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.

      Recently, I have been shocked even more so than usual by the lack of concern by the majority of Americans for their own civil wellbeing and the state of their country. Most don't know what we are up against. Too many people are indoctrinated daily with the dose of liberal materiels that are so rampant in America. So I felt it necessary to write a piece on the definition of liberalism. It is our chief foe in modern America, and we must do all we can to fight it, or surely it will lead to our downfall.  Subtlety has never been my strong suit, and I have a very poor ability to account for personal feelings when writing about my passions. So if you are easily offended, stop right where you are. I make it no secret as to how I feel about liberalism, and I intend to provide a summary here.

    This is the only disclaimer I will make: When I say "liberal," I do not mean every old average Joe on the street who is registered Democrat. I am referring to the socialist liberals who are at work in government and society, hastening the destruction of America from the inside out. When I use the term "conservative," I am not referring to an average RINO or halfway Scott Brown moderate Republican. I am referring to the truly conservative Americans who love their country, and fight for the cause of liberty.

    Conservatism and Liberalism are in many ways, similar in intent. They are both philosophies attempting to bring about a better, more prosperous world. They both want many of the same things (peace, aid to the poor, a healthy, prosperous economy, etc.) but disagree radically on the means by which to get there. I believe the means provided by those in favor of liberalism are emphatically and completely wrong and ineffective. And not only to I believe them to be ineffective, I believe them to be openly harmful to liberty and prosperity. But what exactly is liberalism?

    Liberalism is many things. Liberalism is one of the most potent forces in existence today. Each and every day we wake up, we face liberalism as we never have before in history. It is vital that we see this force for what it is, recognize it, and stop it in its tracks.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder. Michael Savage couldn't have put it better. Liberalism is the single most negative and harmful force in history shy of sin itself.  There have been few, if any, forces throughout history that have ruined as many good things and destroyed as many good lives as liberalism and its chief influences.

    What lies at the root of this cancer known as liberalism that has polluted America for longer than we can remember? Several things: Pride, Selfishness, Lack of Morality, A Sense Of Entitlement, Lack of Logic In Favor Of Emotion, the list goes on and on. The principles by which liberalism now operates were first manifested earlier in history in communism, socialism, Marxism, and Darwinistic Humanism. These influences are evident today, so let's not kid ourselves. Let us call it as it is.

    Liberalism is rooted in the belief that rights come not from God, but from the state. A conservative believes that his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted to him by the Almighty, and that government exists solely to protect his rights and punish those who would attempt to take or abuse them. He believes the state is subservient to him and his fellow countrymen, and that he is subservient to God. A liberal believes that he is superior to God, and the state is his tool by which to exercise his superiority under the guise of helping others.

    A conservative believes in personal responsibility and a hard work ethic. A liberal believes in government legislating responsibility and providing handouts. A conservative believes that government is responsible to the governed, and that government is no more than a steward charged with protective the sacred liberties that Americans have fought and died for for generations. Liberals believe that the governed are held responsible to the government, and that government alone is the sole purveyor of rights and freedoms.

    A conservative is proud of his heritage, and knows that his country was founded by godly men who fought for the great cause of liberty. A liberal hates his heritage for precisely the same reasons, which all go against his cause and his beliefs, and dedicates himself to smearing the name of the founders by questioning their religious heritage, skewing their words and mocking their cause.

    A conservative knows he has been blessed by God by being allowed to live in a country that respects his rights, and understands that he alone is responsible for taking care of himself and providing for his family. A liberal believes his country is greedy, imperialist, and evil, and demands that the government sustain him as he mooches and prospers off the free-market, capitalist system he slanders daily.

     A conservative recognizes the importance of a profit motive, and knows that a free-market, capitalist system is the only known way to support and produce a prosperous economy. A liberal hates the profit motive, and believes that people should be content with what they are spoon-fed by government, and should not attempt to gain anything extra for themselves through hard work and virtue.

    A conservative recognizes the need for a strong defense to deter those who hate the cause of liberty and are unwilling to listen to reason. A liberal hates defense, and subscribes to the illogical belief that if we just put down our weapons and try harder to be peaceful and friendly, the unrelenting enemy at our doorstep will follow suit.

    A conservative recognizes that there are those who hate America's greatness and respect for God-given liberty and believes in securing peace by preparing for war. A liberal believes that the fact that some hate America means that it must automatically America's fault, a consequence for her greedy, corrupt, interventionist, imperialist ways.

    A conservative recognizes the need for morality in society, and knows that without a respect for God and for morals, society will be corrupted and fail. A liberal pays no heed to God or morals, and agrees with the idiotic philosophy of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!"

    Liberalism takes God's role in the equation of life and society and changes it with that of the government. Whereas in actuality, it was God that created man, and man who creates governments to protect rights, liberals believe that it was government who gave rights to man, and man who created God as a crutch to get through life with.

    Liberalism destroys and removes all remnants of personal responsibility from society. Whereas you and I know we are capable of making our own decisions and providing for ourselves, liberalism seems to think or at least imply that we are too stupid to live life on our own bearing, and that for our own good government must regulate every aspect of our lives, whether it be telling us how to keep our guns (which we have a right to), if we are even permitted to own them, and what we can say and how we can say it.

    Liberalism is a cancer, and a hypocritical one at that. The clever liberal will say he is doing good, helping the poor and sick, championing the causes of civil rights, and preventing those greedy conservatives from just trying to make more money! All this while he steals legislatively from those who stimulate growth to give to those who are lazy, leads a crusade on liberty and destroys any fraction of whatever was left of the ability to create prosperity, patting himself on the back for doing so!

    Liberalism claims to be doing what Jesus would have. Funny, I don't remember the book of the bible where Jesus commanded us to Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and ours, AND God's, and then redistribute it to some lowlife fool who is too lazy to get up and work but has the gall to demand something of those who do!

    Liberalism claims to be championing civil rights causes. Funny how the "civil right" of gays to marry takes precedence over the murder of unborn children. Funny how a liberal would refuse to place a convicted murder in a well-deserved tomb, but would kill an INNOCENT HUMAN CHILD before it even leaves the womb! Funny how the woman's right to choice takes absolute precedence over the right to LIFE of the human being she carries inside her.

    Liberalism claims to be fighting for the little guy, and standing up to those money-grabbing conservatives! Funny how a conservative would stand proudly by the side of ANYONE who was willing to try to provide a better living for themselves, but a liberal would stand by that person's side only until they ACTUALLY became prosperous, and then they would begin calling that person the same slanderous terms they use on all others who have the nerve and will to actually try to gain a better standard of living; Imperialist, greedy, money-grabber, etc. Perhaps what is even more ironic, is that for all the talk liberals produce about the evils of being rich, they all want it themselves! The only difference is that where you simply want to work hard and reap the spoils of your labor,  they believe they have a right to the work YOU put in to get your wealth, and that somehow you are to be openly accepting government stealing from you to give to the lazy. Truly what they say is correct! When a man robs you with a gun it is stealing, but when a politician robs you with a piece of legislation, it is helping the needy.

    Liberalism hides under the guise of doing what is right, while actually destroying morality. Like the quote i used from C.S. Lewis in my writings on homosexuality, liberalism is a removal of an organ and a subsequent demanding of said organ's function! Liberalism destroys the idea of the family, champions the murder of babies, advocates for the legalization of prostitution and hallucinogenic substances, removes God from nearly every facet of public life, ESPECIALLY public schools, sends students off to learn basic education and morals from some socialist professor at a liberal university, teaches young people that materialism is the only ultimate goal to life, since there is no God or purpose and we're all just more evolved primates, and that America is evil, fascist and corrupt with a goal to take over the planet. They indoctrinate young minds with socialism and social Darwinism from practically birth and then wonder later on why there are so many school shootings and why no one knows basic economic principle!

    Liberalism destroys incentive, national pride, honor, virtue, and morality and is then shocked to find lazy, apathetic people with no sense of decency or moral standard to speak of.  Liberalism is the ultimate in hypocrisy, and the ultimate in stupidity as well.

     Someone once said that the republican idea of saving a drowning man who was 100 ft. out in the water was to toss a rope 50 feet of the way and make the drowning man swim the rest of the way and help himself. A good joke, but ironic. Especially since the liberal way of helping a drowning man 100 ft out in the water is to take the man's life preserver, give it to someone else who didn't even need it, and then pat themselves on the back for doing a good deed!

    So what is liberalism? Liberalism is hypocrisy and stupidity. Liberalism is reducing you to the level of a drooling idiot who is incapable of exercising your own rights and must have the government do it for you. Liberalism is destroying morality and expecting morally upright people. Liberalism is indoctrination from a young age and then a desperate qualm to find someone who actually understands the way the world works. Liberalism is.... and quote me on this...

    Liberalism is a philosophy of pure, illogical emotion that appeals to the thinker who ironically does   very little critical thinking. Like so many things in life, liberalism sounds great on paper but is revealed for what it is when it meets that harsh thing known as reality.

    I hope my passion was evident throughout this writing for that was the purpose I had in mind when I wrote it. We must know our enemy and be able to fight it directly. I apologize for any overtly emotionally charged words I may have used, it was of course, unintentional. Most importantly, I hope this writing has given you perspective and zeal for the future fight against liberalism and it's devastating consequences. Thank you.

  In my neighborhood, we have an excellent landscaper, Jay. He’s from Cuba—but he’s a legal citizen. You can easily tell that Jay is a hard worker by looking at my lawn.

  Recently, my neighborhood board accused Jay of not fertilizing when he is. I’m not really sure what’s going on but it seems like the whole neighborhood is ganging up on Jay. When my mother heard this, she immediately contacted the president of the board—who is very mean—and defended Jay because he is a hard worker and we like him very much. Supposedly one person in my neighborhood—on the board—said how she didn’t like Jay’s work. The point is, how can one person’s opinion determine whether another person loses their job or not? That’s wrong; in this country, we, as U.S. citizens, all vote to elect a government official and they win because of us. All of our opinions count, so why is there a possibility that my landscaper might lose his job based on one or two opinions? To me it sounds like one person saying they don’t like Obama, and then Obama is impeached. Even though some of us may hope for that, it doesn’t work that way.

  Jay, my landscaper, is a hard worker—he’s the kind of person I support—he works hard for his money. He’s very smart and also a nice person to talk to. When my parents got our house re-painted, my mother insisted on getting a new landscaper to make the lawn look beautiful. Ever since we hired Jay, everything we wanted done is done; Jay was a big help to my family and still is. He works very hard to support his family. He has small children and makes the most of his job so he can care for them. I really hope my neighborhood does not fire Jay based on one or two opinions because I support people like Jay. If you’re a hard worker, I like you. If you’re a hardworking immigrant, I like you even more. That’s what I like to hear—an immigrant who takes their job seriously rather than not working at all and living on welfare. That’s what Jay is: A hard working, immigrant who became an American citizen…

~Kelly

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.

     One of the issues I feel the strongest about politically is the issue of taxes in our country. It's no secret that there are a huge amount of Americans who point-blank don't pay their taxes, and it's no secret that the richer Americans pay FAR more taxes than the lower income brackets in this country.

     I've heard many times the arguments of liberals and progressives for this system. "They make more money, therefore they should pay more to help those less fortunate! They have money to spare, so why not make them give back a little more? They make enough!" Even our President himself stated that he believed there was a "point where you've made enough money."

     I have a big problem with this. I have a BIG problem with this. I hope to provide a reason why in this article.

     I am a firm believer in American exceptionalism. I am a firm believer in a (TRULY) free-market economy. I am a firm believer in capitalism. I am a firm believer in moral and ethical business practice. I believe that if you turn the people loose in a free-market economy, kick back, and let the profit motive take hold, that the economy will naturally boost itself through spending and incentive. I believe that the richest people in the country have earned their wealth, and that they create huge amounts of jobs in their companies. I believe that the government should tax no more than is absolutely required to carry out it's two main goals: that of protection of the innocent, and punishment of the guilty. And i most definitely believe that government is the problem in an economy, not the solution. Particularly when said government burdens down the creators of jobs with crushing taxes and regulations. And finally, I believe that the tactics often used by Marxists to demonize the wealthy and encourage a welfare state are both unfair and disastrous to any economy under any circumstances.

     Initially, socialism, like many other ideas (national healthcare, anyone?), comes off sounding great, and appealing to emotions, but are completely illogical at their core. Much like nationalized healthcare, the notion of socialism at first sounds fair and nice: "Everyone works, and all that's produced is split evenly between them so that it's all nice and fair!" This is a logical fallacy known as The Fallacy of Faulty Appeal To Emotion. With nationalized healthcare (or perhaps we should just call it as it is, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE), the appeal to emotion lies in the arguments made by its supporters: "If you don't support it, you're against healthcare for seniors, and children! Why would you want to deny healthcare coverage to those who can't afford it? And you also hate puppies, and apple pie, and John Wayne, and everything else that is good and patriotic!" Okay, perhaps I may have added on a little bit there. What can I say? Similarly, with socialism, the argument is that if you don't support it, you're "against fairness and want some to be able to profit more than others." This couldn't be farther from the truth!

     Many Americans are unaware that when the pilgrims first came to America, the very first system they tried using was basic socialism. Everybody works and it all goes into one big pot which is distributed equally. Here are two articles for further reading on the subject:

     http://bit.ly/u1jMd and http://bit.ly/fl2pTw

     William Bradford soon realized that this system was failing, due to a lack of what is called the "profit motive." The profit motive is, in short, the economic principle that individuals are more likely to work hard and produce more when there is personal benefit to be had from it. I.E. a person works hard at their job because they want more money. This is the core flaw in socialism that was realized by Governor Bradford. The fact is that when the amount you recieve for your efforts is going to be the same as the man next to you, regardless of how hard either of the two of you work, there is no motivation to work hard and produce, because there's no way to be better than anyone else. There's no way to earn more profit. The profit motive is a huge part of the noted novel "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand.

     Bradford then switched to a free-market style economy, which would be best personified in the simple phrase coined by John Smith in Jamestown. "If you don't work, you don't eat." Plain and simple. If you aren't willing to do the work and provide for yourself, you don't deserve the food you eat. This view was a result of the Pilgrim's strict Christian heritage and upbringing. The Christian worldview places emphasis on self-government, living within your means, and working hard to provide for yourself and your family. Ever since Adam and Eve fell from the garden when they sinned, man has been forced to plow the earth and work for what we have.

     This mentality is what has made America great. Throughout our history, whenever the economy has been set loose, and the people free to make their own way, we have delivered remarkably. As the old saying goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention." It doesn't take a genius to look back and see how necessity has spurred the American dream. Take for instance, the period following the Civil War up until the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (AKA god-awful president #1): The country was in a period of renewal, and progress. We colonized the Great Plains, and invented key items like the telephone, phonograph, lightbulb, morse code, and cotton gin just to name a few! The economy prospered when it was allowed to run free and do it's thing.

     I'm borderline Libertarian on the economic issue of taxes and the economy. It makes no sense to tax hardest the portion of Americans who create the vast majority of jobs and push cash into the economy to keep the flow going. It is unjust and wrong to take from someone else simply because you think they should be using their money differently. The only money government should be able to collect from us is enough to keep its base functions going.

     The question that I hear most often in response to this is: "What about those in need? What about those who cannot support themselves? Surely we must do something to help them!" To all those who make that argument: I completely agree. We agree upon the ends. We disagree WILDLY on the means. The key difference between the conservative and the liberal is that when the conservative sees someone in need, they help them up themselves, and provide them with care on a personal level. When the liberal sees someone in need, he demands that someone else give up what they themselves have rightfully earned to help someone else.

     There are five key "spheres of sovereignty," so to speak, that exist in society. They are: The individual, family, business, church, and government. They each serve their own purpose and function and have sovereignty over certain things. The common error made by most liberals is to confuse which sphere should be in charge of charity. As you'd know for certain if you've watched the Glenn Beck Program at any point over the last two years, the role of charity lies with the individual, the family, and the church. NOT the government. The Bible is clear in its demands for Christians to help their fellow men, and to provide charity and goodwill to those in need. The Bible says the Second Greatest Command, after loving God with all your heart, mind and soul, is to love your neighbor as yourself. Nowhere in Scripture is this better expressed than in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

     The parable goes that as a man was walking on a journey, he was beaten and robbed of all he had by robbers. Two men walk by, a Priest and a Levite, but pass along side the road and don't help the man. Finally, a 3rd man, a Samaritan, finds the injured man and takes him to an inn, where he washes his wounds, tends to him and provides him with charity untill he is well. Note that the big focal point here is that the Samaritan PERSONALLY helped the injured man and gave up some of his own funds to provide for the stay at the inn and the medical treatment. He did NOT demand that the wealthiest in the land be required to pay more taxes to go towards helping men like this. It is the responsibility of the CHURCH, the FAMILY, and the INDIVUDAL, to provide Faith, Hope, and Charity.

     Government is not supposed to fill this role, and they never will properly. Paying taxes to government is much like giving money to a hobo on the street that you see after a sporting event in the city. You know that the money will most likely not be used wisely because it never has. In the case of the hobo, the money is likely to support the poor man's distillery, and with government, the money is likely to support some wasteful government welfare program or bureaucracy. When government attempts to step in and fill the shoes of the individual or the church, the American Dream is stifled.

     I titled this piece "Why Pursue the American Dream?" for a reason. In our current society, there is less motive than ever to pursue happiness and success, because we live in a world where our government discourages it. Why try to make it to the top when you're only going to be taxed 80% of your income when you finally get there???

     When government keeps its nose out of places that it doesn't belong, things function the way God intended them. Americans want to pursue the American Dream. They want to pursue happiness. It's in their blood. They're Americans. But how can we hope to achieve the American Dream, when the promise of success is replaced with the promise of oppressive and harmful taxation?

     The Bible says "give unto Caesar that which is Caeser's, and to God that which is God's." I do not dispute this Scripture. But nowadays, "Caesar" isn't trying to take that which is his, he's trying to take that which is ours. And THAT, is something i refuse to stand for.

     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

  Today I would like to ask you if you believe that the popular television show, Glee, affiliated with FOX pushes a leftist agenda? You may not be able to answer this question right at this moment, but when you are finished reading this article, you might have an opinion.

  Tuesday night March 15th, the new episode of Glee was on at 8:00pm. Personally I really liked this episode of Glee… except what occurred near the end of the episode really upset me.

  To summarize, it included McKinley High School’s Glee club performing at regionals. The club titled “The New Directions” performed original songs at regionals, and the episode included the “Warblers’” glee club staring Blaine and Kurt as the lead singers rather than just Blaine alone. Early on in the episode there was a controversial gay kiss between Blaine and Kurt. As for “The New Direction” they struggled all throughout the episode to write original songs.

    Near the end of the episode, the different Glee clubs went to perform at regionals. Sue Sylvester made sure that her glee club, “Chemical Reaction’s” song choice, which was “Jesus is My Friend” would relate to the judges. The judges consisted of an unknown talk-show host, a nun who was a former “exotic dancer”, and a tea party candidate.

  The tea party candidate resembled Sarah Palin a little bit. They portrayed “Sarah Palin” as a homophobic Christian. There’s nothing wrong with being Christian. In fact, I encourage it, but that’s all they made “Sarah Palin” look like—nothing else.

  At the very end of the episode, the judges were discussing which glee club should move on to nationals. The judge who resembled Sarah Palin said something similar to, “before we start, I would just like to make it clear that I am not a witch”. Christine O’Donnell stated the saying “I am not a witch”, so I assume Glee’s writers were just trying to “bash” the right in general—not a particular politician. While the judges were discussing the “Warblers’” performance, the tea party candidate said something like “No, two men should not perform a duet together. Gay is not the way! And it’s not in the Constitution.”

  Okay, I think there are a couple of things wrong with that sentence. 1. When did Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, or someone relevant to them ever say, “Gay is not the way”? If either one of them, or someone else that’s conservative said that then please tell me. I really would like to know. 2. No, it’s not in the Constitution. The constitution is our government plan, not our “who to love” plan and such. I believe that Ryan Murphy (producer/director/writer of Glee) was trying to make the right look homophobic and “weird” or “dumb”. In fact, I believe he was just trying to make the right look simply bad in general. This really made me angry, but I forget how liberal Ryan Murphy is!

  So now that you are finished with reading this article, do you think that you can answer my question I asked in the beginning of this article? Do you believe Glee pushes a leftist agenda? For me, the answer is yes. Why do I believe that Glee pushes a leftist agenda you ask? Well that’s a good question now isn’t it?! I believe that Glee pushes a leftist agenda because they’ve only made the right look bad so far. Let’s see if they do the same to the left. However, Glee is still one of my favorite television shows and I will continue to be a fan. Hopefully I can put politics aside for good acting and music! But I’m still very disappointed by this episode.

~Kelly

     Hey T4AT readers and fellow Patriots! In this post, I’m going to talk about Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. Section 7 is about the Legislative process and explains what it takes for a bill to become a law in America. So grab that pocket Constitution, and let’s get started!

     As we all know, the Legislative Branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill will usually begin by saying “Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that…”

     Once the Representatives are elected by the people, all legislative powers are granted to them.

     “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others…” –John Locke

     To begin, Section 7.1 of Article 1 says, “Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

     This part of Section 7 intended to make the House of Representatives responsible for raising taxes since they were the direct representatives of the people. This has changed somewhat, however, with the Seventeenth Amendment which also made the Senate elected by the people. The House still has the power of handling money legislation, but they aren’t the only branch of government that represents the people anymore.

     “The House of Representatives…will represent the immediate interests of the people. They will originate all money bills, which is one of the greatest securities in any republican government.” – James Iredell

     The founders feared giving monetary powers to the Senate because they were afraid it would create an aristocracy or even corruption.

     “…The first branch would be the immediate representatives of the people; the second would not. Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.” – George Mason

     “The Senate will be more likely to corrupt than the House of Representatives, and should therefore have less to do with money matters.” – Edmund Randolph

     To summarize, the founders gave the power of legislating money matters to the House of Representatives because they were the direct representatives of the people. And who knows how to spend the peoples’ money better than the people themselves, right? The Senate, however, has the power to amend or reject the legislation after it is approved in the House.

     Article 1.7.2 explains the process a bill must go through in order to become a law.

     Below is a flowchart from nutritionwsda.org which explains the process in simple terms.

     Click here to view the chart. (For some reason it wouldn't upload correctly, but it's a great visual for how the Legislative process works, so please check it out!)

     Finally, Article 1.7.3 says all Orders and Resolutions passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives will be presented to the president. From there, the president can either approve of the bill and sign it into  law or disapprove by vetoing the bill. However, the Senate and the House have the power to overturn the veto with a 2/3 vote in each house.

     In conclusion, Section 7 of Article 1 explains the process a bill must go through in order to become a law. Although the chart above makes it look simple, the road from legislation to law can be a long, slow-moving process. The checks and balances each House and branch of government has on each other is also a crucial part of our Republic as it ensures the law-making process is fair and in the peoples’ best interest. Thank you for reading, and check back for more Truth for American Teens Constitutional Discussions!

Taylor

This Tuesday, hundreds of protesters brought their fight against an “Arizona-style” type of immigration bill at the Texas State Capitol. The State legislator that authored this bill is Rep. Lois W. Kolkhorst. (R-Brenham) Kolkhorst said that, "We’ve been told by Congress that they want to handle this. The administration has told us this is a federal issue, not a state issue, so we want to let them help us with that.” Tons of undocumented immigrants are located in county jails across the state right now serving their sentences for various crimes. Once their sentences are served, they are the responsibility of the federal government. But the federal government is non-responsive on this matter for the most part. "When the federal government is not responsive, our local law enforcements are forced to let them out; it could be at the county line, which some of our sheriffs do, or it could be in your neighborhood,” Kolkhorst said.

This bill would allow local law enforcement to “release or discharge the illegal immigrant at the office of a United States senator or United States representative during that office's normal business hours.” After that, it would then be up to that congressional office to get Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) involved; which is a Federal agency. This bill is not about just picking up illegal immigrants from the side of the street. These are people who have committed a crime, and have served out their time in local county jails at the cost of local taxpayers. This is not meant as a discriminatory bill, it only helps with the illegal immigration crack down with the criminal element.

I hope this bill succeeds, as it should. It has a ton of support by the Republican super-majority in the Texas legislature. Could this be the final piece of legislation to get the federal government in tune? Probably not, but we will see!

     By now, I’m sure we’ve all heard of the protests in Wisconsin protesting Governor Scott Walker’s new budget proposal. Seeing all those people jammed into the Capitol building and walking around the streets with energy and determination towards their cause really makes one wonder, what is making these people so upset and so angry towards their governor that would cause massive statewide protests such as these? Well, apparently, some of the protestors don’t know the answer to that themselves.

     A video taken by the McIver Institute shows students from a Wisconsin high school who attended the rallies. In the video the students admit their teachers brought them to the event. What’s worse is when asked why they attended the rallies, most of them had no idea what the protests were about or why they were even there.

     Many students have even organized 'walk-outs' where they leave school all at once in the middle of the day in support of their teachers and the Unions. Again, do these students even know why they’re leaving school and joining the rallies? Well, watch the video, and I’ll let you be the judge...

 

Taylor