A Intelligent Voice In The Wilderness

President Obama with his personally selected Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (No intelligent voices here)

The oil spill continues off the coast of Louisiana and British Petroleum (BP) with all of their oil well specific knowledge does not seem able to contain the spill or stop the leak.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed today that the Coast Guard would take greater control of the response and ensure that "every federal resource that can be deployed is being deployed."

President Obama with his personally selected Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (No intelligent voices here)

Over the weekend, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated the government might somehow replace BP as chief responder to the spill.

USCG Admiral Thad Allen (An intelligent voice in the wilderness)

The Coast Guard's Commandant today contradicted Salazar's statement, by saying there is no plan to remove BP. "To push BP out of the way would raise the question: Replace them with what?" Allen said.

Soap Box Ravings says here you have it laid out right in front of you. The Liberal response made by Secretaries Napolitano and Salazar is to "scream, shout and run about." They want to use more government to save the Gulf; to turn the full weight of the government loose (whatever that means).

Any fool can see that the US Navy and Coast Guard are not equipped to stop an oil leak 5,000+ feet under water. They have neither the equipment, knowledge or experience. The US Army, Air Force and Marine Corp also do not have any of the prerequisites.

Soap Box Ravings would think those in government at the Secretary level would understand these facts. Therefore, Soap Box Ravings believes these statements are made by these Secretaries to make the ignorant and uninformed believe the problem is being taken care of while the situation continues. Our present government is interested in blame, not necessarily problem resolution. As they say, never waste a good crisis.

Soap Box Ravings says Thank You to Admiral Allen for saying out loud the obvious. Your voice, which will probably be over run or ignored until he can be replaced by a proper fellow traveler is refreshing. This Retired Master Chief salutes you Admiral Allen for the way you are doing your job. Duty, Honor, Country; some folks out there still believe.

Hundreds Of Millions Spent With Minimal Results, Your Government At Work

Getty Images

Headlines at: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/23/more-high-tech-setbacks-for-border-security/ reveal More High-Tech Setbacks for Border Security

Obama administration's recent surprise decision to suspend new work on a multibillion-dollar high-tech border control system -- the third attempted since 1997 -- raises further questions about the government's ability to do the job and secure our borders.

The upshot is, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to close the border to illegal aliens, drug traffickers, terrorist and smugglers of all types and we have very little to show for the money spent.

Soap Box Ravings proposes that the United States copy the applicable Laws of the Republic of Mexico. Should you try to enter Mexico as an illegal alien, a drug trafficker, terrorist or smuggler of any sort you will find yourself in a Mexican prison.

So it's simple folks, adapt Mexican law. The beauty is those crossing from Mexico already are aware of Mexican law so there would be no training involved.

Obama's Mexican Pal Calderon Calls For Reinstatement Of Failed US Gun Ban

On Thursday, May 20, 2010, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, where prohibitive gun laws prevent good people from having firearms for protection against criminals and governments of dubious legitimacy (historically the norm in Mexico), encouraged Congress to reinstate the federal "assault weapon" ban. With a warning seemingly designed to appeal to those who believe that speaking out against the Obama Administration's policies are one step short of sedition or worse, Calderon said, "[I]f you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the United States with access to the same power of weapons will not decide to challenge American authorities and civilians."

Calderon also misinformed Congress, claiming that violence in Mexico rose significantly after the U.S. ban expired in 2004. In fact, Mexico's murder rate has been stable since 2003 and remains well below rates recorded previously. However, he did not explain why violent crime has declined significantly in the U.S. since the ban expired, or how a ban on flash suppressors and bayonet mounts relates to drug thugs in Mexico or anywhere else.

Notwithstanding the Washington Post's judgment that Calderon "made a powerful case," we suspect his speech fell on mostly deaf ears in Congress and in Arizona, which he inappropriately criticized for having an illegal immigration enforcement law that is similar to Mexico's. But it had some effect, however. New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy issued a statement incorrectly claiming that she has repeatedly introduced legislation to "reinstate" the ban. She has repeatedly introduced legislation, of course, but not to reinstate the ban. Rather, her bills have proposed to apply the "assault weapon" label to far more firearms than were covered by the expired ban, including the M1 Garand service rifle, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22, and any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle a future attorney general might claim is not "sporting."

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

Soap Box Ravings reminds readers that the military grade weapons (fully automatic) being used in Mexico by drug gangs are not normally available in this country. Many weapons used in Mexico came from the Mexican military after their owner was killed or they left the military to participate in the services of the drug lord involved.

Many other weapons have been purchased on the worldwide black market from illegal arms dealers who deal in military weapons.

United States Federal Firearms Regulations (in a nut shell):

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

(Sources: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2, "FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons", and from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, National Firearms Act FAQ. See also, "The Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective" [Hardy, 1986]) )

Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

Based on the above information, Soap Box Ravings points out that machine guns (fully automatic weapons) can not change hands, be created or destroyed without the involvement of the federal government. If you own one, the federal government is watching it.

You would think that a politician trained as a constitutional lawyer would know all of this.

Calderon's Dissing Continues And The Democrats Applaud It

UPI/Kevin Dietsch

In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Mexican President Calderon spoke against guns in the United States and also offered blistering comments about the Arizona immigration law. Calderon, who obviously has not read the Arizona Statues in question, repeated Obama's statements that the statutes use racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.

Many Democrats present applauded Calderon's input.

Soap Box Ravings opinion is the dissing continues. President Obama, President Calderon and all of the applauding Democrats have shown their lack of respect for Congress and the United States of America.

Neither Obama or Calderon will admit that many of the weapons used by criminals in Mexico were either stolen Mexican military weapons or purchased on the black worldwide market. Many of those weapons are fully automatic weapons. I challenge anyone reading this to locate and purchase a fully automatic weapon in this country.

The weapons that many Mexicans do buy illegally in our country and take back to Mexico are common hunting rifles, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols they use for their own self defense.

It is illegal to purchase them and take them to Mexico, but the Mexican government does not allow their ordinary people to own weapons for self defense. However, again, they are not full automatic weapons.

Neither Obama and Calderon seem to have read, nor do they intend to read the Arizona Statute they are complaining about. They do not interested in allowing facts to get in the way of their personal political gain.

Another "Never Waste A Good Crisis"

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (aka the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill)is a massive, presently ongoing since April 20, 2010, oil spill stemming from a sea floor oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill started with an oil well blowout on April 20, 2010 which caused a catastrophic explosion on the Deepwater Horizon resulting in the loss of the offshore oil drilling platform about 40 miles South East of the Louisiana coast.

On May 3, 2010 President Obama cancelled the Interior Department’s 2010 Oil Industry Safety Awards luncheon at which British Petroleum was one of three finalists for a federal award program that would honoring offshore oil companies for “outstanding safety and pollution prevention.”

Soap Box Ravings would like to report that he heard his local radio station report at least four times yesterday (05-18-10) that federal inspectors had failed to do their jobs with regard to inspecting and regulating the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Then the very next sentence was that a senator wanted to increase the regulations applicable to deep water oil drilling rigs.

Soap Box Ravings wonders why if federal employees fail to enforce regulations on the books why more regulations should be written to ignore. It would seem that that Senator and his or her peers would be more effective on another project such as: securing our borders, reducing taxes, repealing Obama's cursed health plan or solving the Social Security/Medicare crisis about to overwhelm the country.

This Picture Says It All, Remember In November

Soap Box Ravings asks if you know where to get this in a bumper sticker, please let me know.

Once Again Obama Disses His Country

Today Mexican President Felipe Calderon called Arizona's law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to "criminalize migration."

And today, President Barack Hussein Obama, as usual supported another country against his country by calling the Arizona law "a misdirected expression of frustration."

Soap Box Ravings says Arizona passed their law, a direct copy of federal law which the federal government refuses to comply with. Not only will the federal government not apply their own law, they provide no relief to the individual states overwhelmed with illegal immigrants.

President Calderon and his government encourage Mexican citizens to illegally migrate into the United States. Yet Americans who go to Mexico are required to follow the laws of Mexico.

Soap Box Ravings feels that it is totally disgusting that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and a Harvard graduated lawyer, willfully misrepresents Arizona Statutes for his and his party's political gain.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

The United States of America has just bailed out Greece and the European Union by the tune of a TRILLION Dollars. A Trillion (a cardinal number represented in the U.S. by 1 followed by 12 zeros) Dollars and it is an unsecured loan. Should Greece default, we don't even own the Parthenon.

And while we are making the loan to Greece, President Obama is leading our country down the same path that led Greece to bankruptcy.

Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder how fast Greece and the rest of the European Union will rush to aid the "Great Satan" when we go bankrupt.

I sincerely hope my fellow concerned citizens notify the Emperor of his "No Clothes Status" in November.

I want the message to be loud and clear on all fronts; so it can not possibly be ignored.

Warning Shot Fired In Germany, Funny Our Government Ignores Warning Shots As Coming From Misfits Or Tea Partiers

Chancellor Merkel's center-right alliance lost a key election in Germany's most populous state on Sunday, costing her majority in the upper house of parliament and curbing her government's power. It seems a lot of Germans do not want to bail out Greece from their financial difficulties.

Soap Box Ravings can't help see a connection here with President Obama's government in the United States. He spends his time on items in his agenda, but appears to be doing nothing for his fellow citizens. Twice he has verbally attacked police officers conduct in this country. He forced through a medica health plan that seems bound to bankrupt the country. However, when people complain he tries to pigeon hole them as malcontents. He has continually promised things which did not happen, some small and some very damaging.

Lets Remember in November.

Nothing Right Wing Or Tea Party About This

We start with these segments:

If I had to guess twenty-five cents this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda, that doesn’t like the health care bill or something: New York City Mayor Bloomberg on CBS Evening News regarding the Times Square SUV Bomber, May 3, 2010.

Soap Box Ravings reminds you that as Mayor of New York City he should lead with facts, not speculation. Think about the magnitude of intelligence provided for his use.


Funny how the knee- jerk reaction of both the Obama administration and the main stream media, given the fact that a car bomb was set to detonate at the "crossroads of the world", Times Square, was that Islamic terrorism was not at work.Soap Box Ravings provides the above which is the opening line of a story that may be found here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41853-Homeland-Security-Examiner~y2010m5d5-Times-Square-bombing-The-Tea-Party-movement-was-involved

Pakistani Taliban Directed Times Square Bomb Attempt, Officials Say

Obama administration officials Sunday said that the Pakistani Taliban, which had claimed credit for the failed attempt by Faisal Shahzad to set off a car bomb in New York's crowded Times Square on May 1, did in fact that mastermind the plot.Story at: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/09/pakistani-taliban-directed-times-square-bomb-attempt-officials/print/

Soap Box Ravings believes this may be the first Taliban directed attack in the United States since 09-11-01. But I guess the Taliban feel emboldened by our touchy feely President. I don't think (Do you miss him yet?) President Bush made the Taliban feel so warm and cozy.

Soap Box Ravings says if only Obama and his cronies would stand up for the people of Arizona and the rest of the country like they do for their Muslim friends.

Remember in November

Obama's Laser Focus

Soap Box Ravings can't help but think President Obama's laser focus must be getting a little strained.

Employment, regardless of how it is trumpeted does not seem to be recovering. His behavior during the passing of the health care bill resembled a bull forcing its way through a china store however, his focus on employment during that year seemed to be nonexistent.

The latest "terrorist" made it onto an airplane after his name and passport were known before the plane was made to return to the gate.

The President insulted every law enforcement officer in the country with his remarks about an Arizona senior being hassled by law enforcement when going for ice cream. His remarks closely resembled his earlier comments concerning the officer who arrested Obama's professor friend.

The President and appropriate cabinet members response to the gulf oil spill was underwhelming to say the least. Although they did manage to cancel the government's award ceremony for British Petroleum for their marvelous safety record.

His interest in the Tennessee floods seems to be minimal.

With due respect, the President has said he is looking into all of these questions.

Soap Box Ravings believes people can recover from ignorance, stupidity not so much.

The Louder The Left Screams, The Farther Off Base They Are

President Obama and DOJ to challenge Arizona, not support Arizona

Soap Box Ravings believes much of what the Left is screaming about Arizona's Immigration Law can be resolved by reading the law. So here it is, read it yourself and see if you can find the doom and gloom forecast by President Obama, who as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States fails to enforce US Laws already in place regardless of his sworn oath to uphold and support those laws.


Soap Box Ravings would also like to point out that demonstrations against Arizona and the Arizona immigration policies seem to have a different type of people demonstrating than those Tea Party folk. Who would have thunk it.


Arizona and Illegal Immigration

A posting of the Arizona SB 1070:

SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, trespassing by illegal aliens, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.

Summary of the Proposed Strike–Everything Amendment to SB 1070

The proposed strike-everything amendment to SB 1070 makes changes to laws relating to the enforcement on immigration laws, failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.

History

8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Laws 2007, Ch. 279 enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (Act). The Act: expands aggravated taking the identity of another person or entity to include the intent to obtain employment; prohibits an employer from intentionally employing an unauthorized alien or knowingly employing an unauthorized alien; requires the Attorney General (AG) or county attorney to investigate complaints and classifies filing a false and frivolous complaint as a class 3 misdemeanor; provides for license suspension for the first violation; requires license revocation on a second violation during a probationary period; and after December 31, 2007, requires every employer to utilize E-Verify to verify employment eligibility. Laws 2008, Chapter 152 further amended the Act.

Provisions

Enforcement of Immigration Law

•Prohibits officials and agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
•Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a legitimate contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person.
•Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.
•Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
•Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification.

•Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or any fine imposed, the person must be transferred to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
•Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.
•Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:

Ø Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license.

Ø Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.

Ø If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.

Ø Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

•Allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
•Allows the court to order any of the following, if there is a judicial finding of a violation:

Ø That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

Ø That the entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions.

•States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the Department of Public Safety for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.
•Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.
•Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Willful Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Document

•Specifies that in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) or 1306(a).
•Stipulates that the final determination of immigration status must be made by either:

Ø A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.

Ø ICE or CBP pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c).

•Prevents a person convicted of the new offense from being eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence is served.
•Requires the court to order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment of:

Ø At least $500 for a first offense.

Ø Twice the amount the person was ordered to pay for the first offense if this is the second or subsequent offense.

•States that the court will collect the assessments and transmit the collected monies to the Department of Public Safety for deposit in a special sub-account of the account established for GIITEM.
•Stipulates that monies in the sub-account are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail costs relating to illegal immigration.
•Makes a first offense a class 1 misdemeanor.
•Increases the penalty to a class 3 felony if the person commits the offense while in possession of:

Ø A dangerous drug (A.R.S. § 13-3401).

Ø Precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine (A.R.S. § 13-3404.01).

Ø A deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-3101).

Ø A dangerous instrument (A.R.S. § 13-105).

Ø Property used for committing an act of terrorism (A.R.S. § 13-2308.01).

•Makes violations a class 4 felony if either:

Ø It is a second or subsequent violation.

Ø Within 60 days, the person has been removed from the U.S. either under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a or 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

Unlawfully Picking up Passengers for Work

•Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
•Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.
•Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for a person who is unlawfully present who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor.
•Defines solicit and unauthorized alien.

Unlawfully Transporting or Harboring Unlawful Aliens

•Stipulates that it is unlawful for a person to:

Ø Transport or move an alien in a means of transportation, or attempt to do so, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø Conceal, harbor or shield an alien, or attempt to, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø Encourage or induce an alien to come to this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that doing so would be a violation of law.

•Specifies that a means of transportation used in a violation of these provisions is subject to mandatory vehicle immobilization or impoundment.
•Provides the defense to prosecution if the person was providing or assisted in providing emergency, public safety or public health services otherwise available to the general public with regard to income.
•Stipulates that violators are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and subject to a fine of at least $1,000. However, a violation involving 10 or more illegal aliens is a class 6 felony and subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien involved.
•Requires a peace officer to immobilize or impound a person’s vehicle if the officer determines either that:

Ø In furtherance of the illegal presence of an alien the person is transporting or moving, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Ø The person is concealing, harboring or shielding an alien in this state, or attempting to do so in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here unlawfully.

Employer Sanctions

•Provides employers with the affirmative defense that they were entrapped, but they must admit the substantial elements of the violation.
•Stipulates that the employer has the burden of proof proving the following by clear and convincing evidence:

Ø The idea of committing the violation started with the officer or their agents.

Ø The officers or their agents urged and induced the employer to commit the violation.

Ø The employer was not predisposed to commit the violation before the law enforcement officer or agents urged and induced the employer to do so.

•Stipulates that an employer is not entrapped if the employer was predisposed to violate the law and law enforcement merely provided the employer with the opportunity. Additionally, it is not entrapment for law enforcement to use a ruse or to conceal their identity.
•Requires employers to keep a record of the employment verification from E-verify for the duration of an employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer.
Miscellaneous
•Authorizes peace officers to lawfully stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of a civil traffic offense and human smuggling laws.
•Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.
•Establishes the GIITEM fund (fund) and directs monies collected from penalties resulting from policies limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law to the fund.
•Requires the Arizona Department of Public Safety to administer the fund, which is subject to legislative appropriation and is to be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement for costs relating to illegal immigration.
•Contains intent and severability clauses.
•Specifies that this act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”
•Makes technical and conforming changes.

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.