NP Rank:
The Truth on Obama, the Bomb, and Martin Luther King Jr.
The International Institute of Nonviolence
By: Rev. Jermano
Opin.
Obama has really not thought about what he is doing by running for President. Why should we give the Keys of the Atomic Bomb to Obama? Why should we sully the legacy of Martin Luther King and Black America with the sins from White America?
Democracy changed not when 911 hit the USA, but really when Harry Truman dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan, bringing the USA to the Nuclear Age. His act killed thousands of innocent Japanese civilians who had nothing to do with Japans military. Why didn't he use the notorious phosphorous bombs that worked so successfully in killing thousands in Tokyo and Dresden? This time of reckoning was neither known by scientists or politicians of early America when the Constitution was written. To me this was a terrorist act.
This Atomic Power identified as the most lethal weapon known to mankind has proven to some to be a defense tool in changing the world and providing a weapon to the United States for its ultimate protection. And that very tool has changed the dynamics of the Constitution.
Unfortunately the bomb got into the hands of Russia, China, feared Pakistan, N. Korea, Libya, India and Israel. Their acquisition of the bomb has changed the scope of political views. Whether that was intentional or not is another topic of understanding the intended purposes to establish the long term nuclear program in American History.
Neo-cons believe it can't go away, because science is a reality, and can't be refuted. That being said countries that are not under the control of the US have the ability to go forward with their science and there is nothing to stop them if they have notions to use that science in destroying the United States.
Therefore the USA has Nuclear Weapons to defend itself in case of the unthinkable. The Republicans and some Democrats believe the problems with protecting Nuclear Secrets are of grave importance, and it requires strong conventional forces to do that. Barack Obama believes that, with statements saying he will attack Pakistan, and increase troops in Iraq , and need be to stop Iran from developing its nuclear capability.
Neo-cons believe if America does not have strong Conventional Forces to protect Nuclear Secrets, America becomes vulnerable to attack, by militias, guerillas, gangs, terrorists and spies. Conservative Americans are aware of this. Perhaps it's the reason why 911 happened? Think about that.
American military forces were on the decline, during Bill Clintons downsize after the first tour in ousting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This opened the eyes to Neo-Cons, concerning the rise of China, Russia, Iran, and the Middle East, during the beginning time of the Nuclear Crisis when Dr. Kahn setup Pakistan's Nuclear Program and began selling those secrets to N. Korea, Libya, and Iran. http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/02/top2.htm
Bill Clinton never talked about non-violence or authorized anti-nuclear arsenals. He fulfilled the promise of continued bombing of Iraq and eventually into Bosnia. Bill Clinton never heard of Martin Luther King?
The MIC thinks what is America to do without a strong Conventional Military Force? Given these concerns with all the evidence pointing to a US 911, inside job, makes one consider these problems. America has always used military intimidation and it really has failed throughout the years. We are never at a time of peace. How long do we go on not recognizing that? We have had great men before us such as Martin Luther King who showed us the way, by practicing non-violence, but we have never instituted it into American policy. We always build more and advanced weapons sending those signals around the world which increase defense spending in foreign countries. This is what creates terrorism.
If we follow the teachings of MLK toward non-violence, and implement anti-nuclear arsenals, that would send a signal around the world. Other countries would also seek non-military objectives. This would result in the end to terrorism. So why does Obama not take up the cause of Martin Luther King?
The only acceptable route is to seek the end toward Nuclear Arsenals and practice the works of that great man. Now there was a guy that represented truth. He was a guy that fought off an entire American Military Complex walking in his armor and helmet wearing a trench coat under his salento felt hat and holding leaflets about his cause preaching and singing and telling us the story of the benefits of nonviolence. But today we are captivated by a black Senator who is pushing for war; a guy that would invade another country (Pakistan) in order to acquire Presidential recognition. What is it that people don't get about nonviolence?
We neglect our past, and forge a future that our past refuted, and somehow people believe that it's better. I fail to see the connection to dismissing our reputed dignitaries that have gone before us who refuted violence to then embrace Black America's enemy which is violence. Call me a racist, accuse me of smoking pot, but don't you dare accuse me of supporting violence, or even think I would support Barack Obama. I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I don't do drugs. I am of the old school, because we are the backbone and nonviolent mission to God on his earth.
Now we are standing at the threshold of another election. I would contend that elections are a thing of the past, because of the evidence of stolen elections, due to nuclear instability. This risk is a realization that Democracy gives the bomb to someone different every 4 years or 8 years. We might as well be tossing a hot potato around instead of eliminating the risk, by following nonviolent and anti-nuclear policies.
Every President is different; they come from different backgrounds, and hold different views about things. How is that we are a secure nation given the attack of 911 to think that perhaps one day one of the Presidents would use it? A clear example is the difference between Truman and Eisenhower. Truman did use it, even at the behest of Eisenhower’s advice. And Eisenhower has really been the only Republican who has come even close to recognizing the need to have American non-violent policies, when he warned us about the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.
We are dumbfounded by the inability to Impeach Presidents who break the law in concern to National Security from Harry Truman on down to GW Bush. And then somehow we are going to feel right about the possibility of electing a Black American President who very well will continue the series of Presidential blunders, by spilling blood on Martin Luther King's legacy that has lasted for over 40 years.
Barack Obama will establish not only having become the first black President elected but also the first impeached one. Talk about a high tech lynching, on Martin Luther King. I get shivers up my spine when we hand over the nuclear keys to another crazy President each and every election cycle. How insecure and insane Democracy is.
Perhaps this is why Republicans rig elections because of the vulnerability in giving the nuclear bomb to any charming guy that comes along, because he has appealed with charisma to the people in swaying from the party who actually is responsible for its creation.
Is there a wonder why most governments do not want Democracy because of the inability to trust the nuclear hand off? Which is riskier having a man that stays in power for a lifetime, knowing the nuclear situation, or to toss the bomb around to different people every four to eight years? It is a serious question to consider.
Now we are about to give the Nuclear Bomb to Barack Obama? I don't know about you people but I think that is a serious risk! Why are we handing Atomic bomb authority to Black America! Obama really has not considered his actions or the real issues to Cultural Black America. It's bad enough to have Bush under the nuclear watch, but then to get an inexperienced puppet Senator who will do the will of Bush and Cheney even when they are out of office, is about the same as voting for John McCain.
We are facing a choice between Obama who is black; that is a first generation American. His roots are in Indonesia and Kenya. He did not have a deep connection with the Rev. Martin Luther King along with the thousands and thousands of other Black Americans. As we know Martin Luther King was against using violence. What has Obama said about nonviolence? ZERO! What has he said about eliminating nuclear weaponry arsenals in America? Absolutely nothing zero! What has he said about reducing the military? He wants to increase it. He simply has no conscious for Martin Luther King and his legacy, yet wants to use his legacy to power to increase and support the nuclear apparatus to the Military Industrial Complex just because he is black! What kind of guy is he, to not be in attendance to the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in remembering our recognition of Rev.Martin Luther King in Memphis.
Who has he learned from, obviously not from Martin Luther King? And yet as Black America views Obama they forget about Martin Luther King and his message? If Obama can't listen to his forefather's advice what can we expect if he becomes President?
Giving Black America the Bomb if Barack became President will usher Black America into an entirely new cultural identification. Obama is really flushing Martin Luther King down the toilet. No longer will Black America be viewed as Martin Luther King's legacy, because clearly MLK was about nonviolence.
MLK would be against using the Atomic Bomb and the Military Industrial Complex and is probably the real reason why MLK never sought to become President in the United States during his lifetime. Is Black America willing to no longer identify with Martin Luther King and his legacy, by embracing a black President who willingly will use the bomb? This is a serious situation for Black America in the USA.
I say that without MLK our nation will crumble from the lack of that spiritual hope and mountain of faith he really established. MLK won for Black America the dignity blacks have today, and to think running for President is some high esteemed honor for black Americans really is a step down in the wrong direction.
I really think Obama needs to withdraw from the race, in order to preserve the stature and culture of Black America. This act alone will be the defining moment to his greatest achievement in America. He will therefore join the great Americans who refute Nuclear Weaponry and preserve the Life and Memory of Martin Luther King.
Democracy is a wonder, a system that has created its culture and then magically throws it in the trash the next day. Though we go through the exercise of Democracy, and hope for change, remember that the balance of society in preserving cultural identification is of paramount importance.
I am having hard time accepting the idea we should have a black President, because of the racial factor. You look at the crimes that have been committed by the Bush administration who we are seeing the difficulty in trying to Impeach them for their war Crimes.
Now I know earlier I said if Obama becomes President he will get blood on his hands by supporting the murdering violent present day policies of the Bush administration and have the distinction in also being the first Black American President to be impeached. Obama has come out against Impeachment of Bush showing his demeanor in continuing and supporting crimes from the Bush administration. This is not a happy or memorable time for Black Americans on this issue. But let's look further ahead.
Just think of the Impossibility and trouble we are looking at in trying to impeach a Black President when he commits acts of treason and commits more of the same war crimes as Bush. Executives will censor down the media faster than when Bush was in office claiming every dissatisfaction article written about Obama is racist.
Talk about having a do anything you want President. Just vote in a black one, because you can't prosecute blacks with Impeachment on the grounds of subverting the constitution because of the overtones of being racially prejudice.
Furthermore what words does Obama say in his campaign to suggest he wouldn't use the bomb? He is pro military, pro war, to include attacking Pakistan. His pundits don't make it seem he is anti MIC establishment. He literally says nothing about Martin Luther King, or how he follows his example.
And I am expected to have confidence in Obama when he has lied about not voting on the War in Iraq, when he wasn't even a Senator at the time? Which is worse a liar, or being accused as being a racist?
White America did create the bomb. George Bush's Grandfather Prescott was one of the overseers of the Manhattan Project. They are not going to let a rookie lying black senator have the authority to use the atomic bomb. And the way it looks today after 911 I doubt if anyone is going to get that authority, because of the risks involved.
September 11th is not what changed democracy in the USA but really it was the Atomic Bomb, the deadliest weapon known to mankind. 911 has created a lock down state with wire tapping, the elimination of Habeas Corpus, the authorization of Torture, while taking away peoples Civil Liberties.
We feel secure in knowing that since Harry Truman in the succession of sitting Presidents they have all lied and committed crimes against humanity and yet none have come to the bar of Justice in Impeachment? We idly think our nation is secure when every four years we toss the atomic bomb around like a bean bag, thinking some sitting President won't use it? We have totally loss all sense to reason in security.
Here we have Obama who speaks nothing about anti nuclear concepts or following examples of Martin Luther King, and we are to believe he wouldn't use the bomb, or fulfill Bush and Cheney's permanent war into Pakistan & Iran? Somehow I know I am right. I know I am right in knowing how badly we need Impeachment in order to establish Americas nonviolent Anti-nuclear Policy.
I have first hand knowledge about US nuclear weapons because I was a Security Policeman for SAC in the United States Air force. I guarded nuclear missile silos and nuclear weapon development sites. My impression was; that nukes must be eliminated and never used; when I witnessed Sergeants and Ranking Officers with loyal airmen involved in using cocaine, marijuana, and amphetamines while on duty at this nuclear facility. Instead of guarding they partied on the tailgate of the pickup truck playing cards and getting high. I did my best to get out of the service, and alerted upper level Officials outside the base, and was lucky to get an honorable discharge instead of a bullet in the back of the head for raising hell about their dereliction.
I know I am no racist, I know I am speaking stuff that everyone wants to hear or should be educated on, and I know that electing Obama is the wrong thing to do at this time. We need to Impeach Bush and Cheney. When we have a successful Impeachment on the books, and we know Presidents can't get away with the crimes they have been committing for over 50 years now, then our security will be established.
Here we have the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, but not really folks! Because we do not have Impeachment to protect us from the crimes the President of the USA can commit on US, we the people
If we had Impeachment already on the books then I would feel that Black Americans or Native American Indians (or whatever ethic group) would have legal unbinding recognition as a sitting President because the color of their skin would not be a factor in the case of Impeachment in their future assumed dereliction of duty.
Barack is in the wrong place at the wrong time in running for President, because without Impeachment on the books, there will be an even greater calamity in trying to impeach a President who commits further crimes, because of the color of his skin. People will not really know if a man of color was impeached for crimes, or it was based on racial profiling. This can not happen. We need Impeachment to stand for crimes committed by White Society. Not handing them off to Barack representing Black Society. Black America is based upon the legacy of Martin Luther King who stood for the exact opposite of Barack Obama and the preceding White Presidents who have always occupied the Executive Office . Upon recognizing this goal no one can claim that Impeachment is a racial attempt. It preserves its identification in Impeaching White Crimes caused by Whites, instead of handing those crimes down to Black American Martin Luther King and his Legacy.
It is healthy to talk about black and white issues, because we were made to do so. Here in the USA we have a media ban on talking about the auspices of racism. The fact is people who do not want to talk about it are as racist as those who make racist remarks. I am speaking about something here that I think is essential in preserving our Black American Icon Martin Luther King, while rejecting the bloody continued polices of Bush and attempt of Obama to subvert all the work Martin Luther King accomplished for Black America.
Obama is not the best thing that has happened to America. Face it...so many Americans are uneducated because they have no conscious about our American History and what it means. Do you know anything about the Crimes American Presidents have committed from Harry Truman to GW Bush? They have all been liars. And yet we have had only 3 Impeachment Trials in US History, and none were successful. In other words Americans vote for people who commit murder and claim it is legal.
Obama has no clue about American History; he is quite ignorant just like GW Bush. Does Obama care about the innocent Iraqi families that were killed by Bush and Cheney over the lie to go to War? Perhaps if it was his family that was killed....it might spark some realism into his space headed empty mind. He does not support Impeachment, which means he does not care about Iraqi people, which tells me he is a racist and a murderer. Since you know nothing about Impeachment you can educate yourself here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dom_jerm_071221_impeachment_phobia_o.htm
News Tools
April 13, 2008 at 08:42 am by djermano, 662 views, 8 comments





Add a comment
Comments (8)
at 09:43 on April 13th, 2008
A literal TON of words for a simple, and, sadly, wrong conclusion.
Unless, of course, this is a manifesto in support of "Operation Chaos!"
You GO!!! ... Rev.
at 10:12 on April 13th, 2008
Perhaps you should read it again and realize the chaos has been going on for sometime now!
Our only choice now is Hillary. And Hillary should not be smeared by her association to President Clinton. What gets me is we will impeach a President over a sex lie, but do nothing about a President who lied about going to War, and killed innocent people in the process. Something is radically wrong with that. She should be elected for the nomination as President because of the discrimination to woman for all these years. I wonder how many sex scandals will come from a women who is in power in the White House? Emphatically I believe none. All these years have passed and they have all been men in the Executive Office. In fact America really is about slavery to women because they are denied more rights than Black Americans. We are told America had the civil war to free Black Americans, but they continue to this day the slavery of women by not recognizing a Woman to be President. From George Washington to George W. Bush they have all been men in the Executive Office. In comparing is this election about race, or about sex discrimination? Clearly it is about sex discrimination to the American woman who has fought long and hard to break those discriminating chains of bondage. It's about time we had a Civil War for women rights, and Hillary is the one to free us. America is a sham to itself and the world, for sex discrimination, war crimes, murder, along with the inability to Impeach Presidents for war crimes and racism. There is a time for Change, and that change is for the American Woman.
at 12:00 on April 13th, 2008
Since Republicans steal or rig elections, what happened in 2006? What is your definition of a neo-con, a republican, and a conservative? With a story this long it might be helpful for your to provide us with source materials. I wonder, if Bush had nuclear at his disposal, why didn't this war monger just use them in Iraq. The nuclear bomb drop on japan ended the war, If it continued hundreds of thousands more would be lost. Are you saying that the attack on Peal Harbor was not a terrorist attack? The treatment of POW by Japan wasn't torture. The Bataan death March in the Philippines was just a hike? Your writing exemplifies your disdain for America. Japan used non combative s as human shields so years from the event writers like you can say we were terrorists. Now who is really at fought for having military complexes near towns? did America put the people there. If Japan would have surrendered from taking over the the pacific a nuclear weapon could have been avoided.
Having said all of this, I too want peace. I too do not like pre-emptive war. I too want us to appreciate other cultures and try to live in harmony. It really does take two to dance.
at 08:02 on April 14th, 2008
Politisite I didn't think I needed to add anymore stuff in the article thinking most people knew and know about rigged elections. The first commenter to this "a ton of words" is case in point. Go here: http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election/
Neo-con, Republican, Conservative: let's consider: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp
Use the bomb in Iraq and wipe out the 2nd largest Oil supply in the world? You have got to be kidding right?
The nuclear bombs, not one but two were dropped on Japanese civilians not military sites. Clearly they could have used the Phosphorus Bombs as I mentioned in the article that would have provided just as much bang for the buck and achieve the same results. Also Japan had been trying to surrender earlier, but Truman who created the CIA wanted no ear for that. They spent milllions on funding the Manhattan Project and they wanted to display it's real impact on a real target. This certainly would give the US all the authority it needed in gaining what it wanted and that was a Sovereign Israel Independent State. Where were the Jews to go? Truman used Japan to create and setup the Jewish homeland in Israel in 1948. Einstein helped develop the bomb. Clearly he was Jewish and he supported its use to create the State of Israel. http://www.whale.to/b/mullins8.html
I believe the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack against the West in fighting back for the crimes the West was doing in Asia. All war is terrorism, and Japans attack was but its exertion against the crimes the West has already committed with their Opium Economics.
Britain and America were heavily involved in the Opium business having won wars in China to keep the trade open and in continuation. Britain was able to swindle land from China when China did not want opium being sold in their country, is more than a crime of drug trafficking, but now a base of operation. They took Hong Kong, and other regions in China, while keeping the drug routes open. Britian got its opium from India, and the US was getting its Opium from Turkey. The US helped Turkey expand its Ottoman Empire by supporting efforts to take land away from Iraq named Kuwait. They built a railroad from Turkey to Kuwait for the sole purpose in shipping Opium from Turkey to Kuwait to be loaded on ships bound for China.
America wanted similar land acquisitions that Britain had engineered, and so America targeted Japan and S. Korea. Japan did not want Opium sold or trafficked in their country. China was essentially taken over by the west. China's government was defeated like Iraq is today, and they kept their Opium operations open while expanding the trade. Other countries wanted in on the Opium traffic as well to include Germany, France, and Russia. Japans attack on China's Capitol City of Nanjing killing thousands of Chinese was an attempt to berid the Wests control of China. It essentailly knocked out the opium markets, and when Chairman Mao finally came around he made sure the Wests Chang Kai Shek opium supplier was expelled from the mainland.
You can see a clear connection to this article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,180983,00.html
http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/72.htm
I am an American who knows the truth about these issues, and think people who support the lies of the past need to be informed. America and Britain cause the problems, then come into war, claiming they are solving issues they created all neatly hid behind the BS of Democracy and freedom.
Clearly the Opium Economy they were supporting caused the Opium Wars in China, WWI and WWII. Do you know why WWI happened that ultimately created Hitler? Germany was wanting to join the Ottoman Empire. This meant they could control the land areas in Turkey to grow Opium forcing the US out of Turkey. Germany is where Scientist Fredich Seuter discovered Morphine and Codeine dervived from Opium. Germany was going to grow poppies for legal purposes, while Britain and the US wanted it for wealth building in its recreational use. Britain and the US told Serbia they would suffer economically if Germany was able to join the Ottoman Empire.
So on June 28, 1914 as Arch Duke Ferdinand was carring the letter of acceptance to Turkey for Germany's entry into the Ottoman Empire they assassinated the Arch Duke, drawing WWI. Once the US and Britain knew Germany could not possibly join WWI suddenly ended, they were secure in keeping control of their Opium marketplace..which we know later led to Hitlers rise and WWII.
This URl does not tell the full story, but it is clear that Austria was on good terms with Germany and Turkey at the time. Austria was in itself 1/2 a member to the Ottoman Empire where they contolled half of hungary and the Ottomans the the 2nd half. http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/EastEurope/FranzFerdinand.html
Good men were used to fight wars, over issues that were BS, while the real motive is never told. Now if I am unAmerican for telling the truth then perhaps liars will always remain at war, as the US continues its favorite trek of War and violence. When has War ever ended? Never. Because of the lies, and avoidance to bring to justice those who created the crimes in the first place. Did Britain apologize to China for stealing Hong Kong, and killing thousands of Chinese because of the illegal use of Opium? Never. Have they ever apologized to India? Never. And their partner in Crime the US has followed the same example. Pitiful is their contempt, pitiful is their result toward representing the goals of good ideals.
at 21:04 on April 13th, 2008
Hi, I see you poured a lot of passion into this. It needs an "opinion" tag and also "opinion" added to the headline or just before the body of the piece.
You said: "Politisite I didn't think I needed to add anymore stuff in the article thinking most people knew and know about rigged elections." A hint: when writing for an international, diverse audience, it's not a good idea to "assume." We all come from different vantage points, with differing cultures, backgrounds, educational levels, experience levels, etc.
Part of the sharing experience is to share what we know, from our vantage point, and also what we believe, based on the factors that created our vantage point. To share as best we can, it's a good idea to provide other resources (such as links, etc.) and background as part of the context that educates the reader and draws them in.
I could assume that everyone knows how the space shuttle operates because I do. But when I write about space shuttle operations I try to make sure that I include a brief explanation of just what that whatchamacallit that they're testing or fixing is and what it does.
Historical/cultural/sociological items also need that sharing for readers: a common starting point. Does that make sense to you?
at 04:12 on April 14th, 2008
I understand what you are saying....and agree. It's just that a person could go on endlessly giving support at various points in an article and still not know if everything is covered to inform readers. What a person who wants to make a comment could say is... do you have any information from this point of view?...instead of assuming I am ignorant or intentionally left something out.
Also the reason I did not put opinion in is because the title of the article already suggests that, wouldn't you agree?
at 04:27 on April 14th, 2008
Thanks for taking the time to reply. About "opinon", after the category "Opinion" was removed in the streamlining, adding "opinion" to headlines and articles (taggging too) became our convention to distinguish between editorial (opinion) pieces and news.
Part of the challenge in shaping an article is to choose what information is provided. That's the author's responsibility. Then, when it's published, readers respond as they will.
I saw no sign that anyone believed you were "ignorant"--they simply wanted to understand more of what you were saying. :)
at 07:13 on May 1st, 2008
Obama only said "THE WORLD IS IN TERMOIL AND WE SHALL FIGHT IT" then second time he appeared whilst running for presidential race he says "NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCORE" and points to the score board.
By what I gather is that Obama just wants to fight and win and that's it.
He was also talking to Army Forces on Washington D.C. live at about 10:32pm on 8th April 2008 that wasn't in the right manner.
Obama was scared and concerned more than Bush who just wanted to go in there and start war yet Obama doesn't seem to be interested in more Wars and only bothered about fighting the present Wars.
Well I've noticed before as a new president comes along another War starts. We shall see.