None of us are strangers to the recent Occupy movements that have been going on in our country. I've heard several different takes on the movement and whether it was a positive or a negative force, whether or not it was justified, etc. I maintained relative silence on the issue for a period of time, but am breaking it now. Time to take a look at this movement that claims to represent the "lower 99%" of the country.

     One thing I noticed during my studies of American History that was always amazing to me was how strikingly similar the dissenting parties were during the Constitutional debates. The two camps, known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, were trying to establish a new Constitution for America, and do away with the inefficient, ineffectual Articles of Confederation that the country had been operating under up till that point. The Federalists argued for a stronger central government, whereas the Anti-Federalists feared that notion and argued for stronger state sovereignty.

     Even though the two camps starkly disagreed on this issue, the root values of why they were arguing were the same. All of them had, from the bottom of their hearts, the same end in mind: A nation where the people could live in liberty with minimal interference from a government that was just powerful enough to operate efficiently and protect them, but infused with checks and balances and granted limited powers that would prevent it from becoming tyrannical. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists both had the same end in mind, with different means to reach it. This helped them reach a compromise because they had the same goals in mind.

     The reason i use this historical example is because there is a principle in the events that took place between the Fed/Anti-Fed groups that we can relate to the current political climate. It is much, MUCH easier to reach a compromise or have intelligent debate when we are arguing over means, not ends. The founders were able to debate effectively and reach their goals because they both wanted liberty. To use an analogy, they viewed government as a mad dog, and they were arguing over how tight they wanted the collar and how short they wanted the leash. But they both agreed that the mad dog had to be kept on a leash.

     In today's political climate, the general feeling that is more prevalent then ever is that of stagnancy. Nothing is going anywhere. We've got two warring political parties deadlocked in a power struggle that won't change for another year. We have two warring ideologies in culture that are regularly fighting each other and disagree wholeheartedly with each other's principles. Nothing is getting done. This stagnancy and constant, predictable, party-line bickering is precisely what turns many people off to politics.

     The reason nothing is getting done (for now, but I'm counting the days till election season) is this: During the constitutional convention, the debate was regarding how short the leash should be on the junkyard dog. But the whole convention agreed that the dog needed a short leash. Nowadays, the debate that the two sides are having isn't about how short the leash should be. We have one side arguing that the leash shouldn't exist! We have one side still fighting over how short the leash should be when the other side is not only trying to let the dog off the leash, but they're trying to put the dog in charge of the junkyard!

     It's one thing to debate when we are arguing means to achieve a common end, but it's a whole 'nother thing to argue different means to achieve radically different ends. Arguing the means to secure our God-Given rights is a tough enough debate to have, but arguing whether or not people even HAVE rights, and then, whether they come from "god" or the government, is much harder and poses a far greater threat to America.

     We cannot pretend, therefore, that compromise will achieve ANYTHING anymore. We're not arguing for compromise for liberty's sake. We're pitting two ideologies that are totally contradictory up against each other in a fight and hoping we get a result we're happy with. I used to believe in political compromise. But in today's day and age, I believe that all compromise will do is temporarily slow our nation's steady descent off the edge of the cliff, rather than fixing any problems. I don't want compromise with socialists. I don't want compromise with fools who think they can play God and dictate people's rights. I want to win.

     When we want to make a change in the political system, we get involved. We campaign for the candidates of our choice, we doorknock, we vote, and perhaps we even create a site on the internet to promote our views.

     This honorable and perfectly constitutional right to free speech was exemplified on a very large scale with the arrival of the Tea Party movement starting in 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people nationwide peacefully protested the wasteful spending and increasingly liberal policies of the federal government. There was no violence from the protestors, and those with vulgar signs or hateful language that didn't gel with the movement's intentions, were expelled from the movement or had their behavior corrected. I, a frequent attendee of Tea Party rallies, honestly and truly cannot think of an instance in my memory where a Tea Party protestor commited an act of blatant racism, violence, bigotry, sexism, or disregard for the law, and in the instances where inappropriate acts of any kind were committed, they were swiftly dealt with.

     This is how protest is supposed to work. Make your voice heard and your views clear, but do not resort to violence and always show dissent respectfully.

     But recently, another movement has sprouted up across the country. I'm hearing many things about it... and they're not so dignified or respectful. I think this movement is worth a look. So now that we know about why we're politically and culturally gridlocked, let's take a look at the protest movement of one of the warring ideologies: The Occupy Movement, and how it compares to my ideology's protest movement: The Tea Party Movement.

So, I'm seriously getting tired of hearing about these "Occupy" (fill in city you live in) people. I don't claim to have a great understanding of politics or economics, but I do think that my understanding is basic, and since a lot of these "occupy" protesters are screaming about stuff that is pretty basic, I think I might actually be suited for writing about them.

I've been to some tea party rallies. I haven't been to any occupy protests, although I do want to. But jump on Youtube and watch the outrageous drama that is occurring with these occupy protesters. It's silly. They're like a bunch of children without a mommy to watch over them.

I was at church Sunday, and the Bible class discussion sort of went “political”. (Something I instigated.) I don’t even think it was political! Some current-day issues were brought up in class, and I noticed how quick everyone was to voice their opinion. Almost all of them, by the end, didn’t want to talk about politics in church, but by judging on how quickly everyone voiced an opinion, I don’t think that was the problem. I think it was because they were afraid. Like for some strange reason “separation of church and state” ran through their minds. Sure, the issues we talked about are also talked about amongst politicians, but that doesn’t mean it’s political. These issues were moral issues. We have no fear, in church, to talk about “Thou shalt not steal”, but then somehow we shrink behind The Wall of Tolerance when “Thou shalt redistribute the wealth” is enacted by our government. We don’t have a problem with “Thou shalt not murder”, but when the government says “Thou shalt terminate the unwanted pregnancy” we lower our heads, afraid to talk about it in church.

It’s almost like the church has become submissive and fearful of the government. Thankfully, the majority of Christians don’t have a problem talking about abortion in church, but I have found an increasing number of “believers” not only being apathetic towards, but believing in “redistribution of wealth”. It’s scary. I don’t even think a lot of them realize what their saying. One of my friends, in class, made a positive comment towards the “Occupy” protests. After class, I asked him what he thought about the protests and then kindly disagreed with his comment. He looked at me with shocked eyes and said, “Oh, don’t tell me you’re a tea party guy!” I raised an eyebrow and said, “Yeah, I am. But can you tell me about the Tea Party’s agenda?” He looked at me confused and shook his head. I continued, “Can you explain to me the agenda of ‘Occupy’ protesters?” His confusion became embarrassment, and he honestly shook his head. I leaned towards him and spoke quiet enough for only him to hear. I lovingly asked him, “If you don’t know the position of either side, why are you making an opinion?”

It’s so frustrating to me! So many people are making opinions that are uneducated and without reason. (Thankfully, my friend has a good heart so I trust he’ll think things through next time.) Americans listen to only the media and then run around repeating what they heard on TV. The coverage on the Tea Parties compared to the “Occupy” protests is dramatic and biased. Just search the “Occupy” protests on Youtube. You’ll (like me) be doubled over with laughter at some of the over-dramatic, hateful, slanderous, dirty-mouthed, and ridiculous things said and done by those protesters. BUT if the Tea Parties had done anything similar, they would have been ridiculed by the media, whereas the “occupy” protesters are adored. The obvious prejudice that is displayed by the media is overwhelming. The “Occupy” protesters are an example of immoral people seeking a solution to misunderstood moral issues. In other words, their logic is unreasonable and therefore their protests are contradictory. The things they yell for, to improve their lives, are the very things that are destroying America and our freedom.

What does this have to do with church? I believe the church is very much divided when it comes to core moral issues. It’s not about who goes to Tea Parties and who occupies a street. It’s not about who watches CNN and who watches FOX. (How can anyone NOT watch Fox? Jk!) It’s not about who uses an NIV and who uses a KJV. The difference is this: those who believe that the principles in scriptures are applicable to all areas in life, therefore strive to convince others as well, compared to those who are scared of offending people and being viewed as intolerant. The fact of the matter is that most of the issues plaguing America are MORAL issues caused by our IMMORAL government that has forsaken the principles of God’s word. Until Christians have the backbone to stand up for what’s right (Goes back to the ten commandments that are so applicable to our current government) America will continue down the spiritual depression it’s in. The financial crisis was caused by government. We know that. It’s being worsened by government. And the heart of the issue is a moral problem: greed. The church, and most importantly Christ, has always been, and always will be, the solution to a degrading culture.

     Just last night, as most of you know, the New York legislature voted to legalize gay marriage in the state of New York, becoming the 6th US State to do so. Now, afterwards, I was spending my evening as I often do, taking care of business on the computer, with my TweetDeck open as per usual. I couldn't help but notice the reaction coming from the people in my timeline. Most of the people tweeting (who are a very conservative bunch, mind you), were very happy the law had been passed. They were quite enthusiastic about it. It was really kind of a larger wake-up call for me. I was unaware that so many in my timeline who were conservative held that opinion.

    I have believed for a fairly long amount of time that Homosexuality was the issue that conservatives compromised on. I notice many people who claim to be conservatives but seem to only be conservative fiscally. I believe being a conservative is not just fiscal conservatism, but the whole package. I know several people who think that being conservative only means supporting less government spending, etc. on fiscal matters. I also know many people who think that homosexuality is an irrelevant issue at this point in time. That is to say, they think that there are bigger issues facing us right now than social issues, and that fiscal issues are what we should be paying attention to. I saw a lot of both in my timeline last night, and I couldn't help but keep asking myself the same question again and again in my head: "We claim to be conservatives. So why is THIS the issue everyone seems ready to compromise on? Why do we suddenly become liberal when it comes to THIS issue?"

     I have long thought of possible answers to that question. The issue of homosexuality in society and its place in marriage and the family seems to be one of the most difficult to debate issues of our time. No one wants to have the debate, because, like with so many other issues, if you take a particular stance you can be chastised as being "against allowing people to exercise their rights" or "anti-personal freedom" or a "hypocrite" for wanting more personal freedom and then being in favor of preventing a certain behavior be allowed. I would therefore like to state, first and foremost before I delve deep into the issue, that I am emphatically anti-homosexual marriage. I do not believe that it is moral or acceptable to allow homosexuals to marry, and I do not believe that homosexuals have a right to marriage.

     Now, assuming I didn't drive you off immediately after stating my general positions, let me say this: I do not hate homosexuals. As a Christian, I do not approve of the behavior, but I do not at all hate gays. I know several homosexuals, many of whom are incredibly intelligent, kind human beings. My belief that they engage in an immoral behavior does not translate into ANY ill will for them, or any dislike or rancor against them personally. I usually feel it necessary to clarify this in any article I write when I'm discussing a touchy issue, because many people forget that or assume otherwise and get their knickers in a twist about it. So once more, I do not hate gays. I do not bear them any ill will. I disapprove of their behavior, not of them personally. Now, bearing that in mind, let us delve into the heart of the issue.

     I hear often, those in favor of gay marriage shouting "You can't just outlaw gay marriage because it feels wrong to you. You're just trying to legislate your morality!" True enough, homosexuality is contrary to my moral values. But that is no reason to discard my arguments against it. I am a Christian, and i do believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, as it is said in the scriptures (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Lev. 18:22, directly condemning homosexuality and Deut. 23:17 condemning sodomy, used as a synonym for homosexuality in the Bible). It does run contrary to my sense of morality. But does this fact discount my arguments simply because it's my morality? Not at all! Permit me to sum up my answer to this question before elaborating:

     1) Morality determines where we are culturally.                                                                         

     2) Morality Necessarily Flows From Religion.

     3) Legislating Morality is not a bad thing, if done properly.

     4) We should not allow acts that are immoral and wrong.

     5) Homosexual marriage is immoral and wrong.

     6) Therefore, Homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

     Now, we have the argument in generic form. The argument I have presented is logically valid. That is to say, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true as well. It is a sound, logically valid argument. Now there is a difference between valid and true. My argument may be valid, but it the conclusion is only true if the premises are true as well. So let's elaborate, to ensure my argument is proper and sequitur. 

     1) Morality determines where we are culturally.

     There is no better way to find out where we are as a society than by looking at our sense of morality. This is why I find social issues to be just as important as fiscal ones, if not moreso because they show where we are morally as a society. We know from looking at periods in history that if society is acting immorally, bad things will follow. Whether it be the atrocity of the Supreme Court declaring a black man to be property in the Dred Scott Decision in 1857, or the equally atrocious decision of the Supreme Court, ruling that a baby in the womb was not legally a life and could be terminated at the preference of the mother in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Morality is critically important to society, and though many people try as they might to seperate the two, morality is also directly tied to fiscal politics. How can we examine the economy and the stock exchange without also examining the truthfulness of the statements made by those working in that field? How can we vote to elect a representative or senator without examining to some extent, the truthfulness of the statements he is making. We expect society to act morally. We expect our politicians to be honest with us (though not so much anymore perhaps), we expect the law to be followed, we expect the people working at the grocery stores to give us the proper amount of change and not short us, we expect the doctor to honestly tell us what we need to hear, and we expect those who break the law to be rightfully served justice for their crimes. It is only natural that morality determines everything about our society and the way we behave. Note that while certain progress has been made in the moral field, such as increased respect of rights for minority groups and women, there has also been a great moral failure in the world recently. What should not be allowed is looked on as commonplace. We regularly put before our eyes disgusting and decrepid materials on television or the internet, we now EXPECT our politicians to lie openly to our faces when they give speeches, we are losing our sense of right and wrong in many ways. It is now looked upon by many to be perfectly acceptable to commit adultery, and we have certain sites now GUARANTEEING a successful affair. We have public schools where it is perfectly commonplace for children to smoke marijuana and have sex in the stairwells! We are losing morality in every sense of the word, and it is no wonder that society is in turn spiraling downward. We're removing what is essential for society to work. As the great theologian C.S. Lewis once said:

     "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in ourmidst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

     Truly, it cannot be denied that society is influenced in every way by its sense of morality.

     2) Morality necessarily flows from religion.

     One of the many arguments I hear against my position on this issue, is that I'm just legislating my morality. That I am trying to force my moral positions on those who may not hold it. That I cannot expect others to bend over backwards and contour to my sense of morality. That it is not okay to legislate morality at all.

     I emphatically disagree. True enough, not all people may hold my moral views on homosexuality. Many people may think that it should not be okay to mix morality and legislation. The fact that many people hold this position, does not change the fact that they are in error.

     Let us state the obvious first: Morality is critical to society, as we have just discussed. It is also true, that morality necessarily flows from religion. Your worldview and sense of morality is totally and utterly dependant on your religious beliefs. Opponents of my arguments often state: "But you're biased! You can't legitimately say that your religion is against gay rights, so you are, and we all must take that view!" It is very true, that my religious beliefs are the central tenet against gay rights, because my morality comes from my religion, and my relgion says homosexuality is wrong, so you do the math. This also does not immediately discount my argument. A Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Scientologist and an Atheist all behave the way they do based off of their religion. What is acceptable to an atheist may not be acceptable to a Christian based off of religious preference. What we think is okay is based precisely off of whether or not we think God is okay with it (if he even exists) and whether or not there will be punishment for it eventually. An atheist doesn't consider homosexuality wrong (or if he does, he hasn't a logical leg to stand on) because in his view, there is no God to give orders for behavior and there is no punishment for anything, so we should do what feels good. A Christian believes it to be wrong because they do believe God has voiced his opposition to it and that there will be punishment in the long run.  Society's behavior is determined by its morality. Morality is determined ultimately by religious preference. The conclusion that necessarily follows from these premises is that Society's behavior is determined by its overall religious preference. The implication that necessarily follows from this conclusion is this: We must therefore determine, which religion is the correct one, if any of them are, so as to properly know who's morals we should be following, or which sense of morality is correct. It is no secret that I am of the belief that Christianity is the correct religion and the correct morality for the world follows naturally from the Bible.

     Now, I'm not going to get into apologetics here, because it would make for far too long an article, and I'm banking on the reader (you) not being bored out of their minds at this point, but the answer to that question is one that deserves furthur inspection and debate. I recommend anything by Ravi Zacharias, or the great book I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek, with Foreword byDavid Limbaugh, which I believe to be the best apologetic work I've ever read.

3) Legislating Morality is NOT a bad thing, if done properly.

   The biggest negative use of words I find against my argument is the term "legislating morality." Many arguments have been made against that term and its usage. I however, find it inevitable in the real world. It is impossible not to legislate morality. There is simply no way we can have a government apart from morality. The entire purpose of government is to do the moral thing and protect the individual's rights and punish those who try and violate them. The question is not "Will we legislate morality?" but "Whose morality will we legislate?" Every law that is passed is an expression of society's morality in one way or the other. We outlaw abortion because we believe it to be murder, which is immoral. We believe in lower taxes and legislation expressing that sentiment because we believe it to be immoral to "legally steal" from those who have worked hard for their income. There can be no denying that we legislate morality. What is critically important, is that we choose the proper sense of morality to legislate (which i believe to be Christianity). For another great read on the topic of legislating morality, read the book Legislating Morality, also by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.

4) We Should Not Allow Acts That Are Immoral And Wrong.

     This one is just plain old common sense. Only an idiot (or perhaps a postmodernist, but then again, aren't they essentially the same thing?) would argue that we should allow immoral and wrong acts. Government exists to prevent the immoral and wrong taking of an individual's rights while punishing those who commit those immoral and wrong acts.

5) Homosexual Marriage is Immoral And Wrong.

     My biggest regret with this article is that I am unable, because of length restrictions, to properly explain why the Christian morality is the correct morality. For that, I strongly recommend you take the time to read the works I've cited in my previous paragraphs. The men who wrote those works can properly explain to you in much greater detail, why the Christian morality is the correct morality. But knowing that the Christian morality is the correct morality, it can be easily and logically inferred that because the Bible says it is immoral, it is. That much is easily clear, because the Bible is abundantly clear on homosexuality, and morality is derived from religion, as we saw clearly in the second premise. Again, I STRONGLY encourage you to read the two Geisler & Turek books, as they will make it clear that Christian morality is the only proper morality, in a much better way than I ever could. So in conclusion here, we see that since homosexuality is in conflict with morality, we cannot condone it by allowing gays to marry in society.

    A common mistake made by proponents of the measure is to argue that the state should not allow benefits to some and not to others, and that marriage should be left up to the churches. Let me be VERY clear of my feelings on the matter there: Call it what you want, whether it be marriage, or a legal partnership, or a "civil union," it does not change what is being done. I am no stranger to those attempting to redefine the legal definition of marriage, in an attempt to make it seem as though nothing is wrong. A marriage is this: Two people of opposite gender, engaging in a sacred pact with God and each other, agreeing to belong to each other until they die, and to share all they have with each other both materially and physically, etc. Calling it a "civil union," and attempting to imply that homosexuals are NOT violating that sacred covenant, which is false. And knowing that this premise is true, we know that homosexuals are violating this covenant, and being moral beings under the proper morality, knowing that proper morals are to be respected, we know that the behavior cannot be condoned, which necessarily leads to the conclusion of the argument:

6) Therefore, homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

Gathering together all the premises, we see that due to its immoral nature, we cannot allow homosexual marriage. Let us summarize the 5 premises we used to get to this conclusion:

1) Society is defined in every way by its sense of morality, so it is critical that we are using the right one.

2) Our sense of morality necessarily comes from our religious beliefs, so it is critical that we are following the right religious belief.

3) Legislating morality is inevitable, so it is critical that we are legislating the right, correct morality.

4) It is simple common sense that we should not allow immoral and wrong acts.

5) Homosexuality is immoral and wrong based on the condemnations of it in the Bible, which upon furthur examination is seen to be the correct source of morality, and calling it a civil union doesn't make the immoral action any more acceptable or any less wrong.

Therefore, we cannot allow homosexual marriage.

    I hope this article has been informative and interesting. I tried to keep to a logical argument, and above all I'd like to ensure you all leave knowing that there is nothing wrong with having a political argument rooted in religious conviction. Because there is no such thing as true seperation of church and state. Because the churches are the source of morality, and morality is the reason for government, so there is no way to keep them seperate. Morality (and therefore religion) will impact government in some way or another always, so do not be afraid of having religious conviction as the basis for a political argument. Just know how to defend your position with logic and zeal. Thanks for your time, and I hope you enjoyed it!

Karen recently broke the news to all of you that she and her fellow staffers had decided to step down from their positions at T4AT, and that I would be taking over the running of the website as owner and administrator. I wrote this article to make known my plans for the website and what the future of Truth For American Teens will consist of, as well as a brief summary of how this change came to be for me.

Karen made clear her reasons for her departure from the website.

First and foremost, let me make clear that I am extremely excited for Karen and wish her all the best in her future endeavors and her work with the Glenn Beck Program. I can't wait to see the great things that she does with her future.

Second, I am extremely grateful for the offer that I recieved from Karen to take over running of the site. She chatted me up one night on gmail. She began the conversation this way:

"Hey... we need to have a chat."

Now, if you are ANYTHING like me, when you hear that, you automatically assume the worst. It makes me chuckle now, but I was going through my head searching for anything I may have done wrong. Thankfully, the news was good news. Of all the things I would've expected Karen to say, the LAST thing would've been for her to offer me the website. I was floored. I told her that I needed time to consider. After consulting with friends and family, and praying on the subject, I decided that I would accept and take over T4AT.

I am very excited about the future of the website under my care. Before I tell you any of the changes that will be taking place, let me tell you what will stay the same:

- Kelly will be staying on as contributor. She will be doing the same thing she did before, and nothing will change in the transition from Karen's leadership to mine regarding Kelly.

- Taylor has decided to stay on as a staff member until she turns 18 in July 2012. I look forward to a prosperous relationship with her as a fellow staffer.

- The site's name and overall design will remain the same, no huge changes visually, though there may well be minor differences.

- Above all, the message of the site will remain the same. T4AT was, is, and will ALWAYS be commited to promoting the message of conservative, limited government, personal freedoms, liberty, history, and all other great principles upon which America was founded. Karen and co. did not shy away from promoting a message of conservatism and religion. This message will not change on my watch. If anything, it will become stronger and better represented.

I don't want any readers of the site to fear the transition or changes that will occur as a result. I am confident that T4AT will still be the same website that you love, and I will do all I can to keep it that way.

Now, there are fresh changes that WILL be occuring as a result of my ownership of the site. I'll go over the biggest ones now:

- I have hired a close friend of mine to be a member of the staff and to assist me in managing of the site, effectively being one step lower than a co-owner. His name is Kaleb Henry, and I am confident that you will thoroughly enjoy his confident, logical, and entertaining style of writing. He is an incredibly smart guy, and I am grateful to have him helping me.

- I have the option of adding new staff and contributors at my discretion. If I happen to find someone I wish to hire, I retain the right to and will exercise it if I wish.

- I am seeking to increase the frequency of articles written and published on the site to better solidify it as a great and entertaining beacon of conservatism. Kaleb, Taylor, Kelly, myself and any others I hire will be working as hard as we can to ensure this is the result.

Those are the big things that I felt you all needed to know about the site's future. I am grateful for this opportunity, and am confident that you all will enjoy the site in the future just as you have in the past. I will dedicate myself to making this site just as good a site as it was when it was operated by Karen, Matt, Victor, and Taylor, if not a better one. Thank you, and I look forward to a long and prosperous future with Truth For American Teens.

- Brendan M. Wren

The Constitution was written to keep the Government VERY limited in its role. When I used to be a liberal a couple of years ago, I never took the Founders seriously. I mean, most kids these days think the Founders were simply old, rich, white, powdered haired, racist slave owners. I actually used to think, "Why should we even learn about these guys. They are so over two-centuries ago." lol. That thought has obviously changed. But as many of you know, it was Glenn Beck who helped lead me to think otherwise.

The law makers in Washington have betrayed us. Presidency after presidency the government has grown and "We the People" have been left with less of our liberties, and with an enormous debt to boot! This has been a bipartisan failure that has led America to be in this position we are in today. But I can say that there is hope. 

This can change, and has changed a little bit. It's been a result of millions of Americans who have been taking a look at current affairs and the state of the union. This movement and uprising has people who recognize Washington's failure to lead. Failure to act and tackle the big issues. Sure there have been attempts and even some success in the past to try to reform and cut back the size of government but they haven't done enough to say the least. Patriots in America see just how fragile things are. Our foundation set by the founders is now extremely weak. We are the solution, and I am convinced that the more we are dedicated to restoring our Republic, the more restoration we will start to see.

If anyone has been really watching the news lately, you will see that my beloved state of Texas is going through the worst drought in a LONG time. We've also been having wildfires all over the state, including where I live.

Yesterday, my Governor bravely issued this

WHEREAS, the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought, with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for almost three months, matching rainfall deficit records dating back to the 1930s; and

WHEREAS, a combination of higher than normal temperatures, low precipitation and low relative humidity has caused an extreme fire danger over most of the State, sparking more than 8,000 wildfires which have cost several lives, engulfed more than 1.8 million acres of land and destroyed almost 400 homes, causing me to issue an ongoing disaster declaration since December of last year; and

WHEREAS, these dire conditions have caused agricultural crops to fail, lake and reservoir levels to fall and cattle and livestock to struggle under intense stress, imposing a tremendous financial and emotional toll on our land and our people; and

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and have officially caused the Seal of State to be affixed at my Office in the City of Austin, Texas, this the 21st day of April, 2011.

RICK PERRY

Governor of Texas

I ask that everyone would join me in praying for my state. God is known for working miracles, and he WILL answer his children's call. Forget what people say, forget who makes fun of you, have the courage that my governor had and proclaim that you will pray for God to help.

Will you join me?

~Karen

From The Blaze:

After a great deal of speculation about Glenn Beck’s future on television, here is the freshly-inked news release. There will be a couple of key headlines out of this…yes, there is a new agreement with Fox News but this is the first confirmation that Beck will “transition off of his daily TV program” later this year.

The program has obviously been a great success for Beck and for Fox News, and the relationship between the organizations seems as strong as every.

This news release does leave some key questions unanswered for now, primarily, does Glenn have plans for a daily TV or video program down the road? The Blaze will be tracking reaction and speculation about this news release throughout the day. Check back for updates.

FOX NEWS AND MERCURY RADIO ARTS ANNOUNCE NEW AGREEMENT

(New York, NY) Fox News and Mercury Radio Arts, Glenn Beck’s production company, are proud to announce that they will work together to develop and produce a variety of television projects for air on the Fox News Channel as well as content for other platforms including Fox News’ digital properties. Glenn intends to transition off of his daily program, the third highest rated in all of cable news, later this year.

Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News said, “Glenn Beck is a powerful communicator, a creative entrepreneur and a true success by anybody’s standards. I look forward to continuing to work with him.”

Glenn Beck said: “I truly believe that America owes a lot to Roger Ailes and Fox News. I cannot repay Roger for the lessons I’ve learned and will continue to learn from him and I look forward to starting this new phase of our partnership.”

Joel Cheatwood, SVP/Development at Fox News, will be joining Mercury Radio Arts effective April 24, 2011. Part of his role as EVP will be to manage the partnership and serve as a liaison with the Fox News Channel.

Roger Ailes said: “Joel is a good friend and one of the most talented and creative executives in the business. Over the past four years I have consistently valued his input and advice and that will not stop as we work with him in his new role.”

“Glenn Beck” is consistently the third highest rated program on cable news. For the 27 months that “Glenn Beck” has aired on Fox News, the program has averaged more than 2.2 million total viewers and 563,000 viewers 25-54 years old, numbers normally associated with shows airing in primetime, not at 5pm. “Glenn Beck” has dominated all of its cable news competitors since launch.

 

I'm happy to see Glenn Beck go in this direction, but will be sad to see his show end. Don't worry, lots more will be coming in the months ahead!

~Karen

     Is it just me, or has the Tea Party all of a sudden become a trending topic for name calling among Democrats. It’s no secret the far-left of the Democratic Party absolutely despises Tea Partiers no matter their age, race or political affiliation, but for the past week, Democrats have abandoned the “Bush Blame-Game” and have turned the finger pointing and name calling toward the Tea Party. One name I've noticed that's being used more than any other is "extreme."

     One of the biggest stories flooding the news right now is the threat of a government shutdown. A government shutdown occurs when Congress doesn’t pass the spending bills that consist of the annual Federal Budget. It can also happen when a president vetoes or doesn’t sign the spending bills passed in Congress. If this happens, the government will shut down all government functions they see as “non-essential,” which usually consists of national parks, tourist attractions like National Monuments, acceptance of new applications for welfare and Social Security, and farm credit and loan programs.

     Although it is Congress who has failed to come up with a spending plan both parties can agree on, it has somehow become the fault of none other than the Tea Party.

     For example, take this quote from Brian Fallon, the Spokesman of the Senate Democratic Caucus:

 

     “[The latest proposal is] a show vote being staged so that Congressman Cantor can throw a bouquet to the Tea Partiers.”

 

     According to Fox News, another prominent Democrat, Harry Reid, told Speaker John Boehner to resist the “radical” wing of his party.

 

     “Extreme,” “Radical.” Is it a coincidence that all of a sudden it’s the “Extreme/Radical” Right that’s to blame for Congress’s troubles? Definitely not. In my opinion, the Democrats in Congress are trying to make the Tea Party look like a bunch of crazy right-wingers who are slowing down the Republican agenda, therefore causing the Republicans in Congress to abandon the Tea party.

     The Left fears the Tea Party and will do anything to silence them.  

     Just yesterday, a recording from a scheduled conference call was released when a group of Democratic lawmakers forgot to push the mute button. Joining the Senators on the call were dozens of journalists, many of whom tuned into the call early causing them to hear something they weren’t supposed to hear:

 

     "[I] always use the word extreme, that's what the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all these riders, and [House Speaker] Boehner's in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party there's going to inevitably [be] a shutdown," said Senator Chuck Schumer.

    

     The mic eventually went silent after someone at the meeting apparently noticed the journalists were hearing every word they said.

     And there’s our answer! The new goal of the Democratic Party: Take advantage of every opportunity you have to call a Conservative “Extreme.”

 

     "Chuck Schumer did us a favor. He exposed their tactic. He's telling his members to deem any spending cut as unreasonable. I don't see how we can do anything if they're not set serious,” said House majority leader Eric Cantor.

    

     So if you’re watching the news, and you just happen to notice more and more Democrats calling Conservatives “Extreme,” you know it’s ‘extremely’ far from a coincidence.

 

Taylor

 

 Sources:

-Fox News: Republicans Thankful for Sen. Schumer's Faux Pax

-Fox News: Republicans Pitch Unusual Backup Plan as Fragile Budget Talks Resume

-About.com: Government Shutdowns

     We are all familiar with the recent escalation of conflict with Moammar Gadhafi's oppressive regime in Libya. President Obama authorized the use of military force against Libya, and began calling in airstrikes on the Libyan coast in an operation codenamed "Odyssey Dawn." The continuing rise of conflict in Libya is looking like a 3rd War for President Obama.

     I will stay my personal opinions on the conflict itself, and whether or not I support or do not support US military involvement in Libya. For this article, I will simply discuss the constitutionality of the actions of President Obama and discuss the seperation of powers in relation to the actions commited by his administration.

     Article I, Section 8.11 of the Constitution states, regarding the powers of Congress: "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." Note here that Congress is specifically given the power to declare war, not the President. Article II does state that the President is to act as Commander-In-Cheif of the Armed Forces. I completely respect and acknowledge this provision. However, there is quite a difference between leading a country in a war, and being the one to declare war. President Obama may well be the commander-in-cheif, but he clearly violated Article I, Section 8.11 when he effectively declared war on a foreign nation without the consent of Congress.

     The question of whether or not I personally would approve of a war with Libya, Gadhafi and his radical followers is irrelevant. The plain truth is that, whether or not it was in the United States' best interest (at least in his mind), President Obama violated the Law of the Land when he grossly overextended Executive Power and carried out an action specifically reserved for Congress in the Constitution.

     The current federal government is so completely out of whack with the way it was intended by the great Founding Fathers, and the seperation of powers in the constitution between the 3 branches, which were originally intended to place checks and balances on each branch to prevent it from becoming tyrannical, have been largely ignored. Whether it be the President doing the job of Congress by effectively declaring war, or the Supreme Court doing the job of Congress by legislating from the bench to fit their personal agendas.

     The Executive Branch in particular goes about abusing or overextending its power through the use of Executive Orders and resolutions. One particular violator of the constitution in history that I like to use as an example is FDR, who was quite fond of Executive Orders, (executive orders are orders issued by the president delegating an immediate action be taken without the necessary consent of congress. they are also prime examples of abuse of executive power) issuing several unconstitutional orders during his tenure, including one requiring all citizens to turn in their gold to local banks, etc.

     The reason I list FDR's example is because much of his policy and practice relates to our current President, whose abuse of power could've come straight from FDR's playbook. The abuse of executive power by presidents of either party over several administrations is simply astonishing.

     The preamble of the Constitution lists several reasons for adopting it, one of them being to "...provide for the common defense." Believe me when I tell you that no one believes more strongly in the Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan foreign policy of  "speak softly, but carry a big stick." Military action can be and is necessary when diplomacy fails and radicals wish to do harm to innocents. But if we, the United States, claim to march under a Constitution from which all laws are based, we cannot enter unjustly into an armed conflict with another nation without applying the due process of law so clearly detailed in the Articles of the Constitution. The debate of the necessity of the Libya conflict will be kept for a later debate. But there is no doubt that regardless of where it is taking place, the President does NOT have the authority to declare war. That ability lies solely with Congress.

On March 9th, this email was sent out to all of WI state senators.

From: XXXX

Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM

To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen

Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes

will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain

to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it

will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit

that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for

more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in

the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me

have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that

support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing

with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand

for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many

others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.

We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a

nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave

it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the

message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are

now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a

demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed

in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.

This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't

tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are

not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided

to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's

necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making

them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families

and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please

understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked

everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel

that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives

of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and

say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

 

The police have confirmed this threat, and are trying to keep the senators safe. Please pray that they would stay safe from any harm that may come their way.

~Karen