There are several excellent reasons for staying the course in Iraq and finishing the Iraq war. The three best reasons include maturing into a patient and mature country, return on investment and honoring our word. On the surface these reasons may seem trite and sloganistic, but read on to see what I mean.

At the moment the United States is at a figurative crossroads, stuck between being seen as fickle and immature, and sober and serious. We are accused of being a fast food society, wanting everything right away, quickly, and without an excess of trouble. In many ways our culture and society inspires and augments these beliefs. Sadly, wars don’t conform to this view. Wars are long in nature. The Vietnam War, The Civil War, WWII, World War One are all major wars and all lasted a considerably long time, longer than the seven years we have been in Iraq. There is a reason the Hundred Years War is so named. Wars are long, dirty and expensive. That’s why leaders should hesitate to get involved in them. But a country that runs heedlessly in and out of wars at a whim can hardly be seen as a serious player on the national scale. By leaving Iraq now we are giving into the petulant three-year-old mentality of our fast food society.

The Marshall Plan following World War II was a gargantuan investment larger than any seen before its time. It was used to build up a devastated European and German economies in order to ensure that the European nations would thrive following the war. For the past fifty years we have seen no belligerent rise from Germany. Instead we have seen a wonderful return on investment from our German allies. Japan, Korea, France, and many other countries have benefitted from similar steadfast approaches on our parts. Iraq has the potential to be a close ally of the United States for many years into the future. There are hallmarks of the Iraqi people beginning to govern themselves in a manner commiserate with our cultural understandings. If we were to leave them now that investment is ruined. We have paid far higher prices in lives lost and money in wars in the past; Iraq has the potential to be our best investment.

Finally, there is this to consider. In the early 1990’s we fought Iraq and won a cease fire agreement with many very specific conditions. Almost one hundred US soldiers died in that cause. More than 3000 have died in this cause. If we leave now, before the nation building in Iraq is complete, their lives will have been lost in vain. This would seriously undermine both the position of the US politically, but also of the US military.

No one likes wars, but fewer people should want an unfinished war. Our past proves that when we complete a war in a positive way, the returns are worth it. When we leave too soon the results are disastrous.

Glen Beck said in a debate on Fox and Friends show that, Obama has exposed himself as a person with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people," Beck said. "He has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." This statement, while controversial is not a “hate speech” by any standards of the definition.

To boycott Glen Beck for his statements about President Obama is a step away from freedom of speech. The companies that are pulling their advertising from his programming need to now take the time to pull their advertising from all the shows that have stated the same thing in reverse. It is common practice to call Republicans and any one else who does not agree with the Left side, racist, unintelligent and ‘redneck’ (redneck is a racial slur comparable to the N word in the south). These comments heard on talk shows that have views opposite of Glen Beck’s go unaccounted for daily. If CVS, Wal-Mart, Geico, and the other big name companies feel obliged to pull their advertising for Glen Beck’s comments then they are also just as obligated to pull advertising from all the other talk shows that speak strongly about issues. Unless they really are trying to censor Glen Beck and in that case, we have bigger issues in our country than a controversial talk show host making a comment about the president. I know that a non government entity boycotting a person is not censorship but when these big companies single out one speaker with different political views and allow the other speakers who are just as controversial to get away with their words then it is as close as you can get without being official.

If the media cannot scrutinize our president the same way that they have every prior president, just because he happens to be black then that in its self is a form of discrimination. Obama can handle media coverage, good or bad, just as well all the former presidents have. I wonder why when Bush was president and the media made it a point to mock him daily, there were no boycotts.

Whether or not they agree with Beck’s comments on Obama no well-educated American citizen with a firm grasp of what our constitution says can logically condone a boycott of a person for speaking their views. After all, free speech is one of the founding ideas of our country. I am sure even our great leader (who by the way has officially declined comment on the subject) can agree that the media, whether they agree with him or not and whether they like him or not, has a right to their opinion and to share it in a debate setting just as Glen Beck did. It should be noted that during the controversial interview Glen Beck’s statement was argued quite well by Brian Kilmeade. This so called “hate speech” was really a discussion that did not leave viewers with only one side of the issue.
 

Gay Marriage (in opposistion)

I come from a conservative Christian background, therfore I base my beliefs about gay marriage on the Holy Bible. The Bible states that making love to the same sex is an abomination and therefore the punishment is death. The exact quote is in the Old Testament in the book of Leviticus, where in the 20 chapter, verse 13 says: If a man shall lie with a man as he does his wife, then this is an abomination, and is certain death....". God sees that it is wrong, therefore I see it as wrong.

I will say this though. I am a staunch defender of the United States Constitution. Even though that I am against gay marriage, if a particular state votes in the majority of making gay marriage legal, then so be it. The public has spoken and I am a huge defender of that right. My problem with gay marriage is the legal entanglements of it.

Here is a good instance. I go and put in for a loan. I get turned down. Two men who are married apply for the same loan but the fact that they are jointly together, they have a better shot of attaining the loan. This is another reason I disagree with gay marriage. What if my male friend and I went to apply for a loan. We are both of the same sex. Everybody knows that married couples get preferrential treatment when applying for loans. The thing is two men or two women is not the traditional definition of marriage. Then again, if the state legalized gay marriage, there is nothing that you can do about it.

I am against gay marriage because that is how I was raised. I still have respect for gay people but letting them get married is stretching the boundaries that our Forefathers set so many years ago. I know that we have to have an open mind when it comes to homosexuals but the fact that as a married couple they can have the same rights as a traditional male/female couple just doesn't seem fair to me and it never will.

 

News host Bill O'Reilly rocks the ratings by having the number one cable news program, while he also continues to triumph over same time competition on all television networks. His Fox News nightly broadcast, The O'Reilly Factor, outshines all others with his "fair and balanced" presentation of all sides of current news and issues.

This New York City native is frequently categorized as a conservative, but he prefers to be known as an Independent traditionalist politically. He stands up for old fashioned American values, and is very vocal in opposition to those he considers to be endangering the foundation of America and those traditional values. In addition to the television programming, O'Reilly is a best selling book author, syndicated columnist, and outspoken political commentator. One of his favorite sayings on air refers to those who are acting outrageously as "loons" and "pinheads." He has multiple Master's Degrees, and a long history of journalistic reporting. He grew up in a working class environment in Levittown, NY, and at one time taught English and History.

As host of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly continues his efforts to teach viewers while presenting both sides of the current news. He has received Emmy awards for investigative reporting, and various other broadcast journalism awards as he progressed in his television career. He has been a reporter, anchor, major network correspondent, and program host. When the Berlin Wall was dismantled, Bill O'Reilly was one of the first American reporters on the scene.

While The O'Reilly Factor and news host Bill O'Reilly have risen to become the number one rated cable television news, O'Reilly has not been without criticism along the way to success. Rivals try to discredit his opinions and facts while maintaining that his conservative leanings color the program.

His program contains regular segments such as "Patriots & Pinheads" and "Talking Points," along with interviews featuring prominent politicians, news commentators, and opinion leaders. Another interesting segment focuses on body language, where videotaped statements by politicians are reviewed and analyzed.

O'Reilly is a political Independent, and his program viewers are approximately two-thirds Conservative, and slightly less than a third Independent. Very few Liberals admit to watching the program. His current best seller is titled: Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity: A Memoir.