Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan

This is from the Huffington Post:

"For all the talk of 'smart power,' President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of U.S. strategic thinking."

The Enemy Within

"Moreover, the suggestion that these town halls are full of people which are part of an organized effort on the right, are laughable at best, and fabrications at worst. All you need to do is watch any one of the many reports to see which side is in fact, organized. Those who are truly grass roots, have home-made, rudimentary signs evoking their passions about this health care initiative, while those on the left, who are proponents of this effort, have professionally printed signs. So again, the efforts to get this agenda pushed through has lines that won’t be crossed."

The Black Captain of the Titanic

The Titanic AKA USS Obama is sinking. Many blacks are abandoning ship, but others, proud of their first black captain, are still on the ship with water coming into their cabins. "This is history!"

Health Care Reform & Questions African Americans should Ask

To My Black Colleagues:

Will Health Care Reform mean that all of the so-called Public Hospitals that blacks have been force to go to for decades will be done away with and replaced with new modern hospitals so that blacks will no longer have to go these government run hospitals for medical care? These inner-city Public hospitals are considered as government run medical programs.

From my understanding the answer is no. Poor blacks in inner-cities across America will still be forced to go to public hospitals, hospitals that the members of Congress will not be caught dead in. As a child I remember going to Public Hospitals. My mother was so upset with their care and their lack of sensitivity toward black folks that she stop taking us to the hospital and came up with home remedies to treat us. I still have several of the medical books that my mother bought to treat her family. These public hospitals are government run hospitals, but they are never referred to when Congress is asked can they provide quality health care programs.

According to Tavis Smiley's State of The Black Union, since the Tuskegee Experiment, blacks do not trust the government and government run hospitals. Not only was there the Tuskegee Experiment, there have been other secret government experiments targeting blacks, one in particular at the prison in Monroe, Washington (state) a few years ago. Because of the Tuskegee Experiment, the 20,000 members of the National Medical Association (an African American Professioal Medical Association) demanded an apology from the Clinton Administration. Clinton said, "To our African American citizens, I am sorry that your federal government orchestrated a study so clearly racist...."

Should blacks trust the government's proposed Health Choice Commissioners in Section 201 of the proposed Health Care Bill, a Commission that will decide what care the patient should receive, particularly when blacks know that this is the same government that has approved a system of death that has killed over 17 million black babies and a system that was started and inspired by Eugenics (a program to control the population growth of blacks)? If a black need medical care, can he or she trust this Commission to reach a decision without the consideration of one's race? Or will the commissioners withhold treatment of the black and just let him or her die because they are old or a gang banger? How can they assure blacks that these Commissioners are not prejudice?

These are some of the questions that blacks should be asking Congress.

Rev. Wayne Perryman

The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Responds

Mr Oliver:

If we can get beyond your surprise and chastisement, let it be known that the issue you brought to our attention has been noted and corrective action taken for future publication. The issue here is not one of your credibility or ours where mistakes are found and corrected. We do not run old news and if your have read our newspaper as much as suggested you know this to be a fact.

Thank you for your input.

John Warren


I replied to him that I was glad they took corrective action. That newspaper does usually run timely news stories. But it was still a fact that the story in question was written last January and put on the front page.

Bush & Obama: Who Lied?

By Rev. Wayne Perryman

August 10, 2009

When Obama campaigned for the office of the President of the United States, he emphasized that Bush had lied about the weapons of mass destruction and he went on to make several promises from bringing our troops home within 16 months to improving our image overseas. Did he keep his promises? And did Bush lie? Let’s take a look.

A Promise of Bi-partisanship

Obama promised that he would consider other points of view in his decision making and welcomed bi-partisanship participation. Even though he made this promise, he has consistently ignored the input of Conservatives from the beginning. He started by ignoring the Conservatives’ position on abortions and signed a Bill to provide millions to fund abortions overseas. He is currently ignoring the input of Conservatives on Health Care. Experts say the current proposed Health Care Plan includes more government funds to fund abortions here at home. Did Obama lie about welcoming bi-partisan in-put or did he mean that he only wanted bi-partisanship if they agreed with him?

Promises in Bringing the Troops Home

Throughout his campaign Senator Obama said he would begin troop withdrawal immediately and have all troops out of Iraq within 16 months. There has been no significant troop withdrawal since he has taken office and he has now changed his mind and said all troops will be out by December 2011, the same date that President Bush had agreed to have all troops out when he signed an agreement with Iraq in November. Did Obama lie, or was he just un-informed?

Promises In Foreign Policy

During the campaign Obama said in the first year of his administration, he would meet with five foreign leaders to improve relations with the U.S. (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea). He went on to say that he would meet with the leader of Iran with no pre-conditions, that he would use diplomacy to stop North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and that he would improve the image of America around the world. As of August 10, 2009, he has not met one-on-one with any of these leaders nor has he scheduled meetings with them.

The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has already denounced Obama’s “gesture of reconciliation, as a trick” while President Ahmadinejad, told Obama that he will continue Iran’s nuclear program and after recent protests over their elections, Ahmadinejad warned Obama not to “interfere in Iran’s affairs.”

Under President Obama, the six-party-talks involving North Korea, Russia, China, Japan South Korea, and th e United States were discontinued when Kim Jong ignored Obama’s diplomatic efforts and continued to test his long-range missiles, while re-affirming his commitment to build nuclear weapons. These talks were started by the Bush administration.

It was Raul Castro, not Barack Obama that set pre-conditions for possible dialogue between Cuba and the U.S. when he sent the following message to the Obama administration, “We are ready to discuss everything, but not to negotiate over our political or social systems…. I was chosen to defend, maintain and continue to perfect socialism, not destroy it.”

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela accused the Obama Administration of backing the coup in Honduras and expressed outrage when Obama’s Democratic Congress released a report accusing the Chavez administration of corruption by supporting cocaine trafficki ng through Venezuela. Chevez said, “Obama’s mask is falling” and stated that the United States’ plan for providing extra military help for Colombia’s conservative government is a threat to Venezuela and its neighbors in the Andean region.

Obama’s popularity around the world was not reflected in their response to his appeal for more troops in Afghanistan. Only handful of countries agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan, but the number of troops pledged was only a fraction of the troops that he said was needed.

When it came to foreign policy, Obama found out that he was not as popular as he thought, particularly among those leaders of rouge states. Did Obama lie about what he claimed he would accomplish in the area of foreign policy, or was he just uninformed?

Closing Guantanamo Bay

Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) within a year. But as of August 10, 2009, he has not found a place to put the prisoners. Being faced with the same dilemma that the Bush Administration faced, when the Bush administration wanted to close the prison, Obama decided that he needed a comprehensive plan before he could proceed. This plan is due on January 22, 2010, the date that he had boasted that the prison would be closed. In June of 2006 (almost three years before Obama took office), President Bush reiterated his desire to close Gitmo, and explained the reasons why it would be difficult to do so. The Obama administration knew of the problems that Bush administration faced in their efforts to close this facility but ignore them. They also refused to acknowledge that the Bush administration had decided to close the prison, three years before Obama promised to do so. Did Obama lie about closing Gitmo within a year, or was he just uninformed?

Promises Of Transparency

Senator Obama promised “Transparency,” transparency that would include granting the press permission to sit in on previously closed door meetings, and a pledge to post all Bills on a White House website for public review before signing such legislation. Obama failed to keep these promises. In addition to keeping the press out certain meetings and conspiring to know in advance what questions certain members of the press would ask, the president signed many pieces of legislation without posting the Bills on the website and he tried to push through the massive Health Care Reform Bill before the Congressional August recess, without giving anyone anytime to read it. Did Obama lie about transparency, or did he just forget what he had promised?

Obama Promised No Earmarks

Senator Obama promised not to sign any bills with earmarks, but he signed the massive Stimulus Bill that had an estimated 8,000 earmarks. Did Obama lie, or did he not know there were earmarks in the Bill?

Obama Promised No Lobbyist

During his campaign, Senator Obama was adamant about lobbyist and former lobbyist being a part of his administration. But that soon changed after he became president. Watchdog organizations now list over 65 persons who were either registered lobbyists at one time or had strong ties to lobbyist who are currently serving in the Obama administration. Did Obama lie about lobbyist serving in his administration, or is it that he is totally unaware of the background of those who are serving in his administration?

Claims That he Inherited the Problems

Obama often claims that he inherited the problems that our nation is currently facing. But he fails to acknowledge that as a member of Congress, (the legislative branch of the government) he is partially responsible for the problems. At no time did he sponsor, co-sponsor or submit legislation to stop sub-prime lending, speculation on Wallstreet, or to improve health care. The records will show that he was one of the Senators that met with George Bush privately (during the campaign) to approve the first stimulus plan. He not only approved the plan, he used his influence to get other Democrats to vote for it as well. Is he being disingenuous about inheriting this problem or is he just covering up for not doing his job as Senator?

Promise To Create and Save Three Million Jobs

During the early stages of his campaign, Senator Obama boasted that he would create three million jobs, later he changed the pledge and promised to “create and save three million jobs.” He claimed that his Stimulus Package would have an immediate impact. Since passing the Stimulus Package, several million persons have lost their jobs, unemployment has increased dramatically and no one can point to one job that was specifically saved or created by the “Stimulus.” Did he lie, or did he really feel that he could save and create that many jobs?

Was Obama Right? Did Bush Lie About Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Did President Bush lie about the “weapons of mass destruction,” or was he merely repeating what was told to him by the Clinton Administration? This is the speech that President Clinton delivered on December 16, 1998 regarding weapons of mass destruction, almost three years before Bush became President. Clinton told Americans:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors….

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region and the security of the world. The best way to end that threat onc e and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people….

If we turn out backs on his defiance, the credibility of the U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

…We must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening action, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against the Kurdish citizens

Now tell me who lied

THE BLAME and TRIUMPH TOUR

"Anything good is Obama, anything bad is Bush."

and

"For me, I have never believed the government, and that includes the President, can control the economy. But for arguments sake, let's say he can. Wouldn't it seem proper that Obama claiming triumph speaks to his ability to look for sparkly, glittery data? Any President can do that and park in front of a podium for a political photo-op. Hell, I could. He is no business man and no economist, so really what's all the fuss about? He only listened to a bunch of sweaty nerds who had opinions about how the government MAY step in and push things along. No guarantees. Try this and that and hope for the best. It's spooky really. Obama is a ghost. He appears and disappears, depending on the reports and polling data. Or was he not a Senator? He never did jack crap for Illinois. (I was in Chicago when he was there and there was no "change" -- Robert) He can't have it both ways. Either you were a governing force and accomplished many great and important things or you were not. And if you were not, then you are a liar. So I think the President and his 'folks' should SHUT THE HELL UP. You caused this mess Mr. President, and to act otherwise is a damn lie. My mama always told me, when you point your finger at someone there are always 4 pointing back at yourself"

Nikki, you're all right.

Is anyone surprised they attacked the black guy?

"One of the worst things a black person can do is wander off the liberal plantation. Speak your mind, have your own beliefs and Lord help you speak out against the first black president’s policies. This is because over the years, white liberals and their black lackeys have done an excellent job creating group think through victim hood in the black community. As such, way too many blacks view everything, especially politics, through the distorted prism of racism, thus giving them an 'us vs. them' mentality."

"This is why Kenneth Gladney was singled out for attack. The black SEIU guy viewed Gladney as working against his fellow blacks or as a traitor if you will."

Why Did The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint Steal from CNN?

(I'm back in business)

The July 16th edition of the San Diego Voice & Viewpoint newspaper had a front-page article entitled "Grandson of Slaves: Obama is Our Moses." This impressive story was an interview with a Black gentleman named Mr. James Presley, 78, of Sledge, Mississippi. Mr. Presley's grandparents were slaves in ante-bellum Mississippi. The article includes:

"He's lived a raw-knuckled life where hope moved at a molasses-slow pace. The last time he had hope for a better future was four decades ago -- first with President John F. Kennedy and then with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

"'I'm a church man,' he says. 'And I kind of figured that this here is about like it was with Moses with the children of Israel. On that day, when he gets to be president, we're all going to be rejoicing.'

"Does he have plans to celebrate on Inauguration Day?"

Huh? Plans to celebrate on Inauguration Day?

The presidential inauguration happened on Tuesday, January 20 did it not or did I miss something? Is this is a Gary Coleman "Whatchu-talkin'-'bout-Willis" moment? The edition-in-question of the newspaper was Thursday, July 16 -- six months later. Old news is old news. Why publish six-month-old news on the front page where current news is printed?

I did some internet research. I was saddened to discover that the "Obama is Our Moses" article was actually from the website CNN.com (Cable News Network) from a Monday, January 12, 2009 article called "Grandson of Slaves: Obama is Our Moses," written by CNN.com Senior Producer Wayne Drash (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/12/grandson.of.slaves/index.html). A condensed version of the article printed in the Voice & Viewpoint was copied word-for-word from the CNN website. The slugline on the website's article had "SLEDGE, Mississippi (CNN)" The slugline in the Voice & Viewpoint article had "SLEDGE, Mississippi" with no reference to CNN at all. Also that CNN article included: "As the nation prepares for Obama's inauguration on January 20, CNN.com traveled to Sledge, Mississippi, a forgotten town of about 500 people in the heart of the Mississippi Delta that some consider to be the birthplace of blues in America." The Voice & Viewpoint omitted that sentence.

The Voice & Viewpoint committed one of the worst of the cardinal sins of journalism -- plagiarism. I used to be the editor of the San Diego County Times, a small community newspaper. Not only would I have not edited copy for news that was six-weeks old as if it was current news, much less six-months old, but I would NEVER have edited copy without giving proper attribution to the source and without getting written permission from the source to publish such material. My Publisher would have gotten quite upset with me had I committed such errors. I would have damaged the credibility of my newspaper, damaged my own credibility, and ruined my relationship with the publishers. The two worst cardinal sins in journalism are 1. creating fictional news stories as if they were real, and 2. publishing stories from another source without giving proper credit -- plagiarism.

Why did the Voice & Viewpoint steal from CNN?

When I told a black friend in Los Angeles about that Voice & Viewpoint article, his opinion was that "they're running scared" concerning President Barack Obama's popularity. Obama's approval ratings have been rapidly declining, particularly among the independents who voted for him. Obama-themed items such as buttons and t-shirts are becoming unpopular, a number of those t-shirts being donated to thrift stores. Much of the American antiwar movement that optimistically hoped for change from the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan soured on the current president. They complain of no fundamental change in the Obama administration's war policies, and they openly oppose the president after once supporting him. Senior citizens are now getting unexpected cuts in their Supplemental Security Income (SSI). An ordained minister, a senior citizen in the San Diego-area, whose SSI was recently cut by approximately $200 monthly and whose Medicare benefits have been recently cut says that God allowed Obama to be elected to "punish America." There is also much suspicion and growing pessimism about his "healthcare reform" ideas. Many who voted for Obama have complained that his promise of jobs, courtesy of the "stimulus" package, has not come to fruition especially when hundreds of thousands of people are still losing jobs all across the United States. The national unemployment rate was 9.4% in July 2009, (California 11.6% in June 2009) according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (That figure does not include the currently unemployed whose benefits have run out or the currently unemployed who never qualified for benefits.) Frustrated voters ask "Where are the jobs?" when jobs were promised. And Obama's recent response to the Dr. Henry Louis Gates arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts was not helpful either, especially hen a Cambridge black policewoman publicly stated that she would not vote for Obama any more. A black man who voted for Obama in the Seattle area said that the president "lost all credibility" with him over that incident and over the lack of "change" that was promised. Others have told me of other black voters who regret voting for Obama.

That is not positive news for the president. The "change" is strange and the "hope" is nope. (Last November 9, a black writer originally from Chicago predicted at a public forum in Los Angeles "You will get better change from a Coke machine than you will get from Obama.") Why did the Voice & Viewpoint steal from CNN? Perhaps as a newspaper serving the Black Community in San Diego it felt that it needed to give President Obama a boost of solid support and a certain measure of celebration despite his growing unpopularity, even among Black voters. Could it be that this newspaper is "circling the wagons" around Obama by printing someting positive and ignoring the negative news? I can understand wanting to support the president. As a former newspaper editor, I can even understand and respect any newspaper's legal right to print any news it chooses and to omit any news it chooses. But to commit blatent plagiarism to support President Obama crosses the line of ethics, crosses the line of journalistic integrity and damages the credibility of the Voice & Viewpoint, in my opinion.

(The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint has not responded to this writer's July 30th inquiry on this matter.)