Paul R. Lehman, The jury’s not guilty verdict of the Philando Castile case sent a message to America

June 20, 2017 at 4:39 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, blacks, Christianity, Civil Rights Ats, Declaration of Independence, Disrespect, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, justice, law, law enforcement agencies, Minnesota, political pressure, Prejudice, protest, Race in America, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With the jury’s finding of not guilty for the officer who killed Philando Castile comes the implied, but a blatant statement from law enforcement that the justice system overwhelmingly favors their agents—the police. The ruling says that in spite of you forcing us to use dash cams, body cams, and surveillance cams, you, the people, cannot prevail over us because justice is what we say it is. Most people of sound mind can usually tell right from wrong, but somehow lawyers, prosecutors, judges, district attorneys and others in the justice system cannot when a member of law enforcement is involved. We the people cannot continue to allow this miscarriage of justice to take place and assume that all is right with the world because it is not. So, what can the people do to replace his misguided system?

Although a disproportionate number of police victims have been people of color, the corruption is not exclusive to people of color, so, all people who want justice to serve everyone should be concerned and involved in bringing about a system that serves everyone. We know that many people are angry and concerned about the lack of justice simply by looking at the makeup of the protesters. While the protests serve a purpose in bringing the problems to public awareness, it should also serve as an opportunity to organize groups to study and develop plans of actions directed at replacing the system. Nothing will happen to replace the system if the people do not get involved and execute specific plans of actions.  Also, change will not happen overnight.

The first order of business is to organize and develop a plan of approach to addressing the problem. The need for this process is important because it saves time and energy. For example, developing a plan to replace the chief of police, if effective, might bring about some relief, but would not solve the problem because the chief is simply one part of the total organization. Any plan to be effective must understand the system and its organizational structure in order to replace it completely. Some of the tools available to the people include political power—finding suitable candidates for the various offices and supporting them to victory; political pressure—the people putting pressure on current politicians to introduce legislation written to address many of the current problems in the justice system; the law—suing the city, police, Fraternal Order of the Police for as much money as possible so they get the message that injustice also comes with a price. Whatever approach taken must involve all concerned citizens, not just the vocal ones, and it must start at the local level.

We have heard all the excuses offered by law enforcement to justify their actions; excuses like “I felt threatened,” or “I felt my life was in danger,” or “I thought he was going for his gun,” or “I was afraid for my life.” All of these excuses and others have been offered as reasons for using deadly force, and yet, in spite of their fears and feelings of trepidations, many of these officers remain on the force. If they are in a state of constant fear or insecure feelings, they should not be in law enforcement. How can they “serve and protect” when they are under constant stress?

In addition to the individual excuses we hear the all too often references to the “bad apples” in the department or the “need for more training,” or “the need for more officers,” or “our lives are on the line every day.” While all those reasons might be valid in some cases, none of the excuses explains why departments do not do a better job of vetting future officers or explain why some officers think it is fine to knowingly use excessive force, or officers using common sense and a degree of patience before resorting to deadly force, or spend more time educating departments and officers on the meaning of all people living in a diverse society rather than training in military combat tactics. Enough with all the excuses; ways and actions speak louder than words ever will.

We, the people, are tired of the unjust actions of the criminal justice system and its agents as well as the over-used excuses to try to justify and maintain the system. We are not trying to appeal to a sense of Christian fellowship or valuing our common humanity or democratic principles when we protest and ask for fairness for ourselves and fellow citizens, but to human decency and to a simple attempt to know the difference between right and wrong, and to seek to do what is right.

We should not take lightly the necessity for change in the system of justice as it continues to wreak havoc on the lives of people of color in general and show disregard for the rights of many of its citizens. To seek a replacement of the unjust system is not a suggestion, but a responsibility as noted in the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” The founding fathers believed that replacing a corrupt and abusive system was not simply a choice but a “duty” of the people. The focus is not replacing the government, but the abusive system. We should not look to violence as part of a remedy for injustices, but the legal tools that are available and most of all, the people.

Change and replacement of the criminal justice system will not come easy or quickly because of the long years of its entrenchment, but it must come. Any plan for replacement must begin at the local level and involve as many people possible—strength in numbers. People wanting to join in the effort should look for groups and/or organizations already active in the process. Joining efforts with other individuals and organizations does not mean one has to agree with everything the group or organization represents but agreeing on replacing the justice system should be the primary focus.

Paul R. Lehman, The movie “12 Years A Slave” provides 12 valuable lessons for America

March 23, 2014 at 3:47 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Indian, blacks, Christianity, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, identity, justice, liberty, movies, Prejudice, race, segregation, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The movie, 12 Years a Slave, won an Oscar award as this year’s the Best Picture, and well it should have because of the picture of slavery it presents. Many viewers based their evaluations of the movie on how the system of slavery dehumanized and denigrated the slave, showing the harshness of the punishment and pain endured by the slaves. In those cases, once the movie is over, the memories of the viewers rest with the experiences of the slaves. However, the movie’s most valuable and significant element rest in its intrinsic objective—to provided a gift to America of a valuable teaching tool.
The movie, followed by mature and informed discussions, should be a requirement for all Jr. High and High school students because of the way the movie presents the concept of slavery, and how it reflects American life. By doing so, we all can gain unique lessons from it. Let us take a look at twelve of the most obvious lessons we learn from slavery. These lessons are not arranged in an order of priority and most of them overlap, but relate to slavery as viewed from the movie.
First, the movie shows how the enslavers become dehumanized when they treated the slaves as animals. Watching a human being degraded through inhumane punishment and pain reflects on the ones inflicting the actions and the reasons for doing so. The power to whip a human being to death does not make one a human being for using that power, but more a brut for dropping to that level of behavior.
Second, the movie shows how the actions of the enslavers to dehumanize the slaves represent a form of insanity. Although the slaves were human beings, they were viewed and made to view themselves as animals; most people treat their animals with a degree of respect for the service they render. So, when the action of an enslaver goes against common sense, and what is considered normal thoughts, the result is a form of insanity.
Third, the movie shows that all African Americans were not slaves; many were free, educated, business and property owners. For example, Paul Cuffee owned several sailing ship, made and sold sails. In Louisiana, Cyprian Ricard owned almost a hundred slaves (Yes, even some African Americans owned slaves, but not all African slaves); a cabinetmaker from North Carolina, Thomas Day, employed a number of European Americans; and in New York City in 1924, seven African Free Schools were supported by the public. The schools were called African Free Schools, not Negro or black or colored because those terms lacked specificity. So, Solomon being a free man was not an isolated case; not all African Americans were slaves.
Fourth, the movie shows how all European Americans were not supporters of slavery. Had it not been for the characters played by Brad Pitt, and Mr. Parker, both European Americans, Solomon would not have regained his freedom. We also note the behavior of Solomon’s first young master how Solomon was treated with a small degree of respect for his knowledge and skills. All enslavers did not treat their slaves the same.
Fifth, the movie shows how slavery created guilt-feelings in some of the European Americans who knew that slavery was a false concept and that the Africans and African Americans were human being, just like themselves. The guilt came from the fact that they knew slavery was wrong, and in contradiction to the Declaration of Independence and the Bible. Yet, the suspension of truth and reality was substituted for the make-believe concept of viewing human beings as animals and property. The fact that any form of formal education was denied the slaves to promote the idea that they could not learn. This action was a deliberate effort to hide the truth and protect their guilt.
Sixth, the movie shows how laws regarding the ownership of property were generally respected. The laws of property rights reflect the world of finance and business. These laws seemingly took precedent over laws regarding human concerns. A man’s worth was indicated not only in his money, but also in his property including land and slaves. The laws were created and enforced by the wealthy property owners.
Seventh, the movie shows how the insanity of slavery helps us to understand many of the attitudes and actions of some people today, especially the concepts of ethnic bigotry based on skin complexion. European Americans firmly believed that the color of their skin was a biological fact of superiority. The reference to their color as a sign of power was used constantly, especially the European Americans who were hired hands.
Eighth, the movie shows how the belief in slavery promoted a false sense of power, privilege, arrogance, and prestige. For all intent and purpose, the movie shows how some slave masters viewed themselves as gods, controlling the total lives of their slaves. In addition, other European Americans believed that they were created to be masters over other ethnic Americans, so they behaved as though it was a fact.
Ninth, the movie shows how slavery used Christianity in a hypocritical way, for generating fear, intimidation, and discipline. In essence, if the slaves did not practice being good slaves, then God would punish them through the slave masters. Church service for the slaves was a mockery of Christianity since the preachers always quoted scripture that encouraged the slaves to obey the masters and be good slaves.
Tenth, the movie shows how some European Americans believed that the Declaration of Independence was for all people, and some European Americans believed it applied only to them. The European American property owners believed they were entitled to more power, privilege, and prestige than the average European Americans. The country, in essence, belonged to them.
Eleventh, the movie shows how the secular and Christian standards and values did not apply to the enslavers. If a master wanted to procreate with his female slaves, he did so without impunity. His neighbors and fellow citizens gave little thought to what he did to his slaves regarding morals and values.
Twelfth, the movie shows that wedding vows were simply a matter of convenience, not law, with regards to who the master slept or with whom he fathered children. The wives of slave masters knew their place generally, but none-the-less, witnessed daily the handiwork of their husbands in and around the plantation.
The movie, as an invaluable gift, should be used because it tells us who we were, how we got to where we are, and what we need to do to move forward.

Paul R. Lehman, Fairness and Justice not possible in America with the concept of races

February 19, 2014 at 6:26 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Indian, American Racism, Christianity, democracy, DNA, equality, fairness, identity, justice, Puritans, Race in America, skin color, Slavery, UNESCO, whites | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the great ironies in America is the fact that people try to act as if ethnic bias only exist part of the time. America has been a nation of bigotry from its beginning. The control of the power and privileges of their ethnic group was the concern of the Anglo-Saxons from the earliest accounts of their life in the new world. The pilgrims and Puritans did not believe in equality and fairness. They believed rather in class status based on wealth and titles. In their eyes, whatever status one was born into, he or she should remain in that status for life. They believed that if God had wanted them to be in a different social class, then he would have put them there at birth. They had little or no reservations about killing the Indians, whom they called savages, because they believed that God wanted them to clear the land for themselves. American was God’s gift to the Anglo-Saxons; they were to be the supreme and superior leaders of the new nation. In addition, while transporting their culture to the new world, they introduced along with American slavery, the creation of race by color and geography. Therefore, ethnic bigotry is one of the basic fabrics of American culture.
Fast forward to today and we find much of that sentiment still exists in the minds of many European Americans. Anglo-Saxons Americans controlled who came to America and who could live here and that was accomplished through immigration laws. One of the more significant and influential immigration laws based on ethnicity control was the Johnson-Reed Act:
The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States. Many in Japan were very offended by the new law, which was a violation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Japanese government protested, but the law remained, resulting in an increase in existing tensions between the two nations. But it appeared that the U.S. Congress had decided that preserving the racial composition of the country was more important than promoting good ties with the Japanese empire. (http://history.state.gov)
Ethnicity has always been a concern in America; especially with the citizens who call themselves white (European Americans). When these Anglo-Saxons realized that the ethnic composition of America was in danger of change, they had to take drastic actions. That action involved bringing into the so-called white race that group of European immigrants that had not been accepted as white were now admitted to the club. The use of a term, “Caucasian,” that came into existence just prior to 1800, was called into service: “The idea of a “Caucasian race” represents whiteness ratcheted up to a new epistemological realm of certainty “(Whiteness of a Different Color,” by Matthew Frye Jacobson). The reason for this change was to keep the country from changing its ethnic composition
Once a lie is told, more lies have to be told to continue hiding the truth. That has been the case for America since the creation of the concept of races, black and white. The truth has been available regarding race for many years. For example, in the Bible, we learn that all people are of one blood:
24 “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[a] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,” (Acts 17:24-26 KJJV)
On numerous occasions the scientists and scholars from the U.N. has made it known that the term “race’ is not correct or accurate because it has no basis in fact:
Science – modern genetics in particular – has constantly affirmed the unity of the human species, and denied that the notion of `race’ has any foundation. In the words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, `the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity’. This Declaration was adopted unanimously at the 29th session of UNESCO’s General Conference on the 11th of November 1997, and then by the United Nations General Assembly on the 9t” of December 1998, as part of the celebration marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (UNESCO 2001)
We can even go the recent science where we learn from DNA that:
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. (geonomics.energy.gov)
What we discover is that America continues to live in denial about the myth of race, and until it can debunk that myth, the lie will continue. But even more, as long as the concept of races exist in America, fairness and justice are not possible, because everything is seen through the prism of race. Every American lives daily in an atmosphere where bigotry is so common that it is presumed not to exist. How can we talk of fairness and justice when we have not divorced ourselves from the concept of black and white races? Go study.

Paul R. Lehman, Article on “The Race of Jesus” failed to address the truth of race.

December 31, 2013 at 12:38 am | Posted in African American, American Racism, Bible, Christianity, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, Human Genome, Jesus, Media and Race, mixed-marriage, Prejudice, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jesse Washington in an Associated Press article, “The Race of Jesus: Unknown, yet powerful,”(12/29/13) presented a discussion relative to the race of Jesus , and employed the comments of a number of individuals connected to the Christian religion to give their ideas, beliefs, and opinions. Although the article was interesting it failed to address the real question at the heart of the problem—race.
The comments of many of the individuals reflect a variety of concerns relative to Jesus’ race. For example, the article noted a statement from Edward Blum, a co-author of a recent book “The Color of Christ” who said ”I find it fascinating that that’s what people really want to know—what race was Jesus. That says a lot about us, about Americans today.” He continued with “Jesus said lots of things about himself—I am divine, I am the son of man, I am the light of the world,… what race is light? How do you racially categorize that?”The statement simply adds to the question rather than address it confusion.
Another clergyman, Doug Jacobsen, a professor at Messiah College with work emphasis in church history and theology stated that “Today, in our categories, we would probably think of him [Jesus] as a person of color.”The reference to Jesus’ color has to do with his birth place being in the Middle East. Jacobsen’s comment was in part a response to the Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s statement about Jesus being white that initiated a national discussion on the subject.
Other scholars and clergy commented regarding the race of Jesus and whether it was important or not. In most cases we were told that it really should not matter. However, we were told that “In America, white Jesus images started to become widespread in the early 1800s, according to Blum, coinciding with a dramatic rise in the number of slaves, a push to move Native Americans further west, and a growing manufacturing capability.” Washington noted that “Today, a white Jesus image is ingrained in American culture.” Another statement by Blum underscored Washington’s statement: “ When we live in a world with a billion images of white Jesus, we can say he wasn’t white all we want, but the individual facts of our world say something different.” Something else added to the discussion was that the image of Jesus usually matched the ethnicity of the people worshiping him all over the world.
The article concluded with the words of Carol Swain, a race scholar from Vanderbilt University, who believes that the entire race of Jesus question is irrelevant: “Whether he’s white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what’s important is that people find meaning in his life….As Christians, we believe that he died on the cross for the redemption of our sins.” She added, “To me, that’s the only part of the story that matters—not what skin color he was.”
So, by the end of the article, the race of Jesus was never settled. Are people supposed to continue believing what they have always believed about the race of Jesus? Unfortunately, that is the conclusion we were left with after the comments from all the religious experts. The most disappointing part of the article was that the fallacy of race was never addressed. All the experts accepted the concept of race based on color without debunking the notion of race as having no biological bases. The simple answer to the problem of Jesus’ race is that he was “the son of man” and thereby, a member of the human race. As a society we continue to deny the fact that multiple races of human being do not exist. The information concerning the fallacy of race has not been hidden from us, yet we continue to live as if it does not exist or is not relevant to us. What we know for certain is that the denial of the fact is very much a part of our every day life. We continue to live the lie.
In 2001, Mr. Pierre Sane, Head of the UNESCO Delegation to the meeting of the World Conference Against Racism, and Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences, addressed the conference and made the following statement:
As early as 1948, UNESCO initiated a programme which, through the dissemination of scientific facts, established the fallacious nature of racist theories. The results of the work of eminent experts convened by UNESCO were summarized in four statements on the question of race.’ These statements elucidated the genesis of theories of racial superiority. They emphasized that the biological differentiation of races does not exist and that the obvious differences between populations living in different geographical areas of the world should be attributed to the interaction of historical, economic, political, social and cultural factors rather than biological ones.
The language cannot be any clearer—“biological differentiation of races does not exist.” Rather than engage the reality of our society’s denial of the truth regarding race, we pretend that all is well just the way it is. The problems we create by not telling the truth are many and involve how our children and grandchildren will view us once they realize the reason for the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of their parents, grandparents and society. They will come to realize that the concept of race led to discrimination and the creation of racism. When they look back on our history they will recognize and understand that all the so-called values and standards promoted as requirements of good citizenship were all connected to the myth of race which was constantly defended as real.
So, what the article on Jesus’ race shows us is that the denial is still alive and well in our society and the truth is conveniently avoided at every juncture for fear the deceit and hypocrisy will be exposed. The clergy, of all people, should be the leaders in promoting the truth—saying that races does not matter is not a rejection of race; it is an escape clause that kicks the can down the road.

Paul R. Lehman, A President Obama critic exposes his thinking and that of his like-minded group in a mock Divorce Agreement

November 11, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Posted in Affordable Health Care, African American, American Bigotry, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, Christianity, democracy, Democrats, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, GOP, justice, Media and Race, Obamacare, Oprah Winfrey, Prejudice, President Obama, Race in America, Republican Party, Respect for President, the Republican Party, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s haters go to any lengths to try and recruit like-minded people. The internet and other social media outlets are their transmissions of choice. In an effort to underscore the problems with the perceptions of these Obama haters, the follow email is offered as an example of proof of their total lack of reality and full-fledged lack of reason. Nothing has been altered relative to the text or content of this email.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT–
WRITTEN BY YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT
The person who wrote this is a college (law) student.. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT’S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I’LL VOTE FOR HIM.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, etal: We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is our separation agreement:

–Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

–We don’t like “spreading the wealth” so we’ll keep ours and you can spread yours all you want.
–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio diesel.
–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, home boys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–We’ll keep “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and we’ll keep “In God we trust”
on our money.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.
–We’ll keep our Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”
–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.
–We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

This email is from a person who is representative of people who see themselves as civil, Christian, patriotic, and who understand law, politics, human decency, responsibilities associated with living in a society, common sense, fairness, justice, democracy, and honesty. We waste time and energy in attempting to communicate or argue (intelligently) with like-minded people. No firm ground or base exists on which to build a rational discussion.

One wonders why this person is so angry and full of hate, prejudice, fear, bigotry and confusion, because with all the things he believes are going against someone like him, trying to help him would be a lost cause. Life for Wall must be a miserable experience since it appears that most of his time is spent in finding fault in other people. The name on the email, John J. Wall, seems appropriate in that the ideas and opinions expressed seem to belong in the setting his name suggests.

We should not overlook the people who forwarded the Wall’s email. Their sentiments were ones of joy, happiness and hope for Wall’s future. Wall is seen as some type of hero or new leader because of the criticisms and name-calling relative to President Obama and his supporters.

After reading this email from Wall, the only reasonable feelings that impact us are ones of sadness and compassion for the writer. He lives in the greatest country on the planet, enjoys the freedoms and privileges protected by our Constitution, yet lacks the where-with-all to enjoy and appreciate what he has. Trying to reason with Wall and his friends would be next to impossible because they probably believe that God is a Christian, conservative, Republican who wrote the Bible just for them, and in American English.

Paul R. Lehman, President Obama’s critics show lack of knowledge in how government works

October 22, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Posted in Christianity, democracy, Democrats, Disrespect, fairness, GOP, justice, Oklahoma, President, President Obama, Republican Party, Respect for President, The Oklahoman | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A very sad and unfortunate fact today is that many of President Obama’s critics do not understand how their government works or the job of the president. Many of them think he has the power of a dictator or king; some even think of him as a super man who can do all things simultaneously. In any event, the fact that they use their free speech to ridicule President Obama actually has the opposite effect. A few examples should demonstrate the point. The examples are three letters published in The Oklahoman’s “Opinion” section of that paper.
The first letter was written by Charlie Taylor of Norman, Oklahoma (10/11/13) who stated that “If President Obama had what it takes to be commander in Chief of the best military in history, if he had even 1 percent of the integrity, class, patriotism and guts shown by the lovable, beautiful veterans of World War ll, Obama would be at the World War ll memorial every day….” We need to pause here before we continue this sentence and examine just what Taylor has said. First, he questioned President Obama’s intelligence and ability to serve as Commander in Chief, a position that goes with being President as if the office was vacant. Next, he questioned President Obama’s integrity, class, patriotism, and intestinal fortitude as consisting of less than 1 percent. No word was said about how these qualities of character should be displayed or not displayed; as far as Taylor is concerned, President Obama does not have them. And if he did have them, how would Taylor measure the 1 percent?
Taylor’s sentence is conditional in that it begins with the word “If” and demands a “then” conclusion to make it effective. So, according to Taylor, if President Obama could meet all the qualifications listed, then he would be at the World War ll Memorial doing what exactly? Well, the Commander in Chief would neglect all his other duties while “…escorting them [the veterans] as they tour the grounds and reminisce about their feats and buddies. He would be thankful for the honor of pushing their wheelchairs.” Taylor definitely shows his understanding and knowledge of how our government works, especially the executive branch.
In his letter (10/12/13), Charles Nichols of Oklahoma City showed his extensive knowledge of politics and the presidency. He stated that “The primary difference between the two parties is that Republicans want a minimum shutdown affecting a few people as possible and the Democrats want a maximum shutdown hurting as many people as possible.” We do not know where Nichols obtained his information, but now we know why there were problems agreeing on reopening the government. Nichols offered more information to support his contentions. He stated that “The proof can be seen by Barack Obama’s action to close down such things as the veterans cemeteries that hurt no one and cost nothing.” Well, now that Nichols has proven his points, we can move along to more serious things like Obama’s lack of religion.
The final letter was written (10/12/13) by Larry Phillips of Walters who believes our society is in trouble because President Obama has no religion and wants to take it away from everybody. Phillips began his letter by stating that “I’ve heard it said that the Obama administration is the most anti-religious of any administration ever. I beg to differ. It’s the most anti-Christian administration ever. It doesn’t seem to be concerned with Islam, Hinduism or any other religion except Christianity.”So, now we see President Obama as the number one anti-Christian, and this information is based on what? We are not told how that information was obtained, but we are given more information. Phillips stated that “It won’t be long before a minister won’t be able to preach the word of God from the pulpit without fear of prosecution.” From where does this information come? Why is it that President Obama always end his speeches with the phrase “God bless America” if has no religion? Wait! Phillips has the answer: “It’s already happened in Canada; we won’t be far behind.” So, we will follow in Canada’s footsteps. At this point in the letter Phillips seem to shift his attention away from President Obama to pass judgment on a number of other concerns: “Political correctness will be the downfall of America. Stating God’s commands will soon be labeled as hate speech, punishable under law. We’re losing our right to free speech in the name of political correctness and our fear of offending someone.” Phillips, evidently, had no fear of offending President Obama. He concluded by stating that “This is no longer a nation under God. We are declining at an alarming rate. It’s time to become spiritual warriors before it is too late.”
In a democratic society, addressing social problems are a constant necessary with which we learn to live. However, the tone reflected in the three letters above indicates a sense of doom and gloom in our President and society. President Obama’s critics seem to see him as a super man or a demon or both. In any event, they seem to think that society will be destroyed because he is President. The concept of our three branches of government seems to be lost on these letter writers who probably represent many more like-thinkers. To them President Obama is the beginning and the ending of all America’s problems. Some have tried to place the blame for the fear and hatred relative to President Obama on the fact that he is a democrat, and some of that is perfectly acceptable, however, thing like integrity, patriotism, intestinal fortitude, and class have little to do with his political identity, but fall directly on his character.
When we take the time to examine these letters carefully, what we discover is that the letter writers are really reflecting their own qualities. They are participating in what psychologists call projection: “to make a thought or feeling seem to have an external and objective reality, especially to ascribe a disturbing personal thought or feeling to others.” The lesson to be learned here is in our passing judgment on others we should be certain to use both knowledge and wisdom: “knowledge knows that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.