their constituents, and time-wasting future elections.

For four years, the Democrats in Washington have been on a non-stop rant against President Trump's "despicable" southern Border Wall with President Biden leading the charge. That wall, designed to keep illegal aliens, drug dealers, and narco-terrorists out of the country, was an unnecessary "abomination." Ordinary Americans have been told they had to take their chances with drug dealers and murders who crossed out border illegally. The pleas of parents of murdered children were ignored in the halls of Congress. But now, the rule is different for Congress. Our esteemed Congressional representatives must protected with concrete walls, unscalable fences, and 7500 armed soldiers. 

But how can the same political hacks who supported the "defunding of police" all last summer as stores were being burned and looted, as people were being shot, and as neighborhoods were being declared "autonomous zones" by mobs of leftists, now demand extraordinary "police protection" by armed National Guardsmen? 

And why, at the same time as the Left demands a re-writing of the Second Amendment to take weapons from ordinary law-abiding Americans, are our elected representatives hunkered down en masse behind National Guardsman with "assault rifles?" 

Don't chose to misunderstand me. I don't in the least approve of a mob bursting into the halls of Congress and stealing or destroying the property of the American people — or causing death or bodily harm. They should be prosecuted. But what about the rioters — euphemistically described by the press as "mostly peaceful protesters" — who sacked Target Stores, burned down neighborhoods, and assaulted and shot people? Do they not deserve equal justice? 

The press labels the miscreants who desecrated the Capitol as "insurrectionists." So why aren't the miscreants who established "autonomous zones" in American cities and set up their own "governments" labeled "insurrections?" Why aren't the rioters who destroyed priceless American statues, and who burned and looted businesses labeled "rioters." If "the book" is to be thrown at the reprobates who trashed the Capitol, why is it not thrown at the reprobates who destroyed cities, businesses and homes? If the police and the FBI are going to "come down with both heels" on rioters at the Capitol, why aren't they coming down with both feet on rioters in the hinterlands? 

Unless there is "equal justice" for all, President Biden is going to have a devil of a time reuniting the country. You can't punish one group for insurrection and/or riot riot, and not the next.

Our First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The word "people" includes Republicans, Democrats and even Communists and Fascists. But the the Constitution no where guarantees anybody the right to engage in insurrection or riot, to harm or kill their neighbor, or to destroy public or private property. 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 7, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea