For some time, I’ve been one to point out the dangers of globalism essentially being a more Trotsky-like version of communism, where the point is not to attach oneself to an individual nation-state (like Stalin did), but rather, to allow for the whole world to be inundated in communism under global leaders.
 
However, in recent time, we’ve seen a noticeable shift on the global scale regarding this. For example, look at the most recent E.U. elections, where despite the fact pro-EU parties reportedly maintained two-thirds of parliament seats, nationalist and other “euroskeptic” parties solidified their strength and made gains, indicating future challenges to the E.U.
 
In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s party, Lega Nord Party, won 28 seats, with Salvini himself celebrating this victory by saying: “A new Europe is born… As far as I’m concerned, if the League wins nothing changes in Italy, everything will change in Europe, starting from tomorrow.”
 
In the U.K., Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (which was only 6 weeks old at the time of the election) had a nice victory, “securing a majority with 31.7% and 29 seats,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
In an interview with Good Morning Britain, Farage said that if the U.K. doesn’t leave the EU by October 31st, the Brexit Party would “go on to a general election and stun everybody there too.” He repeated his warning on Twitter by tweeting: “Never before in British politics has a party just 6 weeks old won a national election. If Britain does not leave the EU on October 31, these results will be repeated at a general election. History has been made. This is just the beginning.”
 
In France, Marine le Pen’s party slightly outperformed Macron’s party, winning 22 seats to Macron’s 21.
 
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s party had to hold “crisis talks” following the results of the election, where they were given their worst score in European election history thanks to the environmental party, the Greens.
 
Voter turnout also rose from the 2014 elections from 43% to 51%.
 
And this is just in Europe. Let’s not forget that just weeks before, Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison won a “surprise” re-election after national polls predicted he would lose (where have we heard that one before?). In Brazil some months ago, the Donald Trump of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, also won his election.
 
And of course, we can’t forget about the big one that has likely propelled, if not led, this sort of nationalist movement to occur throughout the world: Donald Trump being elected President of the United States in 2016.
 
There is a global nationalist movement occurring and it’s posing a massive challenge to the globalists.
 
Now, allow me to explain just why I say this is a new Cold War. As you know, the Cold War was a war of words and policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was capitalism vs. communism, with the two leading world super powers at each other’s throat under the threat of nuclear annihilation if either nation blinked.
 
While I wouldn’t say we are under quite such a threat here, the concept of a Cold War is simply in the fact that there is conflict between two (or more) entities where one could escalate things and get them hot, but the preference would be to fight each other through other means, because one party heating up the war would lead to certain mutually-assured destruction.
 
This new Cold War I am talking about isn’t between two countries. It’s not between America and Russia, or America and China, or America and North Korea, or America and Iran (man, there are a lot of countries that want us gone). Matter of fact, this hold America on both sides of the Cold War… as well as every other country in the world.
 
This Cold War is between Globalism and Nationalism, as I mentioned in the title. No, there is no underlying threat of total nuclear devastation, but it is still a struggle between two entities fighting for control of the populace.
 
You can call this battle between Globalism and Nationalism as more of a battle between communist-like elites who believe they know better than everyone else and believe should be in charge of how other people live, and the rest of us who wish to maintain our freedoms and autonomy at the national level.
 
Globalists, as the name suggests and as I have explained before, do not attach themselves to any one nation. They see nations as a way to divide people and would wish nothing more than to do away with them, forcing people to live how they want them to live, cultural differences, religious differences and overall differences that cannot be forcibly eliminated be damned. They want as much control and power as possible and nations limit them in their power.
 
So, entities like the European Union exist, where policy is made for the countries by people who do not live there. Don’t want migrants to be shipped to your country en masse? Too bad, you don’t get to make that decision. You want to leave the Union? Well, your leaders don’t and we don’t, so tough.
 
So the battle isn’t between two countries, but between two types of people: the stuck-up elites and the rest of us.
 
Donald Trump’s campaign (and subsequent administration) was/is about Making America Great Again, putting America First and overall prioritizing American interests. That was strictly a nationalist message, a message that sent globalists everywhere (and I do mean everywhere considering British agents tried to undermine a U.S. election) into a frenzy, feeling the direct challenge to their power.
 
Despite their best efforts, the U.S., even under 8 years of Obama, was still the most powerful and influential country in the world and such a radical change in Presidents – from one who would bend over backwards for their amusement to one who would take charge – would heavily disrupt their status quo.
 
So the globalists in America – the American Left – launched effort after effort to destroy Trump and get him impeached, failing time after time. Globalists everywhere else deeply hated Trump. Rush Limbaugh largely chucks this deep hatred for Trump as him simply being so different from them in his mannerisms, his style and in the ideological differences between them. It goes farther than that. Trump presents a direct challenge to the globalists.
 
“America First” and “MAGA” are attacked precisely because they do as advertised: put America first and make it great again. Making America great again means making it powerful again. Making it powerful again means making it more independent again; more free again.
 
However, this has led (perhaps unexpectedly for some, but perhaps not so for others) to other countries’ people wanting their own governments to prioritize them. Such is the case for Brazil, Australia, and even the people of Great Britain during Brexit (which, yes, happened before the 2016 election, but that only tells you of how grand the desire for liberty against globalism is, and that is the reason I said Trump’s election likely propelled, if not necessarily led, the nationalist movement).

Throughout the world, and with more and more mounting evidence, we are seeing globalism being pushed back and nationalism taking hold. The EU elections were simply the most recent massive win and a great indicator of this.
 
This is a struggle between those who wish to be able to rule themselves (or at least their countries to be able to rule themselves and prioritize the citizens of the countries and not of another’s) and those who wish to be able to rule all people.
 
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communists didn’t simply disappear. They regathered and planned for their rise once again. They invaded other countries not with guns but with papers and spread their communist ideals. And in time, communism took on a new name: globalism. Same basic concepts, same ideas, same end, but different means to those ends.
 
And now, they are facing a new challenge. In essence, they view Trump as this generation’s Reagan. And there exists the possibility of people like Bolsonaro, or le Pen, or Farage as being this generation’s Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. It was those three who largely helped destroy the Soviet Union. Today’s nationalist leaders could and likely will challenge the globalists.
 
At the risk of kind of sounding like AOC, I would have to say that this is our generation’s Cold War. A war not of guns and blood, but of ideology and words. Thankfully, there is no threat of nuclear annihilation (apart from some chicken nugget countries that like to puff up their chests and pretend they are big boys *ahem* North Korea *ahem* Iran *ahem*), but the struggle still exists.
 
It’s the elites vs. the rest of us and we are fighting back.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Among the many reasons that socialism always fails is the fact that it is wholly unrealistic and requires far too many things to be perfect and work right for it to actually be effective at all. By the same token, gun control doesn’t work for many of the same reasons: it is unrealistic to believe passing gun control laws will make those who don’t care about the laws suddenly care about them or work with them willingly.
 
The United Kingdom and especially London have some of the strictest gun control laws imaginable, and yet, shootings still happen, other crimes like knife crimes happen and some of the worst people you could think of have access to guns innocent civilians have no hope of being able to stand up against.
 
Yesterday, a guy in his late teens was fatally shot in London just minutes after another man was stabbed in his head (non-fatally, somehow) elsewhere in the city. The crimes don’t appear to be related, however.
 
Still, that is far from the only case of a violent crime perpetrated with a knife and the shooting goes to show that gun control laws simply can’t prevent shootings and gun-related killings in general.
 
But that’s not the only reason I am talking about this. If anything, that’s the secondary reason. The primary reason is the fact that just a day before said shooting, Metropolitan Police conducted a raid in an industrial estate near Bretts Farm, Romford Road. This raid found quite the arsenal of weaponry including “three AK47 assault rifles, one sub-machine gun, two shotguns, one revolver, one self-loading pistol, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and 22 grenades.”
 
Officers also found “a large number of stolen vehicles, several kilos of Class A drugs, and a cannabis farm.”
 
Now, I don’t know gun laws in Britain as much as I do in the United States, but if American laws are anything to go by, and knowing that British laws are even more extreme, I can’t imagine some, if any, of these things are legal. AK47 assault rifles (aka automatic rifles) certainly are not legal. Sub-machine guns typically are automatic weapons, so I can’t imagine that’s legal, but one can get a sub-machine-gun-like weapon (like an UZI) if it is semi-auto. Shotguns might be the outlier here. Handguns, however, have been banned since 1997 and grenades are explosives, so there’s no way those are legal.
 
According to Business Insider, people can own shotguns and rifles as long as they have an appropriate license. However, shotguns have the restriction that “they can’t hold more than three shotgun shells – including the one in the chamber if it’s a pump-action or semiautomatic shotgun.”
 
And while you are legally able to buy semiautomatic rifles, their caliber can be no higher than .22, which isn’t much.
 
Still, while you can buy one, you have to give the government a “good reason” to buy one. Business Insider says that “hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons.” However, “self-defense won’t be considered a valid reason.”
 
So if you are living in London, for the most part, you won’t have a good reason to buy a rifle. Well, wanting to protect yourself should be seen as a valid reason, but these people are insanely stupid or simply don’t care, so your peasant arse can die for all they care.
 
And again, all handguns are illegal, so there isn’t much chance of defending yourself in the city, unless you want to risk doing something illegal yourself.
 
That is the line criminals, by definition, aren’t afraid to cross. They won’t care what the law says. If the law says they can’t get a gun, they smile because that means law-abiding citizens are further restricted. If a bad guy wants to get a gun badly enough, he will find a way to get one.
 
I’ve used this example before, but I think it’d be good to use it again: how many times has someone used a gun that didn’t belong to them? How many times has a shooter used a gun that belonged to either a friend or family member? How do you regulate that? By punishing the owner of the gun? They had nothing to do with the person’s actions, especially if the shooter stole the owner’s gun.
 
And it’s not like that’s the only way to acquire a gun. There are black markets, where you can buy any gun you want. How else would someone be able to get assault rifles, sub-machine guns, handguns and grenades as the Metropolitan officers found in their recent raid?
 
All types of shady characters from gang members to even terrorists use this sort of system. A gang member told the Evening Standard that “in the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence… These people had seen family members mutilated so when they said, ‘I’m gonna smash you up,’ us guys would be shouting, ‘Yo blud, wot you mean?’ and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level of violence for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.”
 
So regardless of what the law says, gang members and foreign terrorists are able to gather weapons no law-abiding citizen is allowed to own.
 
A number of reasons can be given as to why London in particular is circling the drain in terms of security. I would say that the fact police are forced to look into non-violent “hate crimes” as more of a priority than other things and the fact that the central government often cuts police budgets are the most important reasons. The fact that the U.K. is also taking in multitudes of immigrants particularly from places like Syria certainly doesn’t help.
 
Despite what the local or federal government tries to do in the U.K., chaos seems to be a prominent sight. While it’s not quite apocalypse-level of chaos and unruliness, the fact that stabbings and other violent crimes happen so often in London shows how weak the government is to try and maintain order.
 
Ronald Reagan once said that the government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. The U.K. government is adamant about doing the exact opposite, focusing on crimes of feelings rather than crimes of violence.
 
And when they do focus on crimes of violence, they take all the wrong steps to ensure they are not lessened, only helping bad guys continue to do those things. You know what would really bring down the knife crime rates? ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES! Allow people to own handguns! Allow people to say protecting themselves is the reason they want to do it!
 
Because seriously, that reason should be enough to get a gun. The government is essentially slapping their people in the face by saying protecting yourself is not a “good reason”. “You want to make sure the rampant knife crimes going on are kept to a minimum for yourself and your family? You want to be able to protect yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm? Well, screw you!” is essentially what the U.K. government tells their people.
 
Gun control never works. Look at any place in the world where there is strict gun control and you will see that. New Zealand recently had a shooting even though they have some of the strictest gun control in the world. They are now moving to have even more gun control than before, outright banning rifles and forcing people to turn theirs in. Do you want to know who’s not going to obey those laws? PEOPLE LIKE THE DAMN SHOOTER!
 
No area is ever made safer by the confiscation and restriction of guns for those who obey the law.
 
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

There is a very good reason I have ceased calling people who work in the media, at least mainstream media, “journalists”. A journalist is someone who digs into issues, asks tough but fair questions, and looks for the objective truth. They can be wrong, but they were looking for truth. People who work in the mainstream media, in this day and age, don’t look for the truth. They look to fabricate it.
                                                                    
So, when anyone from an MSM source writes an opinion piece about Trump that is neither overly critical of him nor overly supportive of him (I admit to doing the latter pretty much all of the time), it is seen as a breath of fresh air.
 
Grady Means wrote such an article on the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, while it’s not CNN, the NYT and other major MSM sources, given this is coming from the city where the phrase “full of crap” is taken literally, it makes sense to make certain presumptions about this California-based news source.
 
His article, titled “In defense of Trump’s foreign policy” notes the interesting way the POTUS goes about dealing with other nations in comparison to his predecessors (particularly Obama) and what results such dealings bring about to the security of not just the United States, but perhaps even the rest of the world.
 
In his second paragraph, he makes it known that he is not an apologist for Trump; that he did not vote for Trump nor Hillary. He notes: “I didn’t and still don’t think he has a firm grasp of history and global issues, and so I have no dog in this fight…”
 
So it is clear that Grady is not exactly a Trump supporter, but he is not a Leftist whacko either and can recognize good work when he sees it, even if it derives from questionably confusing tactics.
 
Grady writes: “As opposed to his immediate predecessors, he has not gotten us into a huge catastrophe in Iraq (in fact, he has not gotten us into any big shooting war). He has not gone on an embarrassing global apology tour to autocratic Muslim countries who treat women like dirt. He has not telegraphed our moves in Afghanistan and Iraq, emboldening our enemy and leading to loss of American lives. And, for the moment, he has stopped nuclear and missile expansion in North Korea as opposed to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, who all claimed to have stopped North Korea’s nuclear program. Not to ‘conflate’, but he is way ahead of his more articulate predecessors on many counts – the ones that actually count.”
 
Clearly, we can see Grady had some issues with the way Obama particularly dealt with foreign policy. That paragraph leads me to believe he is not a Leftist, seeing as pretty much all Leftists saw Obama’s apology tour not as embarrassing or degrading but as justice for decades of “stealing” and “cheating” from other countries.
 
Then, Grady makes the point that he is not entirely certain what Trump is thinking most of the time. “So what is Trump’s foreign policy? It appears to have something to do with positioning and making deals, although we would need to use IBM’s Watson computer running a million variations of game theory to fully understand his logic and approach. But that does not make it wrong. It just makes it confusing.”
 
He then details the way Trump treats Putin and Xi Jinping, the leaders of America’s two most notable enemies. He, in person, flatters them to no end and strokes their egos, calling them “good guys” and saying he trusts them in front of cameras.
 
Part of the reason the Left believes Trump is a traitor or a Russian spy is due to how he treats Putin and Xi Jinping in person. But they always leave out what Trump does in his policy, which is actually against the interests of Russia and China.
 
Grady notes that Trump’s actions seemingly contradict his personal words of flattery for the rival nations. One moment, Trump is stroking their egos, and the next, “he dramatically expands the defense budget (aimed at China and Russia), takes the advice of the command leadership to streamline military response and effectiveness, moves a good portion of the Pacific fleet to the coast of China and North Korea, and directly challenges China over the islands in the South China Sea. He TWICE draws a red line on chemical weapons in Syria and enforces it (as opposed to his feckless predecessor) with cruise missile attacks, and then attacks and kills Syrian and Russian forces committing genocide. He provides lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russians, creates a better balance between the Shiite and Sunni forces in the Middle East, re-strengthens our alliance with Israel, starts a mini trade skirmish with China to force a needed discussion on intellectual property theft that his predecessors were afraid to have, refocuses foreign policy on Asia and firms up the alliance with Japan.”
 
Grady goes on and on, listing off Trump’s foreign policy achievements such as expanding our energy resources by dealing with Saudi Arabia, “kicking NATO and EU leadership (which led his predecessors around by the nose) in the rear for their historically cynical and mercantilist policies, expands NATO funding and strengthens it significantly,” strengthening our cyberwarfare systems and strengthening the U.S. economy, which is a crucial factor in any dealings, with the strengthening of the value of the dollar.
 
Then, Grady openly admits: “I have no idea what the guy is thinking.”
 
That’s fine, but I would like to try my hand at explaining the Don’s logic. I think Trump, above other things, wants to remain unpredictable. Creating confusion is a part of remaining unpredictable. What I believe he intends to do is to make a deal every single time he meets with someone. He’s not going to meet with world leaders just to get a photo-op. His mission is to make a deal with them. Granted, that’s what world leaders tend to do anyway, but given that he wrote the book on making deals, he sees it as his number one priority above all else for the duration of the meeting.
 
And in these meetings, as I have said in his defense of the Helsinki meeting, he does not want to antagonize the opposing party. He would do the same with the Democrats if they were not so stuck up as to deny to give him anything he wants and then whine when he does things they don’t like. When he meets actual world leaders, he looks to make a deal because he feels that he really can. Frankly, we’ve seen everyone from Emmanuel Macron to Vladimir Putin to even Kim Jong-un be friendlier with Trump than the Democrats have.
 
The way Trump thinks is this: “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy”. In personal meetings, he does his best to be friendly unless he is attacked for no reason. He meets with our supposed “allies” in NATO and the EU and treats them the same way they have been treating us for ages: poorly. Then, he goes to our enemies and treats them nicely. He is sending our “allies” a message that he can find other allies apart from them. That he can befriend others and treat them well. That they have not been fair with the U.S. and he’s not taking crap from them.
 
He could easily be Europe’s greatest ally if they were making fair deals with us.
 
And at the end of the day, Trump, knowing that Russia and China are still our greatest rivals, enacts policy and actions that go against their best interests. That still stand up for American interests and for world interests.
 
It may be confusing, considering we likely have not seen any other President before him deal with foreign powers, enemies and allies alike, in the way that he does (I say likely because I can only realistically compare Trump to Obama and don’t know how the previous Presidents after our period of isolationism dealt with foreign powers).
 
However confusing it may be, it’s working like a charm. Iran, despite their threats and being “unimpressed” with Trump’s all-caps tweet against them, is crumbling with their currency imploding on them and their people visibly ticked off at the leadership. North Korea has recently been dismantling key launching facilities because of the June 12 summit. ISIS has been almost entirely wiped out, with no large terrorist attacks having occurred in America since Halloween of last year (there have been some smaller ones, but nothing ISIS can claim responsibility for).
 
So with all of these major threats to our nation either being destroyed (ISIS), denuclearized or defunded and on the brink of collapse, even Grady has to admit: “… I feel a lot safer today than I did under his past predecessors.”
 
In the span of less than two years, Donald Trump has destroyed the “JV” team, reached a deal to get North Korea to denuclearize and stopped funding the terror-sponsor that is Iran’s nuclear capabilities (though I fear Obama has done too much damage here).
 
Our biggest foreign threats, at this point, are horrendous tariffs from other nations imposed on American products, but that is being taken care of with a trade war that we are in prime position of winning, given our strong and improving economy.
 
Grady’s article overall is a breath of fresh air regarding coverage of Trump. Usually, people are either overly critical of him (on both sides, for some reason) or overly supportive of him (I do this largely because he does a lot of great things for this country that heavily outweigh any “character flaws” he may have and sins of the past such as Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal).
 
It is hard to find honest coverage of a sitting President, especially in today’s world of rhetoric and narrative over objective truth.
 
Proverbs 2:9
“Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;”

I’ve known for a long time now that Europe is, in many ways, a “s**thole”. Part of the reason is due to the huge increases in the amount of “Syrian refugees” that are literally invading Europe. But another part is the fact that you don’t really enjoy the same sort of freedom and liberty that you enjoy in the States.
 
This has been true since the very founding of our nation, but it’s especially important to mention in this case. What am I talking about? Well, if you’ve been following some news sources, you’ll know that a man in the U.K. faces prison time due to a video he posted that was deemed “Grossly Offensive”. And yes, that’s the actual charge, which is why I’ve capitalized it.
 
According to the Daily Wire: “A Glasgow Sheriff Court on Tuesday found Scottish YouTube personality Count Dankula – real name Mark Meechan – guilty of being “grossly offensive,” which was explicitly banned in Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act.”
 
“Meechan was arrested in April 2016 for allegedly committing a hate crime by sharing a short video on YouTube. The video showed him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi ‘Sieg Heil salute,’ and showed the pug named Buddha responding excitedly to the phrase ‘gas the Jews.’”
 
According to Meechan, he said he had taught the dog to do the Nazi salute as “a joke intended to upset his girlfriend,” and the video was just meant to be seen by a few of his friends, but the video was ultimately shared on Reddit and its popularity exploded.
 
Now, this is a very stupid and offensive joke for sure, but it’s not something to imprison someone over. This isn’t an act that harmed someone else, physically or otherwise; not something that would harm him physically or otherwise (except get his girlfriend mad at him, which was the intention of the joke anyway); and this doesn’t harm the system of government or violate anyone else’s rights.
 
All this is is a dumb and offensive joke that harms literally no one. I can see why this would offend people, particularly Jewish people. But that’s the worst thing that the video does. He doesn’t show himself actually gassing a Jewish person or causing someone else harm. Frankly, the T.V. show “South Park” regularly does more to offend the Jewish community (although they offend just about everyone, including the Left) than this guy did.
 
And this is not the only time someone was arrested and sent to jail for being “offensive” in the U.K. Back in 2016, a man was imprisoned after leaving bacon sandwiches outside a mosque and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, where he was eventually stabbed to death, according to the Daily Wire.
 
That guy was just playing a joke at Muslims’ expense and paid dearly for it. He was sent to jail and murdered there, when he shouldn’t have been. An offensive joke as well, but not something to arrest someone for, and in this particular case, it cost someone their life.
 
And considering the huge rises in rape, stabbings and general actual crimes that have been happening in the U.K., you’d think they’d give a bit more of a darn about that than the “mean things” people say on the internet or the offensive jokes they play at a group of people’s expense.
 
Returning to Meechan’s case, his girlfriend gives us more context on the very dog in the video: “He will lift his paw to virtually anything if he gets a treat for it. We have taught him to lift his paw to food, like ham or cheese.” So the dog will lift his paw, or “give the Nazi salute”, if you will, to anything as long as it gets him a treat. Meechan’s girlfriend also gives us more context on Meechan himself, saying he never had “expressed anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic” views and has “always been very supportive towards minority groups.”
 
So someone who doesn’t actually have Nazi beliefs was arrested for joking about it. That’d be another way to put this whole thing.
 
Meechan himself even said: “I don’t actually hate Jewish people and the video was just an insight into the darker side of my humour, a prank to annoy my girlfriend and that I did not intend for people, other than people who knew my comedy, to see the video.”
 
This has gotten so much attention that even comedian Ricky Gervais came to Meechan’s defense: “A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed ‘grossly offensive’. If you don’t believe in a person’s right to say things that you might find ‘grossly offensive’, then you don’t believe in Freedom of Speech.”
 
And he makes a good point. I’m not a comedian, but I find that comedy tends to be unfunny and bland when it’s entrenched in political correctness. Political correctness utterly destroys people’s ability to be funny. Some of the funniest comedy is when someone, either an individual or a group of people, are being made fun of. And even the Left should know, given how often times they make jokes that are strictly aimed at conservatives’ expense.
 
Now, as a conservative, I couldn’t care less about those jokes. I don’t get easily offended. Insult me, that’s fine. Insult Trump, that’s fine. I’ll challenge your very reasoning, but I won’t get offended. Insult my conservative beliefs and I’ll merely roll my eyes at your ignorance.
 
The only thing that I would legitimately get offended by is any insult to my Christianity, much as when Joy Behar attacked Mike Pence’s Christian belief, effectively offending the roughly 2 billion Christians on Earth. Granted, I mostly rolled my eyes to her comments as well, but I did still find them offensive. I also sort of found it offensive that it took her about a month to apologize for it.
 
But overall, I don’t really find many things that offend me. And in the case of Meechan, no one should honestly find it too offensive either. It was just a stupid joke meant to annoy his girlfriend.
 
And with the U.K.’s response to the video, they’ve acted far more like Nazis themselves than Meechan has. That’s what true Fascism looks like, liberals. Arresting and convicting someone for doing something stupid but harmless. Imprisoning someone just for making a joke. In effect, convicting someone who simply MIGHT have a different opinion (although in this case, Meechan isn’t actually a Nazi). They may not necessarily be quite at that level, but this is a step too close to that.
 
I thought Winston Churchill helped defeat the Nazis. Looks like some of them infiltrated the U.K. government (and, frankly, the U.S. as well).
 
Isaiah 10:1
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”

On June 6th, 2017, a man in Paris attacked an on-duty police officer with a hammer outside of the Notre Dame Cathedral. French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb (from the Socialist Party) told reporters that said officer’s condition is not very serious. I’m glad that this attack didn’t develop into something larger, but here’s the intriguing part of the story: the attacker yelled “This is for Syria” before bashing the police officer over the head with a hammer.
 
Now, while this is rather different from the usual “Allahu Akhbar” (translation: Allah is the greatest), we must still consider this an act of terror. Why? Because the attacker was also carrying two kitchen knives and “other unsophisticated weapons”, according to Collomb. It’s clear that this man was planning to do more than what he achieved. Unlike other attacks that result in the terrorists either killing themselves or getting killed by police forces, this attacker, while still having been shot, was not killed but rather was hospitalized.
 
But now onto the larger topic at hand: is this the beginning of the end for Europe? Over the past two weeks, there have been two terror attacks in England and one in France. And there have been 20 terrorist attacks in Europe (not counting this one) in 2017 alone, according to TheReligionOfPeace.com, a website that exposes the threat Islam is to the civilized world. Out of those 20 attacks, 15 of them have been in Western Europe. 6 of them in France. These range from large terror attacks such as the one in Manchester that killed 22 people and injured over 100 others, to one Jewish woman killed by a Muslim who threw her off a balcony simply for being Jewish. The Muslim killer praised Allah while doing it.
 
And in 2016, there were 50 terrorist attacks IN EUROPE ALONE. By comparison, there have only been 4 attacks on American soil in 2017 so far! So don’t go about telling me and others that Trump is making Muslims angry and will kill many Americans. It’s been mostly in Europe, where socialism runs rampant, that these attacks have been happening. In countries that welcome terrorists with open arms while telling people that said terrorists are nice, soft and cuddly teddy bears.
 
The large influx of ‘refugees’ into Europe will ultimately mark the end of civilized society in the continent. Don’t misunderstand, the continent will still be there. No one’s gonna blow it off the face of the earth. But Europe is well on its way to becoming Islamized. Civilized society in Europe will be destroyed and replaced with the barbaric (and let’s face it, satanic) Sharia Law.
 
Unless the people of these countries wake up to the threat of the end of their civilization, they will ultimately succumb to Islam. The people of France have already voted for a man that won’t keep them safe for the next 5 to 10 years (France has five-year presidential terms and a president can be reelected only once). Emmanuel Macron believes in an “open-door” policy when it comes to inviting Death himself into France. So does Angela Merkel in Germany. Only Theresa May is relatively against taking in many refugees into the U.K.
 
France and Germany, along with other nations that elect socialist leaders, will ultimately fall to Islam. Whether it be through warfare and bloodshed or through implementing laws that satisfy Muslims and Muslims only, eventually leading to Sharia Law (perhaps under a different name). Thankfully, Donald Trump knows of the dangers of allowing these ‘refugees’ into the country. He knows that European countries are largely risking their citizens’ lives by bringing in these savages. And he knows that the U.S. shouldn’t let these people in.
 
These refugees are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The media will portray them as vulnerable and harmless, but the minute they get the chance, they will begin slaughtering “infidels” in the name of their horrendous god: Allah, and their evil, pedophiliac ‘prophet’: Mohammed. They are the very embodiment of evil. And, as I’ve said multiple times before, evil always loses in the end.
 
That’s not just an absolute truth in movies, cartoons and t.v. shows (depending on which shows you’re talking about). But it’s an absolute truth in the Bible. An absolute truth in the story of mankind. Evil will always lose to the righteousness of God!
 
1 John 3:8
“The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”