Libya: Quick victory or long mess?

Drudge Report currently has quotes from both Presidents Bush and Obama posted from March 19th 2003, and March 19th 2011. The two are almost identical.

Bush: "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger..."

Obama: "Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world..."

There are too many things wrong with this whole picture. First of all, why are the liberals all of a sudden such warhawks? I always find it interesting when Presidents launch military action when they themselves are under fire. Remember when Slick Willy launched Operation Desert Fox the friday evening right before he got impeached? After a month of wishy-washy non-committal soundbites about Libya and before that Egypt, Obama decides to embark on half-hearted military action. Obama has already said that at no point will any infantry or land troops be deployed there. I am not arguing that they should, but how will opposing forces take us seriously if we already are setting limits on our actions?

Another thing wrong with this whole ordeal is our role in general. Why are we letting the UK and France lead the way? Senator Lindsey Graham, a general softball player usually, just pointed out on Fox News: Sunday, that America has always enjoyed being the leader of the free world and should continue enjoying that role. The RINO is right.

But at the end of the day, we simply shouldn't be doing anything about this. As striking as the similarity of quotes from the Presidents is, one can't compare different situations across the board. Iraq was a threat to The United States. Libya is not. When Iraq kicked off we had a president committed to victory. Now we do not. When Iraq kicked off we were involved in only one other war in the middle-east. Now we are already involved in two.

It looks as if we're in this now though. Now that we're in it, we need to be in it to win. Either we get rid of Ghadafi, or pack up and come home.

At least the sailors got to have some fun and see something cool instead of sitting around playing poker and reading Penthouse all day.

Why allowing a mosque to be built at Ground Zero has nothing to do with freedom of religion

"This is a nation of tolerance!"

"Separation of church and state!"

"1st Amendment rights!"

Common arguments of liberals, muslims and psuedo-intellectuals who so adamantly believe in this abomination being built on the site of NYC's hallowed ground, Ground Zero. This consistent lightweight thinking which we see from the left is no surprise, but it is frustrating. As someone who attempts to always have at least some idea of what I'm talking about before I speak or write, I wonder how many of these people have actually read the Constitution. For that matter, I wonder how many of them have actually read the 1st Amendment.

AMENDMENT 1
RELIGION, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION
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 grievance.

The first thing that the liberal drone usually blurts out is that we have separation of church and state in this country. While this is semi-correct, most of them are shocked to find that this terminology is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What the first amendment does is guarantee the American two things (in the case of religion.) It gives one freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In other words, we have the freedom to choose our religion, and there will not be specific religion you are legally required to follow.

The irrefutable fact is that this amendment, including the freedom-of and freedom- from clauses, has no language guaranteeing anything about location or building rights. There is no language in that amendment that would be violated if this religious group was told that they must build their mosque somewhere else nearby. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, America has entered an age where it does not desire to be seen as strong. Progressives and liberals have meekly suggested that to allow the mosque to be built would be "ballsy" as one liberal friend put it, and would show the world that we don't let things get to us. Excuse me, but 9/11 did get to me.

To believe that the muslim world, or any part of the world would for that matter, would interpret a mosque being built at Ground Zero as anything but submission is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Well, maybe Europe will think it looks strong but I prefer not to put things on the Europe-scale. People understand strength. People don't interpret weakness as strength, or understand the language of psuedo intellectuals as anything but mumbo-jumbo.

Yesterday, our President finally decided to weigh in on the "local" issue. It was a bit late for him considering he has always thrown in his, well, for the sake of easy language we'll say two cents, about local issues involving police officers, or issues such as whether or not College Football will develop a playoff system. The President knows the language of the Constitution. He knows everything I've written right here. This just demonstrates the evils of looking at a written document as a "living breathing document," as progressives disrespectfully view our Constitution.

Not only does this issue have huge importance as far as the weak message we will be sending to the world, our current Presidential administration is slapping the American people in the face, (a current CNN pole shows that a staggering 68% of Americans disapprove of this project) but it's bring out the worst in slimy politicians like Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY.) According to Politico, other than a letter written to Mayor Bloomberg which has been kept fairly quiet, Wiener has said little about the issue, even though most know he is all for it. Why? There are many whispers that he is running for Mayor in the near future.

It's sad that with such transparent corruption that our leaders are still able to get away with this. The manipulation of the Constitution, political seediness, and pandering to a force which has vowed to whipe out the United States makes me wonder why more Americans don't speak out....

Wait, according to CNN, (this isn't me citing Fox News mind you) 68% are saying something. It looks like our government just doesn't care.

The liberals have always targeted conservative Christians, but do they themselves have a God complex?

A couple of weeks ago while flipping through the channels on TV I stopped on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to hear what the old blowhard had to say. After hearing him and some guest of his talking about how evil Glenn Beck is for a few moments I decided to change the channel. (I asked MSNBC today on their facebook page why they feel the need to constantly report on Fox News or any of it's pundits, and that if I wanted to see what they were up to I would simply put Fox News on...so far no touchy liberal has responded.)

But then last night before I went to sleep I turned on BookTV on CSPAN and recognized the man reading an excerpt from his book. Within seconds I could tell that this book was all about Glenn Beck and what an evil, rich, Christian, racist opportunist he is. Not being at all interested in his liberal jargon, and not particularly being a huge Beck fan either, (nothing personal, just have never really gotten into either of his shows) I almost changed the channel again. Then right before I did, I realized I recognized this dude from somewhere.

He was the "some guest" on Olbermann's show about a month ago prattling on about how evil Glenn Beck was. For some reason I got sucked in, and watched this yokel read some more of his book, and then conduct a Q&A session for another 10 or 15 minutes. As I said, I'm no huge Beck fan, yet it struck me that this guy took a year of his life and wrote 500 pages about how much he dislikes Beck.

Early this afternoon, I don't know, perhaps out of slight boredom, I found that original interview between this guy and Olbermann on an extremely liberal blog, laprogressive.com. The guy's name is Alexander Zaitchik, and it seems that he's making his money(all the while accusing Beck of being money hungry) writing about Beck. The interview was ho-hum; the usual liberal prattle about racism and bashing of Fox News which has a nightly viewership of about 300% of MSNBC's. What caught my attention however was their explanation of Beck and Fox's "extremism." They claimed that since Beck's show is "hemorrhaging" money and ratings that they feel the need to take such "drastic" measures.

I went to check the ratings at tvbythenumbers.com. Sure enough, Beck has roughly about 400% the viewers that Chris Matthews does over at MSNBC at the same hour. In total, it was close to 2 million viewers. Now, not being one of those 2 million viewers, I don't care too much about all this other than the fact that, I suppose I would rather people be watching a conservative pundit than a progressive one. However, I am one of those people that does not like being lied to. Just because you say something, it does not mean that it is true! Telling me that 2+2 is 5 does not make the answer 5. In the words of Ayn Rand, (certainly not someone I see eye to eye with and a vehement atheist) "A is A."

And that's just it. In a world where we are constantly being told by liberals and progressives that there are no absolutes, we are also living in a world where a socialist President tells us that the economy is getting better because of a stimulus bill that he signed, which is simply not true. We are lied to by progressives about the nature of the planet and the non-existent global warming. We are assured that we owe them our money because it is theirs to decide what to do with it.

In a day and age where Christians are attacked constantly, (at least here in America) or even those who aren't Christians but simply profess to believe in a God that isn't Allah, it seems that it is no coincidence that progressives look at themselves as the one and only creator and master. As someone who doesn't really go to church all that much I can say one thing: I have no desire to bow down to or worship a liberal progressive either.