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.

     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!

Well, if you have not heard, Superman is renouncing his U.S. citizenship. This really should not be too much of a shock to you seeing as how America is the “new world enemy.” The reason why it shouldn’t be so surprising is that Superman is not the first super hero to disassociate himself with the United States; Captain America changed his name to Nomad a few years back. If Superman is supposedly “fed up” with being connected to the USA and the motto ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way,’- -its just not enough anymore,” then why has and is he characterizing those values the best? NPR says that he “proclaims himself a citizen of the universe.” Since when did the United States become evil? It will be interesting to see how superman acts now being a "citizen of the universe."

If you are a teen reading these “innocent” comic books, beware of the messages that are being displayed. Also, if you are a parent, be sure you know what your child is reading or watching, this goes for school material also. Nothing is what it seems anymore, you must look deeper and keep an eye out for these type of stunts.

Well, don't worry! DC comics has come back out saying that superman may have had a change of heart in renouncing his US citizenship. This attempt at changing Superman's citizenship has caused an uproar across the nation. Artist Dave Dorman who is an artist for the DC comic book had this to say:

“I find it very hard to believe that DC Comics has chosen to take Superman–the first and greatest of America’s super heroes and a cultural icon for many generations–and molded him into a piece of political propaganda for this current climate of socialism and world unity. For generations, Superman has stood as a role model for both children and adults, giving them pride in America with his values of ‘Truth, Justice and the American Way.’ Unfortunately, DC Comics has chosen to corrupt that role model, bending it to America‘s current path of failure with ’Mistruth, Social Justice and a One World Order.‘ In this day when Barack Obama calls the United States ’unexceptional,‘ it saddens me that DC Comics and their Superman creative team couldn’t have restored this true American role model and given kids in America the faith that our great country truly is still exceptional. With one comic, they’ve castrated Superman and hastily thrown away more than 80 years of his patriotic legacy.”

Well America has won this time. But remember to keep up the good fight! We will be seeing more of this in the future! 

-Matt 

  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

  Have you ever had to lie about yourself because you were afraid what people might think of you? For many people the answer is yes, including me. If you are a person among these “many people” what have you lied about? What part of your life have you been hiding? Let me just add that lying isn’t always the logical thing to do.

  When I’m at school, sometimes I lie about my political views. I am a conservative republican, but sometimes I pretend to lean to the left on certain topics when I’m at school. You see, my classmates are socially liberal. An example would include same sex marriage. Personally, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but my classmates oppose my opinion and sometimes they bully me for thinking marriage is between a man and a woman. That bullying has led me to “pretend” to support same-sex marriage. But where would “pretending” get me? How would it help me? It doesn’t, but why did I lie anyway? I lied because I was terrified of what people would think of me.

  I’ve also had to lie or “pretend” about other matters that aren’t related to politics. I’ve hidden who I am and what I stand for simply because I was afraid. But I shouldn’t have been afraid of what people would think of me. I should’ve been truthful right from the start, but I wasn’t.

  Over time, I have learned that hiding who I am is wrong. Though, I still continue the lying some times. You would think that I would have learned by now, but it’s pretty clear that I haven’t!

  If you have had to hide who you are and pretend to be someone you’re not, then I have advice for you. Don’t let anybody tell you what to think, nor let them tell you who you can love. Don’t be afraid to be the real you and never let anyone’s opinions effect who you are.

  I wish you the best of luck. And remember, we are all entitled to our own opinions/views, but we shouldn’t let anybody else’s opinions affect ours. Please know that we are who we are, we love who we love, and we all have different perspectives. No body can change that!

~Kelly

Yesterday there was a large tea party in North Houston, and among many of the guests was singer Krista Branch. I had been asked to help at Miss Krista's table during the day -- which was a joy -- , and I had asked her if she would be willing to do a small interview with me. To my joy she obliged! So, we went off back stage, and recorded this...

(Special thanks for Pastor Michael Branch for recorded the video)

Check out some of Miss Krista's songs!

I am America 

Remember Who we are

Foreign Land

~Karen

  "While the global economic downturn continues to take its toll, a new United Nations agency report contends that young workers may have been hit the hardest, pointing to a dramatic rise in the number of unemployed youth around the world...While the unemployment rate currently stands at 9.6 percent for the overall population, the rate for teens is 26 percent" This from the Daily Caller is a stirring reality for young people like me. We have hopes and dreams of going to college and getting jobs one day, but it's getting harder for teens to get pre-college jobs!

  This is a bleak picture for those of us hoping to get jobs soon, but what -- or who --  is the culprit for this job loss? A little thing called the Minimum Wage. "A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees or workers." What happens is that businesses are told, "such and such amount is the lowest you can pay your employee." The problem some times is that employers are told to RAISE the minimum wage, but just because they raise the wage doesn't mean that the business has the money to pay their employees. In order to pay the minimum wage to their employees, employers must do one of two things. 1.) They must raise the prices on their product in order to keep their employees, or 2.) they have to cut back on the number of employees; neither of these options in the long run help either  the company or the workers.

  Think of it this way. The owner of a Wendy's is told to raise his minimum wage. If he raises his prices then people will got to the Burger King next door because they have cheaper prices. So, instead of suffering in business, he looks to cut his employees. He has a teenage employee who is young, inexperienced, and isn't the best at the job but isn't bad either. However, he also has an adult employer who has been working for a long time, knows the ropes of business, and is great with customers. Who do you thing the owner is going to cut? The teenager.Even though the teen may not have been great and experienced, he was new to the job world and trying to make a living.

  As a teenager myself, I am starting to prepare myself for college. Part of that preparation is making sure you have the money FOR college. Sure, some parent's help a bit with college, but it feels great when you pay for something you want and you are willing to work hard to get it. However, now jobs are getting harder to find for young people wanting to jump start their life! This cannot have a positive effect on our nation. If youth do not have jobs, how can they play for college? Also, my age group is sadly known for causing trouble. A job can keep you busy and out of trouble, while teaching you life skills.

  So what could the solution be? The obvious one is getting rid of the minimum wage, and letting employers decide how much to pay their employees. If you don't like how much you're being paid...you can quit, but giving employers the freedom to pay employees based on their character and work ethic can majorly help this youth unemployment --and unemployment all around -- problem.

~Karen

 Hello everyone. I have been gone for a while as you can see. The LED Light on my laptop went out but forget all of that. I am back and I have lots of things that I want to write about. So Fox News recently talked about me and other teens across the country who attended the Young Americas Foundation Conference right outside of Washington D.C. and how we were stopped for singing the national anthem at the steps of Lincoln. I wrote about my experience on the trip but never mentioned this. We had just came back from the WW2 Memorial which was beyond epic. We had been walking around, talking and taking pictures of the amazing view of the Capitol building and the reflecting pool when we all decided to do something patriotic and sing our country's anthem. I was super excited and so was all the other attendees. We were about half way through the song when we heard a man saying "HELLO, STOP!'. We all looked and were very confused. He happened to be a park officer. He told us that we were violating park rules. We all looked at each other in amazement. My friend John who was right next to me said "We are a country at war, why would he do this". He couldn't have said it any better. We all became very unhappy and so did other people who ere also singing with us and who also was shocked at what that park officer had just done. So we rallied back up and said we will sing this song and we did. We song it every so proudly and when we were done we got an standing ovation. It was very patriotic and got water in my eyes. To this say i get a bad feeling about the park officer when I talk about what happened so I will stop. Here is the video of the cast of Fox & Friends talking about the situation.

About two weeks ago Glenn Beck's new book, The Overton Window , came out. This is the description given of the book from glennbeck.com

  "A plan to destroy America, a hundred years in the making, is about to be unleashed . . . can it be stopped?

There is a powerful technique called the Overton Window that can shape our lives, our laws and our future. It works by manipulating public perception so that ideas previously thought of as radical begin to seem acceptable over time. Move the Window and you change the debate. Change the debate and you change the country.

For Noah Gardner, a twenty something public relations executive, it's safe to say that political theory is the furthest thing from his mind. Smart, single, handsome and insulated from the world's problems by the wealth and power of his father, Noah is far more concerned about the future of his social life than the future of his country.

But all of that changes when Noah meets Molly Ross, a woman who is consumed by the knowledge that the America we know is about to be lost forever. She and her group of patriots have vowed to remember the past and fight for the future?but Noah, convinced they're just a bunch of freaky conspiracy-theorists, isn't interested in lending his considerable skills to their cause.

And then the world changes.

An unprecedented attack on U.S. soil shakes the country to the core and puts into motion a frightening plan, decades in the making, to transform America and demonize all those who stand in the way. Amidst the chaos, many don't know the difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact?or, more importantly, which side to fight for.

But for Noah, the choice is clear: Exposing the plan, and revealing the conspirators behind it, is the only way to save both the woman he loves and the individual freedoms he once took for granted."

Positives:

  The fact that the Overton Window is a mixture of fact and fiction makes the book a great ride! I found myself reading a portion of the book, and then going to the back of it to find out what was true in that section. (Glenn Beck provided a section at the end of Overton Window that contains all the factual events in the book.) I felt as if I was on a learning treasure hunt where at any time a real clue would pop out in front of me.

  The main character, Noah, is portrayed as almost neutral at the beginning. I found this to be very thought provoking and fresh to see a character that was not so easily persuaded to one side. Noah goes through a lot of thinking and searching before he chooses his path, and Beck does not make the journey easy. I believe that's what gives life to this book, Noah acted more like a real person than a book character.

  I am a person that prides myself on being an avid fiction reader! I started reading adult, Christian fiction when I was 11, so I really love it! Because of that, I've come to where I can normally read a fiction novel, and figure out the characters and plot very quickly. Not so with the Overton Window! I found myself confused many times about some one's character traits. First I thought a certain character was good, then something happened that made me think it was bad, but then it did something really good again! I congratulate Glenn Beck for keeping the plot twisting in a unique way!

  The primary focus of the book is how people are trying to destroy our country from the inside, and how a few people are trying to save it. Beck clearly explains the use of propaganda in getting the public to believe a certain idea, and shows how the United Sates has slowly been morphed into a completely different nation than when she started. However, I will not expound further because I do not want to spoil the book for you! But I will tell you this, reading the book almost reminded me of when I read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters . Seeing how evil works from the inside.

Negatives:

  When I heard Glenn Beck speaking about The Overton Window, he said that there was no sex and no language in it. The sex part he was correct on, however there is a noticeable amount of language in the book. About a dozen d---, half a dozen h--, one or two a--, and one SO- are used in the book. So, adults, use your own judgment. Teens, talk to your parents before reading The Overton Window, and suggest that they go through it with a black sharpie before you read it!

  While there is no sex, there are a few inappropriate situations. Molly is over at Noah's house for a certain reason, and they sleep in the same bed. Beck makes it clear that they stayed separate, but Molly does "tease" Noah a little. Another time they are over at Molly's and are napping in a hammock together. Again, teens, talk to your parents about this before reading it.

Conclusion:

  The Overton Window is a thriller, therefore it is a wonderful fast paced book. Full with wonderful fiction and fact,it makes for a great summer read if you are wanting to learn about the inner workings of those who wish to transform -- rather than restore--this nation. However, I do ask that parents read this book before your teens do to make sure everything in there is appropriate for them. Teens, if you want to read it, get your parents to read it first, and then if you read it go over it with them. Learn with and from your parents through this book!

~Karen