Glenn Beck: Poster Child For Those With No Backbone!

     I was a daily listener of Glenn Beck's for quite sometime now, and agreed with him on quite a few topics, but his display earlier this week regarding Ben Carson changed my opinion of him...I sensed something might be off in 2008 when he went after Mike Huckabee (who I don't care for), but there seemed to be a special vengeance he felt for the candidate and he went out of his way to destroy him.  While Beck severely disappointed me with his absurd opinion, it is indicative of our media and culture in general.  People of this nation were once allowed to voice their religious opinions without fear of retribution...times have changed.

     Dr. Ben Carson was heroic in his response to whether someone is born homosexual or not (could have chosen a different example).  He used the example of why some people goes into prison 'straight' and then leaves 'gay'.  Now this example left him wide open to criticism (although it was a very valid question), but he clearly stated their is no definitive scientific evidence that someone is born gay.  Personally, I like to use the example of the media hero Jason Collins.  Collins' is a genetically identical twin, but his brother is straight...how can that be if they were born with an identical set of genes?  Putting that argument aside, I would like to return to Glenn Beck's comment that Dr. Carson is a 'lunatic' for believing people aren't born gay.

     Beck claims to believe in the Bible, and often refers to the 'Holy Spirit' guiding every decision in His life.  Yet, in this instance he takes the liberal and unBiblical stance that people are born gay.  Not only that, he attacks a Christian man bold enough to take a stand for his beliefs and not bow to the pressure of media and politics.  This is the problem with our country now, you can have an opinion only if it is exactly what the liberal media and government want.  If you deviate from their 'script' you can put a fork in your career or campaign.  Dr. Carson was a beacon of light at that moment in time (who knows if he is strong enough to stand firm), and Glenn Beck is an example of a man caving to the pressure of media, government, and saving his new company.  

     We all have something inside that guides us to do right or wrong, and only we can choose to listen.  Our nation has slowly eroded in its morals out of a fear of offending, or being ridiculed for not getting in line with the 'enlightened' liberals.  When someone does stand up for their beliefs and attempts to defend them, but the liberal media attacks them, many 'moral' Americans cower and clap, as if in agreement.  I'll leave you with this, who in the end has to answer for their stance on morality?

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

Progressive Strategy: War of Words

     The war of words in the United States, and the World, is key in the assumption of public opinion.  Progressives have long believed that you can simply change a word or two in a movement, and the 'ignorant public' will readily accept the same package...Just worded differently.  This brief article will outline just a few examples of this practice, and then you can ask if you have been 'duped' by the liberals.

     The first example I would like to use is one we have all been bombarded with for the last decade, 'Global Warming'.  We were all warned that hurricanes and other weather anomalies were going to rise in frequency and parts of Florida would be under water in 2015.  Well, time has passed, and these events have not transpired as they were said to have.  Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Preeminent college for science, said the following, "How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?".  He later refers to Global Warming followers as a 'cult'.  So one of the smartest men on the planet says global warming is a hoax, and what do the liberals do?  Change the name.  We now are in danger of 'Climate Change'.  So every 'wild' change in temperature can be called Climate Change...Even when the weather is normal, snow in the north, lack of rain in the desert west, it is a sign of Climate change, because everyone knows deserts get rain all the time.  But the public gobbles it up and thinks it's truth.

     Next, let take the current negotiations with Iran.  Obama has been reportedly dealing with Iran, without public knowledge, since the middle of 2014, and even stoping an Israeli attack by threatening to shoot down their planes with drones.  The public has been in an uproar with polls showing that over 80% of the US disagree with Obama and his treaty talks with Iran, and over 60% want military action against the country.  So what is the progressive response?  Obama's mouthpieces, and even Hillary Clinton in her 'inspiring' speech today, claim that the Republicans in Congress sending a note to Iran saying they will not abide by any treaty agreed to without their consent, were partnering with the 'hardliners in Tehran'.  And every news media has picked up and ran with it.  Republicans are in bed with Iran, when in fact they were telling Tehran there is no deal unless they approve it, but the public claps and says 'Republicans are in bed with Tehran'.

   The last 'War of Words' to be addressed is the 'War on Women'.  The new campaign slogan of the Democratic Party.  It is their newest attempt to dress their socialist agenda in a new outfit.  We have addressed the issue of race with the election of Obama, and the socialist agenda is furthered, now we must address the inequality of wages for women and elect Clinton, and the socialist agenda is furthered.  The facts are quite damning to Obama and Clinton, as women in their employ experience a greater pay gap than in the private sector.  But, does truth matter anymore, or just charisma? 

     The 'Progressive', or 'Socialist' agenda, has a long term outlook, and is only concerned with slowly eroding our country from within.  They control MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and many other liberal networks.  As we see ISIS, a group Obama refuses to call Islamic, unites globally, Iran is allowed to develop nukes during the 'sunset' period of the proposed agreement, according to experts, and the growing Russian threat...I wonder if America will ever take off the blinders and see truth.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee  

UCI Banning of the US Flag and the Destruction of the Nation State

     The problem with erosion is that most of the time it can't be seen and takes places over decades or longer.  Take for instance, termites (a form of erosion through destruction), the outside home or building look strong, but it is slowly being eaten away until what's left is only a shell of its former self.  I use this analogy to address the topic of what recently transpired on the University of California, Irvine campus (sadly a campus I attended for one quarter before transferring to UCR).

     The school has voted that the American flag can no longer be flown in the lobby of the campus.  And according to Breitbart, "The language of the bill claims that flags “construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments,” and further charges that “flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy.” Guevara’s resolution goes further on to say that “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech.”.  So now the American flag is considered hate speech on a campus that receives funding from that same country!

     I bring up this example to briefly touch on a much larger subject, and that is the destruction of the Nation State (eliminating individual countries in the advancement of a global government).  This unfortunately is not in the least bit a conspiracy.  This author is working on a Master's degree from the most prominent Political Science program in the nation, The Maxwell School.  Required reading demands the reading of United Nations proposals and agendas, and what is casually regarded as scholarly reading is actually quite scary.  Whether it be Agenda 21, or Bush's 'Trilateral Commission', or the simple statement on our dollar 'Novus Ordo Seclorum' (New World Order)...the United Nations have been trying to destroy the borders of every country.  How?

     One very clever way is to slowly erode a people's belief in their own nations character and history.  The United States is a key example.  Over the last 80-90 years the Progressive, or Democratic Party, has been trying to convince the Nation that our founders, fiscal leaders, and prominent figures were evil and consumed with greed and racism.  There are virtually no facts to back this up, unless you look at the Democratic Party's history, but that is not the point of this article.  Slowly, but surely, our leaders are eroding our faith in our nations greatness, and this is happening in other countries as well.  It starts with the banning of the flag, just as a termites first bite, and then before you know it our nation is a shell of what it once was.  Sadly, we are already a shell of who we once were.  10 years ago I wrote a rebuttal to a UN article 'The Destruction of the Nation State'...Might be a interesting read considering how long ago the UN was being bombarded with this ideal.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

     

A Little Conspiracy Can Be Fun At Times: Obama's 3rd Term

     I have been watching the news over the last few weeks and I came to one of many conclusions.  This is purely for you to draw your own conclusions.  I have seen many conspiracy theories of an Obama 2016 run for a third term as President of the United States.  He would have to hurdle the 22nd Amendment, but then again, he has hurdled many other Constitutional limitations.  I don't want to get into the 22nd Amendment too deeply, as there is a clause that would allow a third term based on 3/4 support from Congress.  I would like to look at what's transpiring with Hillary Clinton.

     Many major Democratic supporters realize that Clinton is the only viable Presidential candidate that they have, Biden?, yeah sure, Gore possibly.  So as the momentum was beginning to gather for Clinton's 2016 push...suddenly the fact that she used a personal server gets out, which was in direct violation of a law Obama imposed.  It's not that this information got out, but it is who leaked it...the New York Times.  The New York Times is an extremely liberal newspaper that supported the Clinton's while they were in office, and has carried the water for Obama ever since.  Why would they sacrifice the next great hope of the Democratic Party?  Yes, there have long been differences between the Obama's and Clinton's and they obviously do not like each other, but why serve up for the slaughter your former Secretary of State?

     The liberal media is pulling out its hair trying to figure out what will happen if Hillary's campaign ends.  They have no other viable options to present to the American public that could potentially defeat the Republican nominee (which may be no better), or do they...If enough scandals are leaked on the Clinton's, including the newest sex scandal with Bill, and Clinton is deemed unelectable...What are the Democrats to do?

     In steps a 'humble' Obama, willing to save the Democratic Party by running for a third term (perhaps against an unelectable Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie), which he 'has no desire' to do.  The media fawns over the reborn 'savior' and does all it can to turn the American public in his favor in an attempt to install a new dictator.  As I said, this is conspiracy theory to be enjoyed, but also considered.  We have a President that has destroyed the balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government...What would stop an executive order granting a third term, say if we were involved in a serious war, as FDR did.  Enjoy any discussion this may bring up.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee

The Truth Behind the Christian Crusades: Protect the Innocent and End Islam's Dominance

     Many in the West have been misled as to the true reason for the Christian Crusades, and tend to view Islam as an innocent victim of European conquest.  This indoctrination can only be unwound by a careful study of Islam prior to the Crusades.  Although this work is in no means an exhaustive look into the past, it will attempt to give an overview of the time and what was transpiring.

     Islam has long been called a religion of peace, which proves if you keep repeating something long enough, eventually people will believe it.  The truth is Islam and its spread was based in war and the spilling of blood.  As Bryant Wright states, "Lewis went on to note that in the eighth century, Muslims conquered Spain and Portugal.  It was truly a religion on the move.  In their minds, these continued conquests reinforced the Superiority of Islam.  They continued on and invaded France, and, as I shared in chapter 1, if France had not turned back the Muslim onslaught in AD 732, most of Europe and eventually North and South America could have easily been dominated by the Muslim Faith."  Charles Martel's great victory saved Europe, but never stopped the Muslims belief in a worldwide Caliphate and dominance of Islam.

     Long before the Christian Crusades, the Muslims were Massacring any who would not submit to Islam.  In AD 633 Khalid al-Walid, whom Muhammed named 'The Sword of Allah', captured the city of Ullay's (todays Iraq) and beheaded so many people that the canals ran full with blood.  Muhammed led his Muslim forces to 66 straight victories in his murderous spread of Islam.  At one point the Muslims even sacked Rome herself.

     Constantinople had long been the Eastern Empires capital for Christendom, but it, Jerusalem and other Christian cities in the Middle East were coming under attack by Muslims and desperately needed help from the Western Empire based in Rome.  So the main purpose for the Crusades (allowing that some acted in error of the original purpose) was to protect Christian pilgrims, save Constantinople, and retake Jerusalem. 

     Yes, some Crusades went astray from the original purpose, but that does not change the fact that it was a defensive move against the onslaught of Islam.  The peaceful religion of Islam was eventually able to sack and take Constantinople and rename it Istanbul, and at the end of one Crusade the Muslim leader in Egypt had every Christian beheaded before him, while he ate lunch...that is all the Christians who couldn't pay the bribe.  I hope this very brief article sheds light on the true conquest nature of Islam.

By Jeffrey Brandon Lee