It's about our community and our spirituality!

Barack Obama Is No Man Of Peace

The epitome of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The man not only preached peace, it oozed from his every orifice. When the white establishment notched up its machine of violence and oppression, when the police were wielding their batons and letting dogs maul peaceful protestors, when white men bombed black churches under the cover of darkness and killed four little black girls, when defenders of white supremacy hid in the shadows and aimed their weapons of destruction at men who only wanted equality, Dr. King’s philosophy was to love those who meant us harm. Violence was not the answer. A true man of peace would know better.

When I think of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the last thing I would think of would be a person who would condone war as a means to peace. Although it is believed that war is an unavoidable part of the human social condition, people who initiate wars, people who contribute to wars, people who escalate wars, people who dream of wars, aren’t usually thought of as Nobel Peace Prize contenders. While we might appreciate our soldiers, nobody gets the Peace Prize for their ability to kill and win wars. If that was the case, J. Robert Oppenheimer would’ve won the prize for being the father of the atomic bomb. And companies like Lockheed and Boeing would be consistent Peace Prize contenders and winners for their latest and greatest killing machine with exponentially more fire power than last year’s weapon of destruction.

Normally, the Peace Prize is aimed squarely at people who have demonstrated an unwavering objective towards peace. Dr. King preached incessantly about turning the other cheek. One has to admit, that sounds like someone who is doing their damnedest to keep the peace and is worthy of being recognized as such.

President Barack Obama is no man of peace. He has demonstrated time and time again that he has no real desire to work for an end to war. His whole response to the status quo of inequality and subjugation is to look the other way or to simply do what the majority of people want in order to keep whatever remains of his popular appeal. For a black man to become President of the United States, it wouldn’t look good if he supported the black community. These days, a President of the United States has to keep the status quo of racial inequality that is becoming more and more popular as more people try to convince everyone that racism is a thing of the past regardless of the inequality that continues to manifest. A man of peace would not be afraid to talk about inequality because a man of peace isn’t searching for status or material wealth or power or anything else that might be an impetus for war.

A man of peace does not fight a war in an oxymoronic bid for peace. A man who fights war is a man trying to kill, maim, and obliterate his opponents into silence or submission. The peace that is gained is the peace of intimidation and domination. It’s the kind of peace that a parent might gain from their child with a painful slap across the child’s face. It’s the kind of peace a man or woman gains from their significant other when he or she is aggressive and regularly uses violence to enforce their way. It is the kind of peace that comes not from understanding but from overwhelming power and an ability to conquer. A man of peace does not stand up to accept a globally recognized prize of peace with a promise to escalate war.

If Mr. Obama did not hold the key to the most destructive war machine on the face of the planet, his appetite for war would be much different. But since we have confidence in our ability to kill with utter force, we can afford to escalate hostilities on armies with only a fraction of our troops, strength, destructive capability, or our wealth. It is always far easier to escalate war against people who are poor and a people who are believed to have no redeeming values. On the other hand, a man of peace would find a way to keep guns silent and keep destruction at bay.

When the Nobel committee announced that Mr. Obama was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, many people wondered why. He had no real record to point to show that he earned such recognition. Many people thought his selection was premature. But others said that he would earn his prize with his future decisions and accomplishments.  In the aftermath of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, a man who invited those who wished us harm to engage us in conflict with the infamous words “bring’em on”, nearly anyone who replaced him would have looked like a real peace prize contender.

But today, we see exactly what kind of man was selected. Mr. Obama is a man who refers to himself as a Commander in Chief at war. In many respects, he sounds exactly like his predecessor who professed to be a man of peace as he initiated two wars. Mr. Obama professes to be a man of peace as well. And as soon as he kills the enemies of the United States, as soon as we kill everyone who does not share the values or our high minded majority, we will have the kind of peace that is attainable only through conflict. But a man of peace knows that such a peace is a temporary thing.  A true man of peace doesn’t talk about peace while keeping the world’s mightiest war machine in his back pocket.

Friday, December 11, 2009 - Posted by | Barack Obama, Life, Thoughts |


  1. Sir, I have read many of your posts,and by far, this is indeed your Magnum Opus. For me this post brings home all my frustrations with war, American exceptional-ism, Obama’s troop escalation, imperialism, the Military Industrial Complex, and the on going nihilism here in America.

    It’s obvious that you listened to that speech and was able to decipher the Orwellian double speak that so many of us Black folks missed. If anybody in this country should know the effects of war it should be us as we’ve been on the short end of the economic war for centuries.

    This is why it was insulting to me when I heard Obama reference Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his speech. He referenced a man who spoke out against the Vietnam war; a man who if it wasn’t for his stance on that war who would be alive today to condemn this war. A man who’s life was cut short on the eve of him delivering what would have been his most controversial speech ever condemning this great nation as many of “us” should be doing right now.

    But no, instead, many of “us” or “our folk” are still drunk off the symbolism that was his presidential victory. Many of “us” are still on a high enough so to give him a pass on this one, and even addressing our economic woes, and the brutal realities of our economic inequality in this great nation – a nation where in these very wars we continue to serve, and for what?

    Comment by RiPPa | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  2. Thanks for the feedback RiPPa,

    True praise indeed! Unfortunately I agree with every word you write. Our community still suffers from the kool aid called Mr. Obama’s election. Black people are still singing his praise without even bothering to look at his record. Unless Barack Obama comes out and just bitch slaps the hell out of everybody’s black grandma, the black community will never wake up and see this man for the charlatan he truly is.

    If Mr. Obama was a man of decency he would never utter Dr. King’s name again as some kind of role model for his actions and thoughts. But so many people are ready to heap big praise on Mr. Obama as the direct result of Dr. King’s work. But this man is no student of Dr. King. If anything, Mr. Obama would be one of those people who would look the other way as the establishment brought Dr. King down.


    PS – As President, Mr. Obama can see every classified, top secret document surrounding Dr. King’s death. I wonder why he doesn’t. Maybe he truly doesn’t care.

    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  3. While I agree that war sometimes becomes a necessity, I don’t see a righteousness in the way we are conducting this so called ‘war on terror’, and I have, from the beginning of the Nobel talk, disagreed with the committee’s decision to award the peace prize to President Obama. As you stated, he has no real record up to this point, and justifying a war in the same breath of acceptance is rather confusing to me. I’m quite sure there were a score of other people far more deserving of the prize this year. I felt that way when Al Gore was given the prize for his contradictory global warming fight versus how his lifestyle operated. But then again, anymore the Nobel Prize seems to be as political as anything else these days, so it should really come as no surprise to any of us when some politician, regardless of true merit, wins this award.

    “As President, Mr Obama can see every classified, top secret document surrounding Dr. King’s death. I wonder why he doesn’t. Maybe he truly doesn’t care.”

    As a man who was in the military, and a government employee earlier in life, this statement isn’t entirely true. Security clearances of the same level do not provide the same privilege across the board to all who hold them, and this is true at all levels of security clearance protocols. Being President does not ensure this. He may be given the highest security clearances in the land, by necessity, does not ensure that all classified documents are at his leisure. I can tell you with 100% that no President, since the very early days of our country has had such privilege. There are other organizations within the security complex that can withhold this information, and a lot easier than one would think. So one reason why he doesn’t view the documents on Dr King’s assassination might be because he isn’t allowed the access. As to whether or not he truly cares, however, is obviously up for debate.

    Comment by Mike Lovell | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  4. Thanks for the feedback Mike Lovell,

    So as a former member of the military, you admit that there is a conspiracy to keep the information surrounding Dr. King’s death out of the public’s eye.

    Seriously, I understand that there are layers of secrecy surrounding Dr. King’s death. I understand there is resistance to removing secrecy. But just like there’s a need to know, there should also be a need to keep secret, especially from the President. What would be the impact to national security if the President were to know the truth surrounding the death of Dr. King? What would be the impact to national security if we all knew the truth? All the more reason to make it happen.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

    • Well, I’m not limiting the scope merely to Dr King’s death, but throughout a lot of things. For instance, any of the cool new military equipment, like those stealth bombers we unveiled in Iraq during 91….fully operational when I was born in 79. Yet, it was a limited circle of people who knew about them, and I doubt the presidents through those times were, at best, vaguely aware of the powerful capabilities they had at their disposal, well in theory anyways. All those conspiracy theory nutcases, even wth their far fetched stuff, has been bred out of the methods and secrecy surrounding the practice of government, and there is SOME truth to what they say.

      As to what the impacts on society, national security, etc…Well, I’m not intelligent enough to make such speculations, but I agree that a lot more ought to be out there in the open.

      Comment by Mike Lovell | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  5. A leader can not move any faster than his followers. Career soldiers do not like being told to go sit in the corner and most factory workers have forgotten how to do anything differently. There are jobs out there but they do not look like the jobs we are used to and change is a scary word for anyone who has become comfortable with the way things are.

    The internet however, offers a doorway to another world in which competing forces are compelled to promote their cause civilly in a public arena. Control of information and manipulation of the truth for personal gain is no longer possible. Forget about controlling information and charging for its distribution.

    This is resulting in dramatic changes to all aspects of our civilization. Government is not in control of these changes, so they can not be faulted, but they will have to devise different ways of providing resources for all citizens to survive.

    If we really only need one person in 10 working, we will have to devise ways to care for the other 9 who through no fault of their own, are out of work.

    What is actually happening is the creation of millions of very low paying jobs, so it just may be necessary to cut taxes and lay off a lot of Government workers.

    Look at the following and put your mind out of gear for a minute.

    [Train of links deleted]

    Barack Obama is waiting for you to catch on and catch up. It is obvious to the Nobel people where he is going.

    Comment by chris tidman | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  6. Thanks for the feedback chris tidman,

    “A leader can not move any faster than his followers.”

    Especially when the followers make sure they elect a leader that will lead them exactly where they want to go. Yes, career soldiers don’t like being at peace. They like the idea of war. But I’m sure a good percentage of the four thousand plus and counting families of soldiers killed in war will have a different perspective. I know that the thousands of soldiers maimed and disfigured because of this conflict would have a different perspective about being still. A lot of our soldiers went into the military thinking it was their best shot at college. From their point of view, no one said anything about any eight year long war.

    The world is changing and not for the better. The new low paying jobs that are replacing our traditional jobs that you’re referring to were predicted a long time ago by people who could see the trends of capitalism run amok. Our system of winner takes all is doing more and more to create an economic system of haves and have nots. The vast majority of the populace are becoming so desperate for jobs that we will be happy to take anything that pays. This is the system that will assure the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to get poorer.

    What the hell does any of this have to do with Mr. Obama and the peace prize?


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Saturday, December 12, 2009 | Reply

  7. Brotherpeacemaker,

    While it’s clear you are no fan of President Obama his White House, I can honestly say that you have done something that FOX news only give lip service to. You are truly “fair and balanced”.

    I agree with you on many topics. Keep up the critical think.

    Comment by Ogungbemi | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | Reply

  8. Thanks for the feedback Ogungbemi,

    I consider that a compliment! I know that I’m particularly critical of Mr. Obama. But I would like to think that my criticism is fair and has a logical foundation. People who hate Mr. Obama just to be hating Mr. Obama will not find a sympathetic audience here. If people want to join a conversation here and add their criticism as well, I require that they have something resembling a salient point. And trust me, there are a lot of people hating Mr. Obama without having a reason why.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: