Remember: If His Lips Are Moving, He Is Lying

On AOL, Politics Daily, 04-25-2010 had an article titled "Obama Pays His First Visit to Billy Graham, Prays With Him"

While Soap Box Ravings can understand why Billy Graham would pray for President Barack Obama he needs to remember the one constant of President Obama would seem to be his inability to tell the truth. The law often refers to the reasonable person. President Obama does not ever seem to meet the reasonable person standard of truth required by the law.

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

A Billboard on I-75 near Lake City, TN

Soap Box Ravings feels this picture echoes his sentiments. However, he feels bad that he was not in it. Soap Box Ravings is looking forward to the next election in which he fully intends to send his fondest regards at the polls to those in Washington, DC.

Say It Ain't So; Please God, Say it Ain't So

U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D) recently worried that the island of Guam might be in danger of tipping over and capsizing. This according to a videotaped congressional hearing that is getting plenty of play online and over the airwaves.

Johnson's comments came during a House Armed Services Committee meeting as he questioned Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, about the impact of U.S. troops on the little island.

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said, straight-faced and seemingly serious.

You can see this for your self at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFsn8ekyhw

As you can see by watching this Rep. Johnson appears as a "knowledgeable" speaker. Somewhat like the President off his teleprompter.

He however, did vote for Obama health care; I guess he could understand an incomplete and unpublished bill better than he could visualize an island.

Body English

Soap Box Ravings has observed lots of "Body English". I observed a lot of learning points which were openly demonstrated by students and staff alike at the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) when I was a facilitator there. DEOMI is the Defense Department's school on racial, sexual and religious bias and how to combat those biases.

An understanding of "Body English" was also useful in my 15 year career in law enforcement after retiring from the US Navy.

Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder if an elitist such as President Obama knows or cares of the image he often presents.

Furthermore, anyone who has to report to a supervisor with that look on their face is going to be very careful about the information they share with that supervisor.

From The Writings Of Theodore Roosevelt

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."



We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a pollyglot [sic] boarding house; and we have room for but one, soul [sic] loyalty, and that loyalty is to the American people.

This Picture Says It All

Pete Souza, The White House

Soap Box Ravings says: "I would double bitch slap one of my kids for that look".

Soap Box Ravings wonders exactly who the President is thinking about. He wonders if the look is for the Vice President or if the President is thinking of the ungrateful masses who speak with such disdain about his personal health care legacy.

Regardless, Soap Box Ravings while not an "expert" in body language thinks that look bodes ill for whomever Obama is thinking of.

Obama Speaks About An "Attempted" Attack

Getty Image

On December 29, 2009,U.S. President Barack Obama spoke to the American people from Marine Corps Base Hawaii located at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.

In his opening statement Obama said, "Yesterday I updated the American people on the immediate steps we took, the increased screening and security of air travel, to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day."

Soap Box Ravings asks what does it take to make a terrorist attack? In this case, a Muslim on a US aircraft preparing to land initiated an explosive device and the President of the United States of America refers to the incident as an attempted attack instead of a failed attack.

If you point a gun, at a police officer be it real or a BB gun I can guarantee you it will be seen by that officer as an attack in progress.

Soap Box Ravings feels that regardless of the failures of our security system, which the Secretary of Homeland Security initially said worked perfectly, as long as the President and his peers see these incidents as just "attempts" the security system will never work.

Soap Box Ravings believes neither the President nor the Secretary of Homeland security appear to understand what they are up against; or perhaps they just don't care.

Finally, The Answer After Months Of Dithering

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Barack Obama's teleprompter provided him with the following speech at West Point, he read it fairly well:

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

In Soap Box Ravings considered opinion, Obama used the word I forty-four (44) times in his speech. I was beginning to wonder if he was going himself. But then I realized that since he never used the words victory or win; he was going to send the military.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that he has committed our military to fight and die for 18 months and a win is not important because he intends to begin pulling the troops out at the 18 month mark.

These are troops who may or may not be in Obama's political Afghan surge.


PS, Rule number 1 applies here so don't try to correct me.

(Review of Rule #1: A Chief Petty Officer is always right. In the event the Chief Petty Officer may appear to be wrong, Rule #2 Applies.

Review of Rule #2: Rule #1 Applies.

End of review.)

In the days following Obama's speech it was interesting to hear Rush Limbaugh compare Obama's West Point speech with a speech given in March 2009 (I think he said) that was almost identical. A speech in March would have been right after General McCrystal was hired, if the two speeches were almost identical WTF took him from 30 August until 1 December to decide what to do. It's not like he had another idea, he just restated his last idea but acts like it was new.

President Obama has now connected Afghanistan to his political future. Therefore, from 1 December 2009 until..., all further deaths in Afghanistan are directly related to Obama's political attempt for re-election. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind regarding his motivation.

Remember The 3:00 AM Phone Call

Remember during the elections when the ads asked: "Who do you want to answer the 3:00 AM phone call?"

Well the 3:00 AM phone call has been made; except it took place during the day. On August 30, 2009 our Commander In Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama was asked by General McCrystal, the general of his choice in Afghanistan, for help.

Did Obama answer the call in seconds, minutes, hours, days or months? The answer is months plus. On Tuesday, Commander In Chief Obama will fly to West Point to provide his official answer to General McCrystal's request. That will be on December 01, 2009; 3 months and two days after the General's initial request for assistance.

Marines react to Obama, from infidelsarecool.com

According to various Internet writings, Obama will use the future officers as background while he announces a troop buildup followed by his plan for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

In my opinion, the trip is also to provide Obama camera time in front of a captive audience of West Point Cadets who will be used to waste their time making Obama look good.

Remember any assistance provided McCrystal by Obama is now already burdened by a 3 month, 2 day lag time.

What Is It With Cell Phones?

Today I woke up to a radio news story about three college students who drove into a farm pond while possibly star watching.

A few weeks ago, the news reported four people who were killed in an automobile when the mat under the driver's feet jammed the gas pedal.

Interestingly, in both incidents persons involved made phone calls asking for assistance.

Soap Box Ravings can not understand the mentality of making cell phone calls in either one of these incidents.

In the latest incident Soap Box Ravings says if water is flooding into the vehicle you are in, you need to exit that vehicle. As I write this later in the day, the evening news reports their vehicle was found upright in 10 feet of water with the doors shut and the windows up.

In the floor mat incident, while talking for help, the driver entered an intersection against a red light and the accident that followed killed all four occupants. It seems to Soap Box Ravings that turning off the ignition and standing on the brake until the vehicle stops would have been more appropriate than making a cell phone call.

Years ago, Soap Box Ravings had a runaway Vanagon when the cruise control cable got hung up on the engine block. Standing on the brake with an engine at full throttle slowed me down to a crawl but I could not stop the vehicle. Luckily, I had the green when I entered the intersection (4 lanes with median) and I then pulled into a business to shut off the vehicle.

Taking the Vanagon out of gear was not an option to me because I knew the engine would self-destruct and I could not afford the repairs.

People should also remember, when the ignition is turned off most vehicles lock the steering but if stopping is important, it may need to be done that way.

Well trained police officers often ask themselves, "If this happens, what do I do"? Then they run through the scenario presented and work on some acceptable solutions.

Those who read or hear of these unfortunate souls should ask themselves "What should I do." IMHO, unless you are in a safe position, the cell phone is most likely a waste of your time. Particularly since the person who answers a 911 phone normally can not ascertain your location. You have to be able to tell 911 where you are located.

General McChrystal Still Seeking Back-Up And Obama Parties On

Today is November 1, 2009; General McChrystal, after 61 days of waiting, has no response from Barack Hussein Obama on the additional troops requested.

Obama has managed to get a lot of world face time in the last 61 days. Copenhagen and his Olympic Quest comes to mind. Just a few days ago, Obama and the press went to Edwards Air Force base to view 18 deceased troops as they arrived. Just an aside, but I don't believe George W. Bush used those visitations at Andrews Air Force base as a photo op.

And yesterday there was the White House Halloween Party. The President looks like a man with no worries or concerns.

Associated Press Photo / Manuel Balce Ceneta

We hear a lot in the news about the health care crisis and the health plan the "majority" of the country does not want passed but very little headway has been made on General McChrystal's request for back-up in Afghanistan.

Listening to the news daily it is hard to determine if Obama has the guts or fortitude to continue "his war".

However, last week the US government assured Pakistan we were with them for the long haul. I bet they really believe that especially when Obama can't make up his mind to back-up his own general and the troops in Afghanistan.

This is now really starting to look like another Vietnam, with a Democrat President micromanaging the generals while The Taliban and Al Qaeda (General Giap and the Vietcong troops) understands if they keep up the pressure they can again beat the USA (the devil).


US Hostile Fatalities in Afghanistan by Year and Month

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

2009 12 15 11 3 9 20 39 47 33 48 0 0 237


So since the General asked the President , his Commander in Chief, for backup 81 American troops have been killed by hostile action. Basically 1/3 of the deaths for 2009 have occurred after General McChrystal's request for assistance.

The longer Obama dithers, the more encouraged the other side becomes (just like Vietnam) and more troops die. So far Obama's campaign plans regarding the war on terror either copy George W Bush or the are lacking in substance and determination.

Here is a good read titled "Is It Amateur Hour in the White House?:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215991

This is the kind of article the media is supposed to publish, in print and over the airwaves. It is also the type article that upsets Obama because it holds his feet to the fire.

I Just Had To Post This

On 30 August 2009 General Stanley A. McChrystal submitted his request for additional troops to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. COMISAF'S Initial Assessment can be found at: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews

The General, who was specifically appointed by President Obama to manage the war in Afghanistan, has publicly emphasized the importance of protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents, restricting air strikes to reduce civilian casualties, and increasing the Afghan security forces as well as increasing their training. He also wants to unify the efforts of other allied forces operating in Afghanistan.

In an article titled: "McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure' Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive" written by Washington Post Staff Writer Bob Woodward, on September 21, 2009 the request became public knowledge.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html for the complete article.

Here is an interesting blog on Obama & McChrystal: http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=8596


In Soap Box Ravings opinion, Obama, who spent three days trying to sell the Olympic Committee on Chicago as the city of choice did manage to give General McChrystal 25 minutes before Obama flew back to the USA.

That alone has to make you wonder, Obama spends 72 hours bringing money to Chicago and 25 minutes on discussing strategy related to reducing American troop fatalities in Afghanistan while furthering the stated aims of the United States.

As I write this, President Obama has yet to make a decision on General McChrystal's request for assistance.

American soldiers have died every day since this request was sent. Should Obama decide today to send the troops requested it will be weeks before they are in place. It has already been about six weeks since the request was generated and only God and Obama know if and when the request will be met.

The troops in the field need to be backed up, if not, then they should be pulled out. And down the road, another President, one with balls, will be forced into solving the problem this President refuses to do.

This is one of those 3:00 am phone calls and Obama is not doing well.

My Concerns For The Palestinian Children

THE WORLD IS CONCERNED ABOUT PALESTINIAN KIDS... AS WELL WE SHOULD BE!

President Barack Obama has ordered 21 million dollars of emergency funds be used to bring Palestinian refugees to the United States . Officially President Obama says this is a concern for the children, But President Obama and Company are relocating the children's parents with them.

These are the pictures of Palestinian children shown to us by the media.





These are pictures of Palestinian children that the media do not show us.































































Soap Box Ravings believes the Palestinian children pictured do sing songs in praise of their leaders. Maybe that is why some of our schools have started singing praise for Obama; to make these children feel more at home when they arrive at a school near you.

9-11-09

Jessica Leeder of the Globe and Mail (Canada) wrote:

As the 11th hour strikes Friday morning, a hush will ripple across the United States to mark the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks – and the first with President Barack Obama at the helm.

Rather than join the throng of politicians attending the annual World Trade Center ceremony, Mr. Obama is slated to meet victims' families at a more intimate, lower-profile memorial at the Pentagon, a strategic move observers suggest is aimed at managing the tepid support for the war in Afghanistan.

The complete article is at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-plans-low-key-911-anniversary/article1282996/

Soap Box Ravings finds it interesting that the President, who can showcase himself by flying to Colorado to sign a bill does not go to New York City for 9-11 Memorial Observances. Today is the eighth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on this country, an attack that killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Soap Box Ravings notes that this President, a President who bows to a Queen, Kisses a Sheik's ring and constantly apologizes for the existence of the United States of America has chosen to downplay the memorial services in regard to Islam's attack on the United States on 09-11-2001. For almost 68 years Pearl Harbor has been recognized as Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet after only eight years, the attacks on the United States which occurred at the World Trade center, the Pentagon and in the air near Shanksville, PA are now referred to as terrorist attacks, not attacks by Muslims or Islamic attacks.

While I realize that not every person of Islam was involved in the attack, neither was every Japanese person involved in the attack at Pearl Harbor. However, the fact remains that Islamic or Muslim war lords exist and they still wish to inflict much harm to the United States and it's citizens.

Shame on you Barack Hussein Obama for not participating in the New York City services. Shame on you Barack Hussein Obama if you used the families of those who died on 09-11-2001 to further support for your Afghan misadventures.

What Obama Says On Health Care

WNCN Raleigh

Soap Box Ravings says there are a lot of people out there talking health care. Every one of them has an agenda. Each side puts out information that may be true or not.

As a retired police officer, Soap Box ravings understands that eye witnesses to an incident do not always witness every part of the incident in the same way, even when they really want to provide the correct information.

Then there are other citizens who may invent stories or just outright lie. Sometimes for personal gain and other times perhaps for their 15 minutes of fame.

With this in mind, I went to the factcheck.org website and looked at what the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, is saying about "his" health care effort.

With the health care debate on Capitol Hill raging on, President Barack Obama held a prime-time news conference July 22, 2009 to make his pitch for a health care bill once again to the American public. Among his facts and figures, we found some false and questionable statements.

On Paying For Health Care

Among other things, the president promised that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, said:

More access and broader coverage do not save money. However, greater coverage will increase health spending. Unless major changes are successfully implemented in health care delivery and payment systems, costs will continue to rise from a larger base at a rapid pace.

Moreover, potential savings are speculative, while costs are far more certain. That imbalance suggests that unless there is broad popular support for the measures that will be required to achieve savings, the nation’s health care bill could become that much more unaffordable.

On Near-Universal Coverage

The president also exaggerated the number of persons who would be covered by his health care plan.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill working its way through the House would result in 97 percent of Americans (excluding illegal immigrants) having insurance by 2015. The figure would be only 94 percent of those in the U.S., if you count "illegals."

On Uncompensated Care

Obama said: in fact, there’s going to be a whole lot of savings that we obtain from that because, for example, the average American family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what’s called uncompensated care – people who show up at the emergency room because they don’t have a primary care physician.

In June, 2009, factcheck.org previously pointed out that President Obama was wrong in this area.

On A $5 Trillion Whopper

The president claimed he has cut federal spending by more than $2 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) specifically estimated the "total effect on outlays" of Obama’s budget as an increase of $2.7 trillion compared with what’s called for in current law. So by CBO’s figuring, spending would go up $2.7 trillion, not down $2.2 trillion. That would make Obama’s claim a nearly $5 trillion whopper.

On the U.S. vs. The Rest of the World

Obama exaggerated the discrepancy between U.S. and foreign health care costs:

In fact, the U.S. spends nearly $7,000 per person total, or nearly $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country, according to the most recent completed data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

In Soap Box Ravings opinion the President of The United States needs to get his crap in one sock. Soap Box Ravings can not see why anyone would vote for a plan the man promoting it does not understand. Disregarding all of the talking heads, of either side, the presidents performance is to quote a term, "Piss Poor."

The full story may be found at:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/

The Great Oz, Behind The Curtain

Little Teddy Kennedy

The younger brother in a well to do family. Some of the Kennedy brothers were more heroic than others. However, in Soap Box Ravings opinion, Teddy was the most spoiled and the least heroic of the lot.

Teddy showed his mettle in the incident which killed Mary Jo Kopechne at the Chappaquiddick Bridge .

The media is doing their best to paint Senator Edward Kennedy as a super hero. In truth, he was the little brother trying to live up to the heroic achievements of his older brothers while trying to maintain his political position.

During his life, Edward Kennedy acted more like John Kerry than he did his older brothers. His brothers seemed to be more involved in doing what was "right" than in what was political although John and Bobby were political creatures.

Both Edward Kennedy and John Kerry seemed to operate more on looks than substance, generally a poor and embarrassing combination when viewed from a standpoint of honor, duty and country.

It would be a lot more appropriate if the media recognized him for the man he was instead of trying to make him a saint (lionize).

Musings On Health Care

Senator Edward Kennedy

Soap Box Ravings notes that under the proposed health plans being bandied about in Washington, DC, Senator Kennedy would most likely have died much earlier. An ordinary citizen of his age would not have received the medical treatment made available to him under these proposed health plans.

Soap Box Ravings would also like to bring to your attention the efforts of two other lawmakers, first Senator Tom Coburn:



Senator Tom Coburn MD, Oklahoma Republican, believes Congress should weigh the dangers of a nationalized health system much more seriously than it has. He successfully pressed the Senate Health Committee to approve his idea of requiring Members of Congress themselves to enroll in whatever "public plan" is passed to compete with private insurance companies.

His idea wasn't exactly greeted warmly by all committee members. Senator Jeff Bingaman (a lawyer) New Mexico Democrat, said "I don't know why we should require ourselves to participate in a plan that no one else needs to participate in. This bill goes to great lengths to show that the choice is there for everybody."

However, Senator Coburn disagreed, he said that his reading of the 1,000-page health care bill convinced him that everyone would end up being forced into the public plan as private insurance carriers were squeezed out of the market by mandates and regulations. Senator Coburn feels if Congress decides a government-run health plan is good enough for the American people, Congress should be willing to put itself under its care umbrella.

By a 12 to 11 margin, the Senate Health Committee agreed. Every Republican save for New Hampshire's Judd Gregg voted in favor of the Coburn mandate. Every Democrat except Senator's Dodd, Kennedy and Mikulski were opposed.

It would appear, many members of Congress already used to a generous and flexible set of health benefits have no intention of backing Senator Coburn's mandate and allowing it to become law.

And second, Representative John Fleming:



Congressman John Fleming MD, Louisiana Republican, has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition: I have done that at:

http://fleming.house.gov/index.html.