Hundreds of millions of people are involved with a website that contributes to the spreading and sharing of child pornography, and you’re probably one of those people. In fact, you’ve got friends that use this website. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) Child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

1.) the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

2.) the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

3.) the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct

The name of the website that we’re involved with that shares child pornography? Facebook.

Okay, so I’m being purposefully dramatic to get your attention. The Facebook Team is not directly or intentionally involved with the spreading of child porn, as far as I am aware of, but the spreading and sharing of illegal pornography is certainly occurring on the world’s hottest social networking site.

See, that’s the problem. “The world’s hottest social networking site” has become a tool for pedophiles to network with each for the purposes of distributing and trading pornographic material involving the sexual abuse, mistreatment, and rape of under-aged children (don’t think for a second that infants and newborns are excluded). What’s even more disgusting is how it is going under the radar without most Facebook users realizing how LARGE of a problem this is.

On wnd.com, Chelsea Schilling in her article “KIDS RAPED, SODOMIZED ON FACEBOOK PAGES” reports the disgusting and hair-raising criminal activity that is occurring on America’s beloved social media site.

After talking about different pictures of children being abused or exploited sexually, she says: “…children… are shown sodomizing one another – or being raped by adult men or women – in photos and video links of the abuse posted on Facebook. Entire albums of exploited boys and girls are visible to the public and shared with the click of a mouse.”

This is the “the dark underbelly of Facebook, an ubiquitous U.S.-based company making an initial public offering expected to value the company as high as $100 billion.”

“On the Facebook user page called ‘Kidsex Young,’ one man asks others, ‘Care to trade vids?’ Another posts a video of a naked man fondling a baby on a bed.”

What’s so disturbing about all of this is how these deviants are using groups and Fan pages to meet up with each other to share pictures and videos. Listing terms like “Thirteen”, “Lolita”, “incest”, and “PTHC (preteen hard-core pornography)” among their interests, these offenders will network with one another for the purposes of pornographic distribution.

Schilling explains that in most cases these pornography-traders and pedophiles have two kinds of friends. The first are sexual deviants that have similar interests, and the second are unsuspecting children that have been found and “befriended”. After developing a virtual “friendship”, these predators will often times convince children to send them “provocative” pictures, and even sometimes convince them to meet them in person.

The meaning behind the spreading of these images is what is so frightening. It’s not necessarily a problem of a picture of a nude nine year old boy. It’s what takes place during the time of the picture’s taking. When these pictures are taken it’s almost always before or during a violation period, when the act of molesting or raping is about to begin or already has begun. It’s the issue of human trafficking that these photos so oftentimes represent.

“The U.S. Department of Justice explains: ‘In most child pornography cases, the abuse is not a one-time event, but rather ongoing victimization that progresses over months or years. It is common for producers of child pornography to groom victims, or cultivate a relationship with a child and gradually sexualize the contact over time.’” – This helps desensitize the child and breaks down their resistance to sexual contact.

“Bechard said one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome is public unawareness of child pornography on Facebook.

‘One problem is the fact that very few people even know this problem exists,’ he said. ‘Nobody knows about it.’

Bechard and Lepoutre informed congressional staffers, who work in the area of child abuse and commercial sex exploitation, of the child pornography on Facebook.

‘They had no idea this exists, because they all, by their own admission, love Facebook,’ Bechard said. ‘It’s helping them get elected or prevented others from getting elected. Everybody uses the thing.’”

On Fox23.com, Abbie Alford talks about this issue as well in her article Child Porn On Facebook. “You discover it’s [Facebook] is a world where pedophiles are lurking and talking in code.”

Both of these articles address the growing problem of predators using Facebook for their sexually malicious purposes. Pimps use it to advertise their “goods”, predators use it to find what they’re looking for, and deviants use it for “boasting” privileges.

This problem of child pornography on Facebook is but a grain of sand on the bloody beach of human trafficking. As always, the main step towards helping those sexualized victims is making people aware and alert towards what is scampering amongst the shadows of our everyday conversations.

      Hello, my friends. I apologize for the long delay in updating the website, and hope that you enjoy this new piece that I've written.

    The question of capitalism and socialism, and which of the two is more biblical, has plagued my mind for a long time. My brother attended Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, and became friends with some people there who claimed to be Christian Socialists. My brother, being a very politically conservative Christian, was baffled by how these people could claim to be followers of Jesus and support wealth redistribution, and other socialist principles.

  As it turns out, there are several verses in the bible that support, or appear to support both sides. Let us first discuss the potential biblical motivation for socialism.

    In Matthew 19:23, Jesus said to his disciples: “Verily, I say unto you that a rich man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven.” The scriptures indicate here that the accumulation of wealth makes it more and more difficult for a man to enter heaven.

 Christ also says on the Sermon on the mount: “Give to him that asketh thee: and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.”(Matt. 5:42) It would appear here as if Christ is advocating complete charity and equality for people. This was said of the early church in the book of Acts: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. None claimed his possessions as his own, but shared all they had…There was none needy among them. When those owning lands or houses sold them, they brought sale money and put it at the apostles’ feet; distributed to any in need.” (Acts 4:32-35) It would appear here as if the apostles and the early church operated under a system of socialism which worked well for them.

    However, the context behind the words is equally as important as the words being said, so let us take these verses supporting socialism and critique them, to put them to the test to ensure they are valid. The verse from Matthew 19:23, when taken in context, reflects Christ’s teachings on the evils of loving wealth before loving God.The temptation to become a slave to wealth is much greater to a rich man than a poor person. It is not a sin to have wealth, but it IS a sin to love wealth before God.

      The verses from Matt. 5:42 and Acts 4:32-35 reflect the principles of charity in the bible. Often the bible talks about the importance of giving to the poor and taking care of those who are in need. However, you will find that both capitalism and socialism advocate charity. The difference between the two systems when it comes to charity and giving are simply that capitalism advocates private charity from churches or individuals, whereas socialism advocates state-controlled charity through wealth redistribution and often-oppressive taxation. It is not in the desired ends that the two systems differ, but in the means by which to achieve the ends. You will note that there is not one instance in the bible where Christ advocates forced government charity. All manner of Scripture in the Good Book refer to private charity given out of your own free will. “God Loves a Cheerful Giver.” The Bible never condemns wealth, but it does condemn its misuse. Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is theroot of all evil.

    You will also notice that the book of Proverbs talks in detail several times on the importance of being frugal with wealth. “Go to the ant, you sluggard!” Etc. The importance of hard work and being frugal is all over Proverbs.

     The Commandment of “Thou Shalt Not Steal” also clearly implies a biblical motivation for the right to private property, just as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” clearly implies a right to life. Let me expand on this point, to avoid confusion. The 10 Commandments hold several negative prohibitions from which we as humans derive our basic individual rights. When the 6th Commandment says "Thou Shalt Not Kill," it is saying that you and I possess the God-given right to live, which is so valuable and precious that God himself put down a prohibition in the Scriptures against taking the right to life away. Therefore, when we see it said "Thou Shalt Not Steal," it implies that every human being has an innate, God-Given right to private property, which is so precious that God himself put down a prohibition on stealing the property of others.

    In summary, it is clear that though socialism may appear to have a biblical basis, it falls short of living up to the biblical standard because all charity in the bible is private and freely given. Capitalism is the economic system advocated by the bible, and this is evidenced by the many Proverbs advocating the proper use of wealth and frugality, along with the principles of private property set forth by the commandment of “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

    That seems as good a summary of the biblical motivation for a capitalist worldview as I could possibly give. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the view that the Bible is inherently capitalist, and that due to the fallen nature of earthly man, we are incapable of living under socialism, and must have a free market in order to survive as a society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Today, we remember the thousands of Americans whose lives were lost on September 11, 2001. Today marks the tenth anniversary of the tragic events carried out by terrorists from the extremist group of Al-Qaida where 19 men hijacked four separate airplanes and crashed them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania thanks to the heroism of the passengers who took action and averted a possible attack on either the White House or the Capitol.

     We also honor the bravery of the first responders who sacrificed their lives so that others may survive and those fighting in the military who defend and fight for our freedoms even to this day.

     Although 9/11 was a tragedy in which no American can ever forget, it also brought us together. We proved we truly are the “United” States of America, and when someone tries to knock us down, we get right back on our feet and keep going. 9/11 showed the world what it is truly like to be an American.

     Most of today’s teenagers do not remember what happened that day, as some had not even started kindergarten. As for me, I will never forget where I was and how I felt on that horrible day.

     On September 11, 2001, I was in the second grade, and it was a Tuesday like any other. I remember my teacher got very serious and said, “I want to show you guys something, and I don’t want you to be scared. There’s no reason to be scared, and you are perfectly safe.”

     As she said those words, she turned the TV to a news station, and I remember seeing two enormous gray towers with smoke pouring out of one of them. I just remember how scared I felt at that moment. I got the worst pain in my stomach, and I had absolutely no idea what was happening. I just wanted some answers. For the rest of the day, people’s parents came to get them from school. That’s all I personally remember from that horrific day.

     I couldn’t make sense of what I was seeing, but then again, I don’t think any American, whether they were 7 or 97, could make sense of what they were seeing. I will never forget that day and how it made me feel.

     For those of us teens who remember 9/11, it is important to write it down or tell someone else so we may always remember what truly happened that day. Anyone born in the past decade will only know what happened through things they read or hear, and it is important they know the truth.

     Please, take a moment to comment on this post saying where you were, what you remember and how you felt on this day ten years ago. Also, let’s remember the unity this tragedy brought to our nation. It’s sad that it took a terrorist attack to bring our country together. Let us never lose that patriotism we all felt on September 12 and each day that followed. May God bless the families of the victims of September 11, and may God bless America!

~Taylor~

     Today is a day for all Americans to honor and celebrate. Everyone celebrates in their own way with their own traditions, but while we break out our grills and fireworks we have to remember our history and the events which took place over two centuries ago.

     July 4, 1776 is a date every American knows or should know as the day our brave founding fathers and patriots of the 18th century declared their independence from Great Britain. Many countries throughout history have done the same, but our independence was special. We didn’t wait for anyone to recognize or grant us our independence. We declared our own independence from a tyrannical government, and we knew we weren’t turning back.

     The founders of this country knew the dangers of signing their names at the bottom of that declaration. They knew the consequence could mean death by hanging for going against the King, but out of their bravery and hope for posterity they did what they knew was right. They began an experiment that has continued for 235 years and hopefully many more to come.

     The founders knew what it was like to live under an oppressive government and knew an individual could govern himself much better than a King who ruled from thousands of miles away.

     As we celebrate this day, remember the bravery of the men and women who sacrificed or gave their lives for the liberty we enjoy today, and remember those who continue to give everything they have so the American experiment may continue to all future generations.

     Although he was a couple days off, believing American Independence would be celebrated on July 2, John Adams was dead on with his idea on how the momentous occasion should be celebrated:

 

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not." --John Adams

Happy Independence Day!

--Taylor

      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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Brendan M. Wren

  We all have seasons in our life of things we do. Over a year ago when I started T4AT, I never knew where it would go or what it would become. However, I know that the time has come to say good bye to ownership of T4AT.

  Let me start by telling you why I am doing this. Number one, I am now 18, and now a legal adult and able to vote; when I started T4AT I wanted it to stay true to young teenagers that loved our country and wanted to help other teens learn about our nation. I feel that I am no longer in that realm, and someone younger needs to carry the torch.

  The possibility of college coming up this fall and a trip I will be taking to Israel in August are other things that I know will take time, but there is something else. Many of you will remember that election night last year, I had this very cool phone call with Glenn Beck! 

  I never said what came of the call, and I know some have wondered --especially about what Glenn said at the end-- what happened. Two weeks after the call I had a phone interview with Beck's chief of staff/chief researcher Joseph Kerry. At the end of our conversation I was told about something, and accepted something that has been taking up a lot of my time, but that I love dearly.

  I was asked to become a virtual researcher for the Glenn Beck program. While I won't go into details of what all that involves, I will say that it is the most rewarding thing I have ever done, and to see the way the Lord has worked is amazing! I praise God so much for this opportunity, for the new friends He has given me, and just the great joy of serving Him in this capacity.

  I am continuing on with this virtual researcher program, and what ever it may bring for my future with Glenn Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts.

  Now, what's going to happen to T4AT? I have talked with the staff, and Victor and Matt are also starting college this year while Taylor is finishing up high school. We have all decided to take a step back, and just post when the time lends itself, but we will no longer be the staff.

  Who is going to run T4AT then? Well, the staff and I have talk/prayed about it, and we believe that God has given us Brendan as the new leader of T4AT. Brendan has accepted the offer, and at the end of the summer he will fully take over the management of the site. Kelly will stay on writing as well, but Brendan will also be adding new writers at his discretion.

  Finally, I want everyone to know how much I love T4AT. It was truly a milestone in my life, and has taught me so much! I will miss it, but I know I'm leaving it in great hands. I will have my own personal blog that I'm starting with my best friend Erica Jennings. So watch for Alethea's Joy to be coming out soon.

  This is not a total good bye, it's a transition, and a good one I think at that. I love you all and thank you so much for your support, as do Victor, Matt, and Taylor.

  May the Blessings of Christ stay with you all in our journey

~Karen