The comment included in the prayer by Reverend Joseph Lowery where he concluded it ” and when white will embrace what is right” bothered me at first. I pondered the reason it bothered me. What I realized is that it is a superb piece of misdirecting rhetoric.

First, it implies that the actions taken by the white man is wrong. He does not say what action is wrong or which white man, but rather paints with a broad brush and condemns the whole race for “something”. What did the whites do wrong? Vote for Obama?

Secondly, the term ‘right’ is the language of law. The question then arises, which law does he want the white man to follow? If he is referring to the ‘law of the land‘ or the Constitution, (i.e. Constitutional law)  it means that we would need to treat all men equal before the law.It means that the white man, the red man, the brown man and the black all must be treated the same when it comes to the law. There should be no preferences, set asides or affirmative action.

If he is talking ‘common law‘, the white man would need to respect the boundaries of others and to not encroach on them. The white man would also be expected to perform any act he has obliged himself to perform. I realize that not all white men respect boundaries, especially Yankees who meddle in Southern affairs and the matters of the States. It would be good for people to quit meddling in affairs they do not have the legal authority to do. It would be exceptionally good for the empire to not meddle in matters pertaining to the States, like the feds interfering with justice in Jena, Louisiana or forcibly moving people into Vidor, Texas just to mix things up.

If the Rev. was referring to the law of God, then yes, the white man has not done what is right. We all need to return to the law of God (i.e. the Bible). Is he calling for a revival then? I doubt it. A revival would bring real change to the land. It would bring a return to a Biblical morality where perversions and wickedness are condemned. It would also mean that killers and criminals would be dealt with in a swift manner, irregardless of race. It would mean that the government would quit taking over the responsibilities of the church and family in handing out giveaway programs. It would literally end welfare as we know it. It would dismantle the Great Society, and the New Deal. I do not think that Rev. Lowery actually wants that, but if his words are honored by the Almighty and they come to pass, it would be a great thing for the nations. Balaam did not want the Children of Israel blessed, but that is what came out of his mouth.

If the Rev. Lowery was using the laws of ‘Social Justice‘ or what some call the ‘higher law’, it is a call for the white man to end injustice and slavery around the world. It would mean ending sexual slavery, it would mean ending child brides, it would mean military action in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and other locations where slavery and child brides are currently in vogue. It would change the whole policy of the nation from wars over strategic resources to wars over social evils. It is a call for further military escalation and meddling in that case.

If he is referring to tribal law or law of the wild, then right and wrong are all a matter of paybacks. He wants the white man to payback what he feels is owed to other groups. If he is making a call for tribal law at the inaugaration of someone into political office, he is out of his league. Tribal law is conducted on a lower level of social organization. It is hammered out between rival groups, gangs or tribes. When one is leading a nation, that contains many different tribes and groups one has to change the nature of the legal system. To apply the tribal laws on a nation is a misapplication of justice.

So what was Rev. Lowery calling for? What did his words mean in the ears of those who heard him? For the usurper, it was something of pleasure. He smiled when he heard the prayer indicating some agreement with him. What was he agreeing to?

My own suspicion is that it was a tool of misdirection. He used words to stir up feelings? He worked up the crowd without them realizing what he was saying. By stirring up the emotions, he creates a ’straw man’ or a fake enemy which serves as a rallying point for the crowd. Instead of an axis of evil, it implies the wrong of the white man. Given how history works, the same measure he shovels his swill with is going to be used against him. It is my hope that he was not intentional misdirection, although I suspect it was. He may have been telling the people what they wanted to hear, as if they had itching ears. He worked the crowd under the pretense of a call to prayer.

By using the people under such a pretense, what message does it communicate about President Hussein and his regime? Does he agree with misdirecting the people under false pretenses? Does he want to use God’s name for other purposes? Does he condone the manipulation of the masses who react without thinking or considering what was actually said? Time will tell.

It would have been easier to have turned off the television at the offensive display of a ’servant of God’ (i.e. pastor) misdirecting the people. By looking closer at what it was that bothered me about his prayer, it reveals greater insidiousness.

We need honest, honorable men in political office. We also need pastors who are honest and plain speaking.

Free Texas!

J Murrah

common law, Constitutional law, Culture, Current Affairs, Great Society and Obama, Joseph Lowery, joseph Lowerys prayer, Political Well Being, President Obama and Joseph Lowery, Rev Lowery, tribal law, what is right in the law, white man, white man do what is right

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!