The appearance of impropriety causes polarization of the parties

Tuesday, November 8, 2022, was “mid-term election day.” On November 17, the Republicans finally won seat number 218 to give them control of the U.S. House of Representatives, when Mike Garcia was finally declared the winner of a seat in Northern Los Angeles County.

As I write this piece, 10 days after the election, five House seats are still undecided. 25% of the ballots unbelievably still remain uncounted in California District 22!

The Rules of Ethics, governing the conduct of judges, mandate that it is not enough that a judge acts with “propriety.” The judge’s action must also be free from the “appearance of impropriety.” Judges have been sanctioned, even though they committed no wrong, in cases where their actions have given rise to an “appearance of impropriety.”

If our elections are to have the confidence of the American people, that same rule must be equally applicable to our national elections — they must be free of the appearance of impropriety.

When an election takes place on November 8, and when the “counting” of ballots continues on into November 18, it gives the appearance that whoever is counting ballots is committed to continue counting until he “finds” enough ballots for his candidate to win.

When an Arizona Secretary of State, charged with the duty of conducting the election and counting the ballots, continues to count ballots a week after the election, there is an “appearance,” even if not a “reality,” that she is continuing to count until she finds enough ballots to guarantee her own election as governor.

When an operative of either political party goes to a nursing home, provides the residents with blank ballots, assists the residents in filling them out, “harvests” them, and then delivers them to a “drop off box,” that also creates an appearance of impropriety.


In 2004, the Commission on Federal Election Reform was created by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican, in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. The Commission’s Report began, 

"Elections are the heart of democracy. They are the instruments for the people to choose leaders and hold them accountable. At the same time, elections are a core public function upon which all other government responsibilities depend. If elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.

"Americans are losing confidence in the fairness of elections, and while we do not face a crisis today, we need to address the problems of our electoral system."

Sadly, since that date, we have had three major crises.

1. After the 2016 election, when the Democrats and Mueller investigated President Trump, culminating in Trump’s first impeachment for “Russian Collusion.”

2. Stacey Abrams claimed she was the winner of the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial election, and that the election was stolen from her.

3. President Trump still claims that he won the 2020 election, and that Democrats stole the it from him.

The result of the “major crises” is that a great many people do not trust the results of our elections. Even worse, the country daily grows increasingly divided.

All three of these “major crises” are premised on the belief that our elections are/were not secure.

You’ve heard the claims: “There was Russian tampering!” “The ballots were filled in by the ballot harvesters!” “The voting machines are programmed to undercount Republican/Democrat (take your pick) ballots!”


The CFER proposed the following reforms, which still make sense:

• A universal system of voter registration in which the states, and not local governmental units, would be responsible for accurate voter lists. Voters would register only once during their lifetimes. The lists would be inter-connected to allow for easy removal of duplicate registrations and for easy updating.

• To ensure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, states would provide free photo IDs. To make acquisition of the free ID easy, States would increase the number of registration sites.

• Provisional ballots would be provided for voters without a photo ID during a transitional period, which would be counted upon signature verification.

• Voting machines and the software would be pre-tested by independent testing-providers.

• An auditable paper backup system would be used to give confidence to voters using electronic voting machines that their votes will be counted accurately.

• State election management bodies would be reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis to seek to insure independence and effectiveness.

Florida and Georgia required photo IDs in the 2022 election. Have you heard a single claim the requirement disenfranchised voters? Minorities? Caused long lines? What important thing can you do in your life without a photo ID?

The CFER made no recommendation concerning “ballot harvesting.” It didn’t exist in those days. But the solution is simple. Permit ballot harvesting only where a representative of each major party is present to ensure that there is no undue influence by the other party, and that the vote harvested is really the voter’s, not the harvester’s, and video the “harvesting party.”

The appearance that elections are entirely fair eliminates one major justification for the polarization of the two political parties.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 27, 2022. 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

Legislatures cannot tell judges to ignore the most material facts in setting bail

Beginning in 2023, Illinois will have a new law governing pretrial release on bond. Prosecutors are decrying the new law, labeling it “cashless bail.”

While the new law is hardly a model of clarity, I am not sure that it mandates “cashless bail.”

As a starting point, let’s look at the bail law that was in effect during my judgeship.

In the 26 years when I was on the bench, bail in Illinois criminal cases was governed by the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 38, Sections 110-1 thru 110-17.

While other forms of bail were provided for, the two forms that were almost exclusively used were 10% bonds and Recognizance Bonds. The two most important conditions of those two bonds were (1) that the defendant should appear for trial and for all court hearings and (2) that the defendant should not violate any criminal laws while released on bond.

The difference between the 10% bond and the recognizance bond was simple. If the judge set a cash bail for the pre-trial release of the accused, if the bond was set at $5,000, the defendant had to post $500 to be released. If the judge allowed the defendant to be released on a $5,000 Recognizance Bond, the defendant merely signed his name and was not required to post any money. Regardless of the form of the bond, if the defendant violated his bond, the bond could be forfeited and a judgment entered against the defendant for the full amount of the bond (in this example, $5,000).

In those days, the legislature provided in 110 §2:

“When from all the circumstances the court is of the opinion that the accused will appear as required …, the accused may be release on his own recognizance. 

 

“This Section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of relying on criminal sanctions instead of financial loss to assure the appearance of the accused.”

Between 1990 and 2000 when I was Presiding Judge in Criminal, release on recognizance, as shown above, was the expressed legislative preference. For a Class 4 felony cannabis offense, if the defendant had no prior record, the state would almost always agree to the defendant’s bond being a recognizance.

On the other hand, if the defendant was already on bond, probation or parole when the new felony offence was committed, or if the defendant’s record suggested that he was unlikely to appear for trial, or likely to commit additional offenses if released on bond, the 10% bond was used. That was also true in more serious felonies such as burglary, robbery and larger thefts.

My rule of thumb as a judge was to release the accused on recognizance if asked to do so, unless his record suggested that he (a) was likely to jump bond, or (2) his pre-trial release would create a danger to law-abiding citizens and/or their property.


The new Senate bill, begins by stating:

The General Assembly recognizes that the promotion of public safety and protection of crime victim rights are two of the main focuses of our State's criminal justice system; it further acknowledges that protecting the rights of the accused is central to the integrity of our State's criminal justice system.

“… bail but shall instead focus on a person's threat to public safety or risk of failure to appear before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

The new section 110-5 provides:

“In determining the amount of monetary bail or conditions of release, if any, which will reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of bail, the court shall, on the basis of available information, take into account such matters as (some 20 factors are listed).

“There shall be a presumption that any conditions of release imposed shall be non-monetary in nature and the court shall impose the least restrictive conditions or combination of conditions necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant for further court proceedings and protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings from a specific threat to a witness or participant. Conditions of release may include ….”

I read the paragraph immediately above as doing nothing more (a) that creating a presumption or 

preference for “non-monetary” bail, and (b) providing that whether the release is monetary or non-

monetary, that the court shall impose “the least restrictive conditions … necessary.” In short, I read it, just as I read the applicable statute during my years on the bench.

What is bizarre about the paragraph is that legislature inexplicably ignores what it just said earlier in the introductory paragraph to the legislation:

“The General Assembly recognizes that the promotion of public safety and protection of crime victim rights are two of the main focuses of our State's criminal justice system….”

If in weighing the evidence whether to release the accused on “non-monetary” bail, the court cannot consider one of the two legislatively stated “main focuses of the State’s Criminal Justice System,” then the legislation is absurd. But where one interpretation of the law renders it absurd, and a second makes sense, courts opt for the latter result. An absurd process falls short of due process.

Imagine a statute that provided in imposing a sentence for murder, the court could not consider the danger the murderer posed to the public.

The courts of Illinois have jurisdiction over all “justiciable matters.” The legislature cannot tell a court how a case must be decided, or that clearly relevant evidence isn’t.

A statute that tells a court it can’t consider evidence that any reasonable judge would find material, and which the legislature itself says is a “main focus” in the matter, is an unconstitutional as an interference with the “inherent powers of the court” to provide a just result in the matter before the court.

For that reason, to avoid declaring the statute unconstitutional, it must be construed to allow judges to consider evidence that has been found by the legislature itself to be a “main focus,” and to set a mone-tary or non-monetary bond as the obviously material evidence dictates.



First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on November 13, 2022
Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

Begging the Saudis — Biden’s “dog and pony show”

  

                       

 

In July 2022, President Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia. While there, he asked the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed Bin Salam (“MBS”) to increase oil production to help reduce the price of oil and gasoline in the United States. This week, the Saudis and their OPEC allies announced that they would, instead, cut oil production by two million barrels per day!

Compare this seeming kick in Biden’s face with Saudi/U.S. relations during the Trump Presidency.

On May 18, 2018, Reuters reported

“Saudi Arabia welcomed President Donald Trump’s decision … to withdraw the United States            from [President Obama’s 2015] … nuclear agreement with Iran and to reimpose economic sanctions on its arch-foe Tehran.

 

 “[Saudi Arabia] said it would work with the United States and the international community to address (a) Iran’s nuclear program, (b) its ballistic missile program and (c) its support of militant groups in the region. 

 

“[The Saudis claim that] Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destabilize the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region.” 

  

“Trump has frequently criticized the Iran accord because it does not address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its role in conflicts in Yemen and Syria, its nuclear activities beyond 2025, and the terms under which international inspectors can visit suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

So why are the Saudis cutting production rather than raising production?

Could it have anything to do with:

1.     The fact that the Saudis detested President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran? His removal of the economic sanctions the U.S. had imposed upon Iran? The U.S. giving to Iran, as part of the deal, billions of dollars which have been used to fund Iran’s proxy wars against the Saudis?

2.     The fact that then-candidate Biden, in a Democratic Presidential debate, following the assassination of opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi said,

“I would make it very clear we were not going to in fact sell more weapons to them. … We were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are … there is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia, and, … would end the sale of material to the Saudis where they’re going in and murdering [Yemeni] children.”

3.     Would it be in the interest of the Saudis to see oil prices decline? Is it better of the Saudis to sell oil at $130 per barrel or $40 per barrel?

4.     Might it have something to do with Biden’s attempts to revive Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran? Is it in the interest of the Saudis to see Iran with nuclear weapons? Ballistic missiles? Funding proxies? Shooting missiles into Saudi Arabia?

5.     Does “MBS” know that if the U.S. wants more oil all the U.S. has to do is turn on its own spigots? Become oil again“self-sufficient,” as it was in the Trump years? 

                                                       Or,

6.     Do the Saudis know Biden really wants insanely high gasoline prices to force the American people to buy electric cars? Regardless of cost?

Is this whole kerfuffle is “dog and pony show” created to allow Biden escape blame for his own “bughouse” oil polices? To gull an all-too-gullible American public into finding a new villain to blame for high prices. First, Biden blamed the oil companies. Then Putin. Now, “MSB” and the Saudi. And now, rather than pumping cleaner American oil, he wants of buy dirtier Iran and Venezuela oil — from our enemies! It appears that when Biden pledged “I would transition away for the oil industry,” he meant only away from the U.S. oil industry.

To become King of France, Henry of Navarre converted to Catholicism: “Paris, is worth a Mass!” To become President, Biden belatedly “converted” to “The Green New Deal Religion.” He has said his goal is to force Americans to drive electric cars. Driving the price of gasoline up to $10 a gallon is the means to his end. 

One related thought: Three foolish Democrat Congressmen have now proposed legislation to punish the Saudis. “We see no reason why American troops … should continue to provide [weapons and protection] to countries that are actively working against us. If Saudi … want to help Putin, they should look to him for their defense.” 

This proposal is abject stupidity, comparable to Biden’s stupidity in forcing high gas prices. How is it to our benefit to have the Saudi, along with Iran, ally with Putin? 

The Saudis are clearly imperfect friends. But as between them and Iran, I choose the Saudis. Iran hates us. They were responsible for most of the IEDs that killed Americans in Iraq. They fund proxy wars throughout the middle east. The last thing we need to do, is force the Saudis into the arms of Russia or China. We allied with Stalin in WWII. The Saudis pale by comparison to Stalin’s regime. Obama proved we could shower the Iranians with $50B, and that they’d still hate our guts.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 16, 2022 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

 

 

 

 

Are you one of President Biden’s extremists?

Are you an extremist? A threat to our democracy? If you voted for President Trump and supported his policy of “Making America Great Again,” according to President Biden, it seems you are.

On September 1, 2022, at Independence Hall, President Biden charged,

"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic." "MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of the law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election."

The following Thursday, Biden added in a tweet, "Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."

On Thursday, prior to Mr. Biden’s speech, his spokesperson, Karine Jean-Pierre, explained the President’s view of Trump voters:

“The way that he sees it, is the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party. This is an extreme threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our rights.”

Who exactly are the Make America Great Again Republicans? In both the 2016 and 2020 elections, Mr. Trump’s platform was: “Make America Great Again!” In 2020, 74,223,369 Americans voted for Mr. Trump. Weren’t his voters, at the same time, voting for and endorsing Trump’s MAGA platform?

So, who exactly is Mr. Biden labeling as “extremists” when he charges MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution? They do not believe in the rule of the law?

Is he referring to the 74 million voters who voted for Mr. Trump? Or is he referring to the relative handful of January 6th fools who broke into the Capitol?

Note Jean-Pierre’s “explanation” of the president’s remarks “the MAGA Republicans are the most energized part of the Republican Party.” Was she talking about the Capitol rioters? If so, aren’t almost all of them at the present either in jail awaiting trial or in prison? If Mr. Biden is indeed referring only to the January 6th fools, why not explicitly say so? Why label 76 million people who voted to “Make America Great Again” as “extremists?” “Semi-fascists?”

But then, criticism of Trump’s supporters has a long history. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton used the phrase "basket of deplorables" to describe “half” of Trump’s supporters.

But Donald Trump and his supporters are not the only extremists. Mr. Biden would include the six Supreme Court Justices who voted to overrule Roe v. Wade. Following the Dobbs decision, Mr. Biden condemned the six-judge majority and their ruling, labeling it as “a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error. … This is an extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.”

And, of course, if the six justices who returned the abortion question to the states are “extremists,” it must follow that Americans who oppose all or some abortions” are also “extremists.” Jean-Pierre faithfully jumped in, and broadened the attack to include pro-lifers:

“When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

But if a May Gallup poll, and recent PEW poll are accurate, under Jean-Pierre's definition, it would seem the pro-abortion side is the minority, and therefore, the “extremists.”

Nor are parents who oppose school board policies spared being labeled “extremists.” Indeed, their fate is worse. The Heritage Foundation, in a commentary by John Malcolm, details how even parents of school children have been labeled “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” for opposing mask mandates and the teaching of “critical race theory.”

“In a Sept. 29 letter to President Biden, the president and the interim executive director and chief executive officer of the National School Boards Association claimed that “America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.”

Citing a spate of disturbances at school board meetings, "by individuals who were upset about mask mandates and critical race theory curricula, … and stating that such incidents were impacting the delivery of educational services to students and families,” the letter requested Biden to deploy the Justice Department, the FBI (including its national Security Branch and Counterterrorism Division), the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service (including its National Threat Assessment Center) to combat the supposed threats.

The letter stated, without providing support, that “extremist hate organizations” were showing up at school board meetings, and that these protests should be characterized as “equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The letter demanded that “federal law enforcement authorities should employ the full array of tools at their disposal, including the Patriot Act, against these perpetrators of ‘domestic terrorism.’”

President Biden’s platform was that, if elected, he could heal the nation; bring Americans together again. He was a man who would work “across the aisle.” Were those just “campaign promises?” With all his name-calling, it’s as if he has forgotten that he won the 2020 election, and as if he is still running against Donald Trump? If indeed he has had a stellar two years as president, why isn’t he ballyhooing his triumphs?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 9, 2022 

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

                               “Fentanyl killed 22-month-old.” 

That’s today’s lead headline in the Dispatch-Argus and Quad-City Times.

The article sets out the police affidavit, which alleges that the child’s mother and father

 “did knowingly use and sell controlled substances at/from their residence, which would create substantial risk to the well-being and physical safety of the victim, who was their 22-month-old son. … As a result of this risk, the victim was pronounced deceased, which the cause of death was later discovered as an acute drug (fentanyl) intoxication."

But was the fentanyl involved supplied by the Mexican drug cartels? What’s the likelihood? Perhaps we will find out if one of the cases actually goes to trial.

On at least two prior occasions in my op-eds, I have tried to raise the “hue and cry” as to the deadly dangers of fentanyl. On August 7, 2022, I wrote,

“Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate: … fentanyl … accounted for 71,238 deaths in 2021 ….

“The US Customs and Border Patrol website tells us that the eight South Texas ports of entry, during the year beginning Oct. 1, 2020 and ending Sept. 30, 2021, saw a 1,066% increase in fentanyl seized, and a 98% increase in cocaine seized.

“[N]early 4 times as many Americans are being killed by fentanyl as are being murdered by guns.”

Earlier, on March 17, 2022, I cited a proclamation made by President Biden showing his total awareness of the problem.

"I find that international drug trafficking — including the ... global sale and widespread distribution ... of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States."

So, what exactly is President Biden doing to stop the “international drug trafficking” (by the Mexican drug cartels) from creating this “extraordinary threat to the national security” by their “widespread distribution” of fentanyl?

What exactly is Mr. Biden doing to prevent 71,238 Americans from dying of fentanyl poisoning?

Specify any serious efforts Mr. Biden has made to close the border?

Instead, President Joe Biden blithely trips about the country, ranting that "Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country," and raving that “"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic." Not to mention, labeling a vague segment of Trump voters as “semi-nazis.”

And as he gallivants from town to town, thousands of American men, women and children are dying from fentanyl poisoning.

And while he reads from his teleprompter, the Mexican drug cartels are becoming ungodly wealthy and overwhelmingly powerful, as they daily seize control of more and more towns and regions in Mexico.

And why? Mr. Biden has made a crass political decision to keep the border open to illegal immigration, betting that those who cross illegally, and who are showered with taxpayer dollars, will be an ever-grateful and reliable Democrat voting block to assure the Democratic Party a permanent hold on political power.

President Biden turns a blind eye to the fact that in 2021 Mexican cartel drugs have accounted for 71,238 fentanyl, 32,856 meth, and 24,538 cocaine deaths. He turns a blind eye to the fact that through the first nine months of 2022, 750 migrants have died trying to cross the border illegally. And he turns a blind eye to the danger of the drug cartels that daily grow richer and more powerful, and to the fact that they are daily destroying the Mexican state.

We have a President, who rather than protecting the American people from the “widespread distribution ... of extremely potent drugs, such as fentanyl,” acts as “enabler-in-chief” for the poisoning of the American people and their children.

Joe Biden’s “approval rating” wallows in the 30s with likely American voters. His Democrat pollsters are polling the wrong people. They should poll the drug cartels. Mr. Biden’s “approval rating” might well exceed 100%!

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on October 2, 2022 

News of recession parroted White HouseTalking Points

What’s the function of a “free press?” To deceive? Obfuscate? Suppress?

Why does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

In the 1971 cases of New York Times v. U.S, and in U.S. v Washington Post [the “Pentagon Papers cases”], the U.S Government sought injunctive relief to stop the Times and Post from publishing the contents of a classified study. entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”

Six of the nine justices wrote their own concurring opinions in which, as the majority, they ruled against the Government’s request for a “prior restraint” [an injunction allowing censorship]. Four of the six-judges hesitated to say that a “prior restraint” could never be imposed. Mr. Justice Black believed, however, that when The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law,” “no law” means “no law.” I cite the Black and Douglas concurrences because they tell us most succinctly why the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of the press.”

Mr. Justice Black wrote,

“When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms.

 “They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. 

"In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. 

“Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment …

 “The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.

“Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment … wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: 'Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom * * * of the press * * *.'

 “In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.

“The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.

 “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

“The New York Times, the Washington Post … should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.”

Mr. Justice Douglas wrote,

“The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be…

 “Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions there should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate….”

Justice Douglas, however, was also concerned with a press that acted inconsistently with its reason for having been granted such freedom.

“The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused … does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint ….”

So, if (a) “paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people,” and (b) “the dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information,” what happens when the press joins in “government deception?” In suppressing “embarrassing information?”


On Thursday, July 28, 2022, The GDP numbers showed a “second consecutive quarter of negative growth.” That is the traditional definition of “a recession.” Nevertheless, the Washington Post headlined, “U.S. economy shrinks again in second quarter, reviving recession fears,” parroting White House talking points.

Do the “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” equal a “recession,” or merely “revive fears” thereof?

The White House argues, and the Post echoes, “the declaration of a “recession” must instead come from The National Bureau of Economic Research.” “This “two consecutive quarters” declaration only comes instead from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”

But since 1948, the last ten times we have had of “two consecutive quarters of negative growth” and “recessions” as per the BEAs analysis, the NBER subsequently confirmed that indeed all ten periods were “recessions!”

So, when the Post obfuscates the issue to protect the Administration, how is that consistent with the reason for having a free press?

Why not a headline reading, “Country slides into recession, but it may be mild.” Followed by an article explaining the term “recession” and stating why this one’s likely to be mild?

Why not put truth and credibility over partisanship?

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 14, 2022 

The staggering toll of fentanyl

Mass shootings are awful, but what about fentanyl poisonings?

Why do poisoning deaths caused by illegal drugs get so little national news coverage compared to deaths caused by mass shootings?

A mass shooting gets national, wall-to-wall coverage. How many individual murders on the streets of Chicago and our other great cities get even an iota of national coverage?

How many illegal-drug poisoning deaths even get noticed?


Here are a few uncomfortable facts.

• In 2020, there were 19,384 gun murders in the US.

• In 2020 there were 615 “mass shootings” in the USA. These resulted in 521 deaths.

• If in 2020 the mass shootings caused 521 deaths, 18,863 Americans were murdered in shootings, other than mass shootings. 97.3% of the murder victims murdered with guns were not victims of mass shootings.

• In 2020, fentanyl killed 57,834 Americans! In 2021, fentanyl killed 71,238 Americans!  

A. Gun Deaths in US in 2020

According to Pew Research, in 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

That figure includes primarily gun (a) murders and (b) suicides. But it also includes three other, less common types of gun-related deaths.

• In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths were suicides; a total of 24,292 suicides.

• In 2020, 43% of all gun-related deaths were murders; a total of 19,384 murders.

• Of the remaining 2020 gun deaths (a) 535 were unintentional; (b) 611 involved law enforcement; and (c) 400 were from undetermined circumstances.

The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 exceeded the previous peak of 18,253. However, while 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population.

On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

 B. Fentanyl, Meth and Cocaine Deaths in the US in 1920 and 1921

Provisional data from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate:

• Synthetic Opioids (fentanyl) accounted for 71,238 deaths in 2021; 57,834 deaths in 2020.

• Psychostimulants (meth) accounted for 32,856 deaths in 2021; 24,576 deaths in 2020.

• Cocaine caused 24,538 deaths in 2021; 19,927 in 2020.

• Prescription drugs caused 13,403 deaths in 2021; 13,722 in 2020.


Do not misunderstand me. 615 mass shootings, resulting in 521 Americans being murdered is awful. But the murder of 18,863 is far worse. And the 24,538 poisoning deaths from cocaine in 2021 are even worse. As are the 32,856 meth poisoning deaths in 2021.

But fentanyl killed 71,238 Americans in 2021!

The staggering number of 71,238 fentanyl deaths in 2021 is only 5530 deaths less than the 76,768 deaths caused by gun murders, and poisonings by meth and cocaine, combined!

And when you combine the fentanyl deaths with those occasioned by meth and cocaine, you find that 128,632 Americans were killed by these three illegal drugs, as opposed to 19,384 killed by gun murders. Six times as many Americans were killed by fentanyl, meth and cocaine, as were murdered by guns!

The US Customs and Border Patrol website tells us that the eight South Texas ports of entry, during the year beginning Oct. 1, 2020, and ending Sept. 30, 2021, saw a 1,066% increase in fentanyl seized, and a 98% increase in cocaine seized.

At those eight entry ports, from Brownsville to Del Rio, the CBP seized (a) 41,713 pounds of marijuana; (b) 8,592 pounds of cocaine; (b) 33,777 pounds of methamphetamine; (d) 1,215 pounds of heroin; (e) 588 pounds of fentanyl; (f) 463 weapons; and (g) 84,863 rounds of ammunition.

The DEA states that 2.2 pounds of fentanyl has the potential to kill 500,000 people! CDC says a 3-milligram dose of fentanyl, is enough to kill an average-sized adult male. Fentanyl, according to the CDC, is up to 100 times more potent than morphine and many times more potent than heroin. Drug dealers are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.

So, what’s my point?

Every time there is a mass shooting, President Biden and his minions are all over the television demanding gun control, and the banning of certain weapons — proposals that ignore the fact that most criminals use guns that are stolen, or purchased on the black market.

But nearly four times as many Americans are being killed by fentanyl as are being murdered by guns. When it comes to fentanyl, Mr. Biden is back in his basement. Where is Joe Biden’s action to stop fentanyl, cocaine, meth and heroin from flooding across our open southern border?

How many Americans have to die so that the Mexican drug cartels can become richer? More destructive? How hard is it for the cartels, in the absence of Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall, to run illegal drugs into the US between our ports of entry?

When it comes to doing deeds to protect American lives from Mexican drug cartel fentanyl, America appears to have a feckless, uncaring president.

Mr. Biden has said that the stopping transportation of fentanyl across our southern border is a matter of “national defense.” Time for his deeds to match his words. Talk is cheap.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 7, 2022