Obama and MLK's 'Dream' 53 Years Later

When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, I was wary of his associations, economic notions, views on foreign policy and disarmament.

At the same time, I was enthusiastic that a black American who had come from a home without a father, who had lived in Indonesia, and who had experimented with marijuana and cocaine, could overcome those disadvantages.

I was enthusiastic because Barack Obama had succeeded at Harvard, gotten his law license, gotten himself elected to the Illinois state Legislature, then to the U.S. Senate and ultimately to the highest position of trust and confidence in the land -- the U.S. presidency. Someone may have helped him along the way. But he still earned his own success.

I felt the most important message of the 2008 election was that "the doors were open" to any person in the United States -- regardless of religion, color or humble beginnings -- to become president. His success proved that work paid off.

If Obama, a minority, who had formerly messed with illegal drugs could become president, then any child from a broken home messing with drugs in Chicago or LA, could do the same thing -- if he set his mind to it!

Mr. Obama's election dispelled the myth that most of white America still wanted to keep black America down. (In 2010, 72.4 percent of Americans were white; 12.6 percent were black.) Without a great many white votes, Mr. Obama could not have been elected president.

Mr. Obama's election strongly suggested to me that Martin Luther King's dream of an America living up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence was inexorably coming true: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Former President Obama's election and MLK's speech inspired me to write a play, which I called "Mornings After the Dream."

The heroine is "Ethel," a black mother whose husband had been shot to death while perpetrating a liquor store robbery. Ethel was inspired by one of my favorite bailiffs down at the courthouse. All "facts" of my play came from my imagination -- except those pertaining to Ethel's character.

My Ethel is a woman widely respected in her church and her community. She is raising Terry, a surly, disrespectful teenage son, a school dropout, who has gone into the "businesses" of theft and dealing cannabis.

Terry blames the police for his father's death. Ethel doesn't. "It was all caught on a security camera. Your dad came out of the liquor store. ... [He] saw the officer, shot at him twice, and missed. ... The police officer returned fire. The camera showed it all. I must have watched it 20 times. ... You watched it, too, but you sees things that aren’t there, and which aren’t ever going to be there."

My Ethel, however, is a realist: "I realize there are still racists out there. But I also know millions of white Americans put race behind them and voted for President Obama ... Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, President Obama had a dream. Why can't you share in their dream? ... If the white folk didn't work together to stop Barack Obama from getting to the White House, why should they waste their time messing with your?"

If President Obama has moved us closer to Rev. King's dream, then despite any other shortcomings, he will go down as a successful president.


Posted: QCOline.com January 22, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Murder Committed by those with Little Respect for Life

The Fifth Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill.” Nevertheless, in 2016, there were 762 homicides in Chicago. But if God said, “Thou shall not kill,” then why?

Now we hear of a mentally handicapped young man being bound, gagged and tortured in Chicago.

Why?

Guns caused most of those deaths. Progressives, therefore, argue, “Ban all guns!”

But is the availability of guns the true cause of those killings? The torture? Do people who kill or torture their neighbors believe that destruction of human life is morally wrong? Punishable by God? Have they respect for life?

In 2015, Hillary Clinton told attendees of Women in the World Summit, “Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

Reproductive health care was Mrs. Clinton’s euphemism for abortion. She continued, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Fairly read, Mrs. Clinton was saying not just that the right to kill fetuses had to be protected. She was saying that resources (taxpayer funding) should be used to make abortions more readily available. Even more chilling, she said, the religious beliefs of Catholics and those who believe abortion to be a moral wrong must be changed.

Do you doubt her meaning? In the same video she added:

“I would like to see Planned Parenthood even get more funding. ... The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights.” (lifenews.com/2016/08/08/hillary-clinton-make-christians-change-their-religious-views-to-support-abortion.)

Thanks to Wikileaks, we have learned that Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were not her unique personal views.

The Clinton team had already created two organizations designed to undermine the church’s teachings on the right of the fetus to life.

In 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta received an email from Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman stating, “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.”

Newman suggested the Clinton team should “plant the seeds of revolution.”

Podesta responded, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this ... Likewise Catholics United. ”

Newman and Podesta were discussing two politically funded front organizations created to undermine church teaching against abortion -- to convince voters that there is no moral wrong in killing unborn children; to undermine church teachings demanding respect for life.

During the first 15 years of my judgeship, I regularly heard every type of case an Illinois judge could hear, including criminal and juvenile delinquency cases.

Overtime, I perceived a pattern. The sentencing reports prepared by our probation officers contained certain commonalities.

Most criminals/delinquents:

1. Read poorly, and did poorly in school;

2. Came from homes without a father; and

3. Lacked religious affiliation.

I would be shocked if those same commonalities weren’t present in the 762 Chicago homicides; in the torture. People don’t commit crimes for three main reasons:

-- It is against the law, and they might be imprisoned;

-- They have been taught by their families (immediate and extended) the golden rule, and that crime is wrong;

-- Their church teaches that Hell exists and that God severely punishes murderers.

Without family and church, what passes for “moral training” most likely comes from the schools or from the streets. But any street morality that approves selling drugs and using deadly force to defend one’s turf, is not likely to discourage gun violence.

In modern America, people have many reasons why they are not involved with organized religion. But in this political cycle, we have seen something new: the brain-trust of an American party covertly attempting to undermine church teachings protecting the right to life.

Destroy religion, the family, respect for life, and reject morality, and death follows; first, for the unborn, stripped of protections, both moral and legal.

Then, for the rest of us, who are left only with those legal protections accorded us by amoral men.


Posted: QCOline.com January 14, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

 

Does Obama Really Want an Election Redo?

Was the 2016 election unfair? Void?

On Dec. 14, 2016, NBC News, quoting unnamed U.S. intelligence officials, reported that Russian President Putin "became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign" to elect Donald Trump U.S. president. President Putin's spokesman immediately dismissed NBC's report as "laughable nonsense."

So, why should this matter now?


Didn't Hillary Clinton publicly concede the election on Nov. 9?

"Last night I congratulated Donald Trump ... I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. ... I'm sorry we did not win this election...

"We must accept the result and then look to the future ...

"Donald Trump is going to be our president. ... Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transition of power. We don't just respect that; we cherish it."

Is Mrs. Clinton's concession no longer operable? Is the peaceful transition of power no longer enshrined? Cherished?

On Dec. 14, Josh Earnest, President Obama's official spokesman -- who says only what the president wants said -- claimed, "There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia -- everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.”

What was Earnest's factual basis for that claim that Mr. Trump called on Russia to hack his opponent?

Perhaps this! On the stump, Mr. Trump said, "Russia has no respect for our country. ... If it is Russia, nobody even knows it's Russia ... It shows how weak we are. ... how disrespected ....

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 (Clinton) emails that are missing.

"I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be nice."

Trump's sarcasm was obvious. But Earnest heard only a confession of guilt and let his imagination run wild: “It MIGHT be an indication that (Trump) was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.”

But if Mr. Trump was aware, wasn't President Obama also aware? Did candidate Trump have better intelligence than President Obama? Was the CIA reporting to Mr. Trump, but not to President Obama? If the Russians were hacking, why didn't President Obama do something then and there? Whose permission did he need? His mother's?

The president's spokesman is now implying that Russia unfairly interfered in our election to assist Mr. Trump: “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns."


The election was "unfair." Earnest's unspoken, but logical conclusion, is clear: That "unfairness" rendered the election void. We need a new election!

Bizarre? Perhaps. But watch CNN's interview with former CIA agent Bob Baer, who said, “I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence, 'cause IF the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again” (cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/10/robert-baer-new-election-russia-hacking-nr.cnn).

Who does Mr. Baer suggest should decide if America should vote again?

Mr. Baer's proposal would require President Obama to declare the 2016 election "illegal and void." But where in the Constitution is a president -- or anyone else -- given power to cancel election results, cling to power, and require a do-over?

There, of course, are leftist precedents for that. Fidel Castro (1961) announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba, and made himself president-for-life. Would Mr. Baer have President Obama stage a Castro-like coup d'etat? The left decries our "national divide." Would a coup be likely to heal that?

Our Constitution limits President Obama to two, four-year terms, and provides his term ends at noon on Jan. 20.

If the Russians hacked John Podesta's emails, Obama had his at-bat and whiffed. Now, Trump's the batter; it's his job to deal with Russian spit balls -- past and future.

Posted: QCOline.com January 7, 2017

Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea