Slashdot Mirror
UK Teen Banned From US Over Obscene Obama Email
British teenager Luke Angel has been banned from the US for sending an email to the White House calling President Obama an obscenity. The 17-year-old says he was drunk when he sent the mail and doesn't understand what the big deal is. "I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k. It was silly -- the sort of thing you do when you're a teenager and have had a few," he said. The FBI contacted local police who in turn confronted Luke and let him know that the US Department of Homeland Security didn't think his email was funny. "The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don't really care but my parents aren't very happy," Angel said.
But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k.
So what? I mean ... so what? A lot of Americans feel the same way and we don't have to be drunk to say it ... free speech and all that. Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders? What kind of example are we trying to set here?
Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President. Besides, I'm a little confused on how a kid gets banned from the United States forever for performing an action that isn't illegal in this country, probably isn't illegal in his, and should have been entirely beneath law enforcement's radar anyway? Why didn't his local cops tell the FBI to go pound sand? What if he'd been visiting the United States when he wrote that? Would we have imprisoned or deported him? Does the FBI use lead plumbing?
Yeah, I'm kinda embarrassed by this. Don't try to tell me that every President since the we starting having them hasn't received thousands of messages a year calling him all kinds of names. It's part and parcel of the job: if you don't have a pretty thick skin you have no business being a politician in the first place. So, what made them single this kid out from the rest of the pack? Does the FBI ban every foreigner who expresses a negative opinion of the President from ever setting foot in our country?
Personally, I'd like to know what Obama thinks of this silliness, what he thinks has been accomplished here. It sounds to me like a couple of Federal agents need to have their wings clipped, or at least should be assigned duties more suitable for their temperament. Reading obituaries, maybe.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A prick?
The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.
Just show the fucking word, people. It's not that big of a deal.
Technoli
So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled? Ya, emailing the White House and calling the president a name isn't "smart" but it isn't illegal unless it constitutes a threat either. If you can be banned from ever entering the country for that "offense", when are we going to be exiled for doing the same?
Shenanigans!
We'll teach him that America doesn't tolerate someone speaking freely!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I suspect that the Whitehouse is going to be getting A LOT of emails from angsty edgy teenagers calling him more than just a prick.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
You are a prick. Sincerely, a guy that lives in America.
Guys gets interviewed by a newspaper after getting tracked down by the FBI and banned from the US for life, says it was just a "silly" email, "think I called [him] a prick".
Suuuuure. "Abusive and threatening" is all the other side will say, but I suspect Mr Angel's email was a little worse than he was letting on. My guess is racial abuse and death threats. But hey, play the innocent, because those Tea Party guys with mildly offensive signs are also getting tracked down by the FBI, right? Right?
Exactly what I was about to type.
"I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. "
He said he thinks that he called the president a prick. If the provider didn't delete the email (I doubt it), I bet he knows EXACTLY what he wrote since he can look up the damned thing. Probably made some comment like "If I ever see you I'm going to..." but decided not to 'remember' that part in order to not have the rest of the world respond with, "What did you THINK would happen?"
Personally, I can think of a lot more worse things that could happen, especially if instead of the president, I emailed my boss while drunk.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I'm going to reserve judgement until the exact text of the e-mail is published. He can't remember what he wrote? BS. There will be a copy in his Sent E-mail folder. I'm guessing he did a lot more than call the POS a bad name. He probably included some threats, veiled or not, and that is the real reason he was paid a visit and banned from entering the country. But until we know what the e-mail says, we can't tell if the reaction was proportionate to the action. Basically, it's a chance for political bashing. Worthless journalism.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
From the article, it seems that he might have said a little more than the one sentence quoted above. Not that he is an American citizen, but calling the President names should qualify as protected speech, albeit juvenile protected speech. However, if he also made threats against the President, then that is an entirely different matter.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.
What a colossal disappointment this administration is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He said he was drunk, and thinks he called him a prick. That means he was sober and ranted for hours about how he hates Obama.
Even so, it seems like a fair thing to say to a president. What, are world leaders not capable of facing a teenager's comments on their leadership?
Um, the original article is from the UK Sun, which is pretty much equivalent to the Weekly World News or any other made up tabloid. Gizmodo linked to it and has since retracted their reporting because the article is false. http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life Way to believe everything you read on the internet.
I'm not saying that this *didn't* happen, but the Sun is gutter trash with as much credibility as the National Enquirer.
The Sun is also owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame.
I'll need to have a report from a trustworthy source to believe this one, especially around election time.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It was handled poorly, but it needed to be handled. There's an evolution to things like this that get away from you if you take small enough steps...
"Your leader is a punk"...
"Your leader is awful"...
"I hate your leader"...
"I wish your leader was removed from office"...
"I wish your leader was dead"...
"I wish someone would kill your leader"...
"I'm going to kill your leader"
It doesn't take very long to get from calling someone a punk to saying you're going to kill them. You can argue that wishing or threatening harm to someone is where the line is drawn, but it's all about baby steps. If you take small enough ones eventually you'll get there, and the administration knows that.
That said, banning someone from the country is too much, certainly for that statement anyway. It should have been handled, but certainly not that harshly. If my kid calls 911, they call back and say don't do that. They don't pick him up and throw him in juvi for 6 months.
You know, I wrote the Chinese government years ago, about their invasion of Tibet. A few times over the years, I've wondered if going to China after that would be a bad idea. However, nothing ever came of it. Interesting that the US got so much more worked up.
Maybe he'll invite him over to have a case of beer or two.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Not sure who said that, but when it comes to journalism, it's as true to today as when it was first uttered (which was something like 50 or 100 years ago - maybe longer).
Still, I'd like to know what else was in the email. I'm not sure someone would actually get banned just for calling the President a vulgar name.
Interesting question though - the First Amendment limits government limitations on speech. I'm not sure if the Constitution actually applies to foreign nationals, but in the case of the First Amendment, it is a limitation on the government, not a privilege afforded to people. What I mean is, the text of the First Amendment, of course, is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion of U.S. Citizens, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof for U.S. Citizens; or abridging the freedom of speech of U.S. Citizens, or of the U.S. press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It might be argued that it might be implied/obvious that it only applies to U.S. citizens - guess that would really be a SCOTUS question. Still, it seems to me that as it stands, the government can't use laws to suppress speech anywhere - doesn't seem like it would only limit Congress's powers with regards to U.S. citizens but give them complete unfettered power w.r.t. foreign nationals.
I mean, I suppose it's completely reasonable to prevent someone from entering the country if they've actually made *threats* against the President, or any person in the U.S., or against the military, or any property (e.g. a threat to blow up a building or a subway, or any other thing), or to harm the environment (e.g. set off a dirty bomb, contaminate a water supply, etc), etc.
But calling someone a name isn't a threat against them. That would seem to fall under protected speech.
There was a joke in the former USSR, it went like so:
An American and a Soviet are arguing who has more freedom in their respective countries.
American says:
-In USA anybody can just stand in front of the White House and yell "Down with Reagan!", nobody will do anything to do him, it's legal.
Soviet says:
-In USSR ANYBODY can just stand in front of the Kremlin and yell "Down with Reagan!" too, and nobody will touch him either.
-----
But of-course this kid was not an American standing right in front of the White House and yelling 'Down with Reagan!', I suppose that's the difference here.
You can't handle the truth.
"criticising the US Government after seeing a TV programme about 9/11."
Did I fall into a wormhole or something? Or was 9/11 a few years before Obama came into power?
The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language.
after all, most men here are circumcised.
Nullius in verba
The article is from The Sun, a newspaper known mostly for its page 3 girls(NSFW). The Sun is slightly more reliable than the Weekly World News slightly less reliable than most guests on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
But it's also on bbc news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303
I know this is hard to grasp for an American, but England is NOT a state of the United States of America. Not yet anyway. So Obama is NOT his president. And since he is 17, he hasn't yet voted for anybody either.
The US is not obliged to allow anyone in.
And I would think that the Brits have NOTHING to complain about since they have blocked Geert Wilders from entering because they didn't like what he had to say.
So the US can't keep out of a drunk teen, but the UK can keep out an elected citizen of an EU nation and a Nato ally?
Double standards, thou name is Britain.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The fucking son? are you shitting me? what next the world weekly news? Yeah I know it doesn't exist anymore, but you get my point.
Man, people are going to stupidly extreme crap to find anything on this man.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk."
This consequence may be a bit overboard, but maybe this will help you learn that your actions have consequences. Being drunk is no excuse; you still performed the action. Even if you never would have done such a thing while sober, unless someone held you down and shoved a hose down your throat, you willingly chose to get drunk. Now you get to live with the result.
If only we could be so strict about people driving while drunk or on other drugs, instead of letting them off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine every time until they kill someone. But this kid who sent a threatening email gets banned from the US for life. The consequence doesn't seem proportional to the crime.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
"The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language. We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and went to see him. He said, 'Oh dear, it was me'." - from the article
If you threaten the US President, you may find yourself on the US threat list.
It's simple, logical and not any kind of abridgment of free speech.
It is pathetic slashdot runs a yellow headline, saying the letter was only 'obscene' when the authorities involved say it was more than obscene, but threatening.
Slashdot, next time you decide to run a story from a tabloid known for its garbage stories, remember that when you run the story you are also making yourself into a tabloid.
As an additional note, The Sun is owned by News Corp, owners of Fox News. Congratulations on being a mouthpiece for them.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Go to Google and do a search on:
"obama banned from the US UK"
(no quotes)
Look at the sites that are quoting an article in the Sun. It's a whose who of people whose job it is to be anti Obama.
You could probably map it to all the fallacious anti-Obama's sites. Owned buy Murdoch and the Koch brothers.
http://noliesradio.org/archives/21658
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Though if you'd rather blame a couple rogue bureaucrats for these shenanigans, we're left with the question why the UK police was so obliging.
I for one am glad that the law enforcement resources of two countries were used to protect me from this obvious terrorist threat. /sarcasm
Jesus, just because YOU CAN doesn't necessarily mean YOU SHOULD. Talk about over-reaction. How much did this cost again, taking into account the time spent by the email-readers in the White House, the FBI, the police in the UK, etc? My opinion is there is more than one prick in government...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I would suggest that those thinking this story is false because of it being published in The Sun would perhaps like to check out the article at BBC News? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11296303 Sounds like the Metropolitan police were involved in this as well, which seems more likely than the FBI getting in touch with a smaller police force.
A. Doesn't the FBI have something better to do than ban children from entering the US?
B. I wonder if this will stir up the old hate machine?
Oh boy, you did it too. In a short while you'll hear footsteps then a few loud bangs on the door from the police, delivering your life long ban from the land of the free.
Can you wait a moment? Someone is knocking on my door...
has successfully repackaged propaganda as news, and has done untold damage to the civil discourse in half a dozen nations
why is this guy allowed to continue publishing under the guise of being a news source?
of course you shouldn't stop publishing him, its free speech. and of course the retards who unquestioningly trust this filth (obama is a "secret muslim!") share the blame
but doesn't society have a duty to clearly delineate fact from fiction? to, for example, insist that what this man publishes is "for entertainment value only, not to be confused with news"
the man is damaging western civilization by driving the topic of mass conversation into the area of political spin and smearmongering. surely we have a duty to insist that what is presented as news be news. otherwise, this man is assembling the riff raff into an angry stupid propagandized fountain of ill will eating at society
label the shit this man publishes, mark it clearly as fiction. let him have his corporate agenda-funded propaganda, its free speech. but i don't want to pay this cognitive tax on the stupid when it comes to civil discourse in my country any more
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... let's deport the tea party, half the GOP, and the staff at Fox News.
Oh, and is Rupert Murdoch allowed to enter the US?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
If nothing else he's a rude little wanker who by the mere fact of calling an elder this shouldn't be allowed to visit anywhere but his bedroom for a while.
To those who say the kid would have a copy of his email, that may not be so. I use yahoo mail for a lot of things, and have it set to not save a copy of the email in my sent folder. I'm sure I'm not the only person on earth who doesn't want the annoyance of a sent folder.
But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k.
So what? I mean ... so what? A lot of Americans feel the same way and we don't have to be drunk to say it ... free speech and all that. Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders? What kind of example are we trying to set here?
Maybe we believe people in any country shouldn't be allowed to threaten our leaders. See the police statement in TFA, and also here. I normally take police statements with a grain of salt, but am more apt to trust them than a drunken teenage attention-whore running to a tabloid to tell his story.
Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President.
Any threat against the President should be treated as a credible threat against the President.
Besides, I'm a little confused on how a kid gets banned from the United States forever for performing an action that isn't illegal in this country, probably isn't illegal in his, and should have been entirely beneath law enforcement's radar anyway?
Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Do you have the statement?
You have made up a situation where the response indicated is not appropriate. Did you stop and think that since you don't know what the email actually said that perhaps the response was appropriate and the mistake is your own for making up a situation where the email is assumed to be innocuous?
It's bizarre that the less information people have, the more convinced they are that they are right and the people who were handling the situation and had the actual information as to what happened are wrong.
Why? Why do people do this? I just can't understand it. Are people somehow deriving pleasure from calling other people wrong and thus have to find more ways to do it?
This is one aspect of human behavior that drives me crazy. Why are more people more quick to condemn than to understand?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The ORIGINAL article was actually published in the local paper on Sunday 12/09/2010 http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm It also says he was "drunk and hgh" conveniently left out of the "Nationals"...
can I be banned now?
what email address would I need to end this to?
FTA: ""I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k"
bullshit.
You would think after the cops came he would take a look at his sent mail.
I don't think threatening people is protected speech(completely normal) and I'm pretty sure threatening the president is illegal (not as normal, but why are you doing it anyway?)
I read over 7 articles on this fiasco and have yet to have seen the content of the email.
I think that would let us know if it was indeed threatenting or just obscene.
I will reserve comment on the situation until I can read this, as I think most folks should.
In American English, prick(slang) just means stuck up snob.
And, as a Briton, he lost any right to come here whenever he wants in 1776.
Part of having your own borders means getting to decide who gets to cross them.
Any and ALL presidential issues get handled by the Secret Service.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
He wasnt banned from the US for calling the president a bad name he was banned for writing a letter "full of abusive and threatening language" language towards the president.
The moment anyone who not a citizen or a resident of the US uses threatening language towards the president of the United States it is quite reasonable to keep them
out of the country. The fact that the british police thought it important enough to come talk to the kid and take his picture says something.
If a non-resident sent a threatening message to the queen or prime minister of the UK, they would do the same thing...bar the person from the country.
Its common sense.
As the budget for the agency was limited due to us having just finished a war a "sense of humour" was left out of the budget (this being in 1865 just after the "Civil" war). As the scope of the agencies role was expanded it was decided that a "sense of humour" was in fact not needed at all (money and the "protected persons list").
if this young gentleman said anything that remotely threatened the POTOS then he is lucky he was just barred from US soil and not thrown in jail until he grew up.
Oh and since they got flipped from Treasury to DHS they really don't have a sense of humour.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
...our resident expert made the following statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKcJF4fOPs
http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life
This story reported by the Sun is not true and we apologize for having published it.
The FBI doesn't call the local police of a 1,729-people village in Bedfordshire, England, to tell someone is banned from entering the United States.
According to Homeland Security rules, if you are banned from entering the United States, they don't ever tell foreign nationals about it.
They just deny you entry at the border because it shows up in your file.--JD
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It seems, from the analysis in this well-founded paper ("One-Click Download"), that Obama is indeed, a p**k. And an arrogant one, at that...
In all seriousness, though, it makes for an excellent read. Sorry about the clumsy segue...
Umm.. But if they read the obits, then they would know who was dead. And if they subsequently went to their polling place to vote and happened to see the name of a person whose obit they had read on the voting rolls their heads might explode.
Unless the name on the voting roll was Samuel Clemens of course.
Or maybe it would be OK if they were in Chicago.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
He can just walk in from Mexico any time he likes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I grew up in a western European country in the 1980s and it was known that if you participated in demonstrations/street protests against the US (this would be during the Reagan / Bush Sr. years) it seriously endangered your chances of either visiting or going to live in the US. The assumption was that the US had agents keeping a record of those involved in such demonstrations. It all sounds very cloak and dagger, but considering what we know these days about what 'diplomats' get up to in the countries they are assigned to it doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
However, in this case it seems to me that the US has overstepped and miscalculated. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask for an apology before banning the stupid kid from the country and let him know that if he intends to enter the US at any time his application to do so will be considered in the light of his past indiscretion? Too reasonable I suppose...
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Dear Barack - You're a prick, Yours Tony Blair and David Cameron.
Forge an email and stop someone entering the US for life!
Lets see how much he doesn't care in, say, twenty or thirty years when he'll get that great job offer he'll have to turn down, or wants simply visit some friends or family.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
I wonder if some "kid" decided to see what kind of crap /. would put up, and decided to run a story from the UK version of the "National Enquirer" and there are a 3000 comments from people saying "that us just wrong".
Too late now, cant be extradited. because he is *BANNED FOREVER*. He can argue that in court against being extradited.
"Sorry your Honour, can t go, been banned, I don't want to commit another crime..."
The first amendment was phrased that way because it was the position of the founding fathers that "All men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights..." or something like that. The point is, the U.S. was supposed to be the first country to assume not that its citizens were special, but that humanity was special. The initial assumption the the United States was founded upon was that all men (humans) are created as equal beings with certain rights inherent to their existence. Thus, setting up the Bill of Rights to state the the government shall not do A, B, and C was intentional. It was written on the assumption that human beings, all human beings, have certain rights simply by being human beings. The United States government was supposed to be set up as an entity that would not tread upon any human being's rights, not just it's citizens. Now whether that ever was, is, or will be the case is an entirely different discussion.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
if you shoot the man, another merely fills his place. you've also turned murdoch into a martyr. fucking wonderful
the idea is to discredit the activity, not the man himself: rupert murdochs are a dime a dozen. so are loser internet tough guys talking about assassination and revolution
let's put it as clearly as a moron like yourself can understand it: as evil as rupert murdoch is, for what you just wrote, you are far worse
we want to discredit the ideology murdoch engages in. not adapt a thuggish mafia ideology far worse than murdoch's. you don't beat murdoch by being even more evil than him. got it you fucking retard?
go overcompensate for having a small penis some other way, you slimy piece of shit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When the young lad was confronted, he said the FBI were a bunch of yanks.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
What about free speech? Oh, wait, that doesn't matter anymore! Wait! Some guy over the internet insulted me and spouted profanity! He must be banned from the USA. Or does that only count for the president (who is a huge baby who can't handle mere words)?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"But the freedom of speech does not mean you can say what ever you want and get away with it."
What? I don't believe that you know what "freedom of speech" actually is. Especially in circumstances where it obviously doesn't hurt anyone. By hurt, I mean put someones life at risk, not offend. That is the *only* time I can see censorship being used.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Good thing it has jumped the shark.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It is written that the young man states that all he did was call Obama a p***k.
Abusive language? Fine. Threatening language? Nope. That's verboten. You get to call the President all kinds of names you like. However, if you threaten harm to the POTUS, you're in trouble. If you're subject to US jurisdiction, you'll be placed under arrest. If you're not, don't think you get to enter my country if you've threatened my president, be he Republican or Democrat.
If you believe the kid who was drunk at the time and doesn't seem to have a copy of the email he sent, the big bad US government is silencing free speech and going overboard. If you believe the UK spokesman, the young man threatened the President of the United States, and shouldn't be surprised that he's not allowed to enter the United States as a result.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
..the shit would have REALLY hit the fan if you'd heard what us foreigners all said about your LAST president..
...because we have a plague of kids here in the UK who do not understand about responsibility & the consequences of their actions.
No, it's not all teenagers by any means & the press doesn't report on the good kids.
But we do have teenage gangs, teenage pregnancies and teenagers walking around with knives on the street - bad education, crap parents, whatever the reason, they need to stop, take a deep breath and think about the consequences of what they're thinking of doing.
Fortunately it doesn't happen very often but one of the most disgusting things that kids can get up to is put objects on railway tracks or drop objects from road bridges onto car windscreens. I don't think any of these kids realise they may end up randomly killing someone but our legal system needs to stop pussyfooting around and give them a short sharp shock - if it was me in the chair, I would put them out with the motorway or transport police for a few days; these people deal with motorway fatalities & railway suicides, let those kids see what a dead person actually looks like.
As to the drunk teenager and the Obama email, I say "Deal with it! If you can't control yourself when you're drunk, then don't drink."
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Free speech.
Come on, it wasn't even a threatening email or anything.
I am not devoid of humor.
We need to be super-vigilant these days, with radio hotheads like Limbaugh making inflammatory comments, who knows when some crazy will take him up on it? Don't be 'embarrassed', these actions must be nipped in the bud. No appeasement here, that did not work with the Nazis. Sorry for the heavy hand, but America must be kept safe. We must fight them over there, so we are safe behind our sovereign borders.
Yeah, I am so upset that he hasn't undone Bush's eight years of work in a quarter of the time!
How do you "undo" something by amplifying every aspect of it?
Obama has greatly amplified the over-spending that Bush started.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley