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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

There is a new research poll from the Pew Research Center that asked citizens from 27 different countries if they would want more, less, or about as many immigrants coming in as they do now. There was not a single country in which the majority of the people wanted more immigrants.
 
Now, I know that there are considerably more countries in the world than just 27, so I can’t exactly say that not one country in the world wants more immigration, but of the ones surveyed (including Germany), not one of them wanted more.
 
According to Pew Research Center: “Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants.”
 
In other words, across all the countries surveyed, 45% said they wanted less or no immigration, 36% were okay with current levels, and only 14% said they wanted more immigration.
 
I won’t list all 27 countries because that’s not necessary, but some of the important ones to look into are countries like Greece, where 82% said they wanted less or no immigration, 15% about the same number, and only 2% wanted more. That is quite telling of the situation in Greece.
 
Hungary is similar in that 72% say they want less or no immigration, 22% say they want the same number, and only 2% say they want more. Of European nations, Spain was more evenly split, with 30% wanting less or no immigration, 39% wanting the same number as current levels, and 28% saying they want more.
 
Of Asian nations, Indonesia most strongly did not want more immigration, with 54% saying they want less or no immigration, 31% saying they want the same number and only 8% saying they want more.
 
In Japan, it’s a little more interesting. Only 13% say they want less or no immigration compared to 23% who say they want more immigration. That’s the only country where there are more people who want more immigration than there are people who want less or no immigration. However, a vast majority, 58%, say they want current levels, so that still means the majority does not want more immigration. And I can understand why there are more people who want more immigrants than there are those who want less because their birth rates have been on a dive for decades now and need a solution. Immigration could provide such a solution.
 
Israel stood at 73% wanting less or no immigration, 15% wanting current levels and 9% wanting more immigration. This makes sense considering the constant danger they are under thanks to Hamas (and shame on the U.N. for not even condemning their terrorist attacks. I mean, seriously, not even condemn them? If they don’t want to do anything about it, that’s bad, but they won’t even acknowledge the terror Hamas causes? That’s even worse).
 
At any rate, Russia also overwhelmingly wants less immigration, with 67% saying so, while 23% say they want current levels and only 7% want more.
 
As far as the U.S. goes, it’s a little bit closer. 29% say they want less or no immigration, with 44% saying they want the same numbers, and 24% saying they want more. Still a majority of wanting less or the same, but closer than I’d like.
 
Now, according to Breitbart, “When Americans get to choose how many immigrants they want added a year to the U.S. population, about 6-in-10 favor a national immigration policy that admits anywhere between 500,000 to zero immigrants a year.” This is important to note because the U.S. takes in about 1.5 million legal immigrants a year, so 60% say they would want to drop those numbers by more than a million. Of course, that poll was from early 2018, so I do not know if there has been much of a change (and I would expect at least some), but still.
 
Now, here’s the thing. The Pew Research Center did not specify whether or not they are talking about legal or illegal immigrants, which makes a world of difference. I think Pew is largely talking about immigration in general, legal or illegal, so it’s hard to discern how many citizens in each country surveyed supported less legal or illegal immigration, but I suppose that doesn’t matter all too much.
 
Most people either want less or current levels of immigration. This still indicates that people largely reject mass immigration plans like the U.N.’s “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” which would really be anything but. It would not be safe and would definitely not be orderly. And unfortunately, it definitely would be regular.
 
But returning to the poll numbers and not discerning between legal or illegal immigration, I would personally be okay with current levels of LEGAL immigration. In my opinion, if you pay your dues, wait your time, and go through the process the right way, there really should not be any reason to deny you access into the country. Such a process tends to include vetting to make sure the country does not allow someone with a criminal past or gang affiliation to enter the country. As long as there are no problems there, I see no reason to deny anyone entry into the country through legal means.
 
Of course, I could be biased considering I was once a legal immigrant (and now naturalized American) myself, but I feel that this is a sound and logical argument.
 
However, the kind of immigration reduction I want here is illegal immigration. I want a wall at the southern border and I still believe Trump can do just that.
 
So if I were asked the same question by Pew Research Center, I suppose I would answer that I’m okay with current levels, unless it is specified that it includes illegal immigrants. If it does include illegals, then I would definitely want less immigration (not zero immigration altogether, but significantly less. Zero illegal immigrants).
 
So that is the biggest problem I have with the Pew Research Center on this. They do not specify. They ask if people want more, less, none or same numbers of immigration. They don’t specify regarding legal or illegal immigration.
 
And that’s something that really bothers me. Honestly, every time a Leftist cries over the “poor immigrants” at the border, I get ticked off. There is a very clear difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant and whenever the Left IGNORES that difference, it annoys me to no end.
 
I am a LEGAL immigrant (well, a U.S. citizen now, but you get my point). Me and my family went through the process the exact right way, paying our dues, waiting our time, doing everything by the book. So I dare any Leftist lunatic to rope me in with an illegal. We are not the same.
 
My family loves this country. Illegals want to take advantage of her, coming in, taking government paychecks, and illegally voting for people who will implement the same disastrous policies that plundered their countries of origin. I wonder where they would go if America fell to socialism and it were virtually no different from other Socialist Latin American countries.
 
I just hope we never get to that situation. But returning to the poll, it does tell me something in particular: most people reject the globalists’ dream of mass migration.
 
Globalists foolishly believe everyone agrees with them, or at least a vast majority do, with a few odd-jobs disagreeing for no good reason apart from their supposed racism and bigotry. Reality is far different. On the issue of immigration, they are soundly rejected. And in France, they are also being rejected on climate change policy, to some extent.
 
Of course, there’s not a single globalist that could care even a little. Like I said in the article discussing France’s own rejection of immigration, globalists are not held accountable for the chaos they sow. They answer to no one but themselves. 99.999% of the world could hate them and they couldn’t care less, with the 0.001% being themselves.
 
They are not elected representatives. They are global communists. Still, I am definitely glad to see many of these countries rejecting an influx of immigration as much as they do.
 
Again, it also comes down to legal or illegal immigration, but the rejection of mass migration comes along with these results all-the-same.
 
Now, the Pew poll also talks about emigration, where people leave those countries, and people also think that’s a problem, but it largely has to do with the fact that emigration happens largely in regards to jobs aka outsourcing and things like that. Not really a part of the conversation for this article, but I felt it was important to note if you were looking into the actual poll.
 
But that is entirely a tangent that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of this article. Like I said, I am glad to see such numbers, and I completely understand why the Japanese would be more willing to increase immigration than to reduce it.
 
Philippians 3:20
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

There might be some of you who wish to see me talking about the case made against Brett Kavanaugh surrounding the accusations made against him, as well as the testimony that has been given by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford this past week. However, I will refrain from making any sort of comment regarding this until after Judge Brett Kavanaugh has either been confirmed to the Supreme Court (which is what I believe will happen) or he gets denied. As it stands, I believe you know my position: I do not believe any of the (now 4) claims made against Kavanaugh as not a single one of them offers any sort of evidence or witness that can or has corroborated the claims.
 
So until Kavanaugh is either confirmed or denied, I won’t talk about this. But rest assured I will cover as much as absolutely possible next week, barring any more b.s. delays.
 
With that topic taken care of, let’s get down to the crux of this article. And don’t worry, I won’t completely leave the Kavanaugh case out of this article.
 
The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman, a Swedish advertisement watchdog, went after an internet service provider named Bahnhof which had used the “Distracted Boyfriend Meme” (picture above) which was used to advertise to people searching for a new job.
 
Allow me to give you some background information as a Millennial who uses the internet more than he goes outside. The “Distracted Boyfriend Meme”, as depicted above, features a guy holding his girlfriend’s hand, but his gaze is directed towards a woman who is seemingly more attractive than his girlfriend. All-the-while, the girlfriend looks at her boyfriend in both disbelief and disgust at the fact that he is looking at another woman with that particular face, which seems to signify some sort of approval, or as if to say “ohhh, look at dat …” Ahem. Anyway.
 
This meme went viral last year and was still somewhat used this year. Bahnhof, the internet service company, used this meme to signify the target audience (the distracted boyfriend) might be looking for a better job than the one they currently have (the two girls).
 
However, The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman claimed that the meme itself was “gender discriminatory” aka sexist. The Ombudsman said: “It portrays women as interchangeable objects, and that only their appearance is interesting. According to the committee, the objectification is reinforced by the fact that women are designated as workplace representatives while the man, as the recipient of the advertisement, is being produced as an individual.”
 
Now, Bahnhof argued that they only used the meme to “show that Bahnhof is an attractive employer and that those who have a slightly less good employer could be interested in us.”
 
The statement continues: “Everyone who follows the internet and meme culture knows how the meme is used and interpreted. [Whether someone is a] man, woman or neutral gender is often irrelevant in this context. We are an internet company and are conversant in this, as are those who would look for a job with us, so we turned to that target group. If we should be punished for anything, it’s for using an old and tired meme.”
 
According to the Daily Wire, Bahnhof also “reportedly shared several variations of the meme with characters of varying gender and species to show that gender was not the driving factor behind the use of the meme.”
 
All of this comes some time after the European Union voted in favor of implementing a new copyright directive that would basically ban internet memes in European countries because those memes could be subject to copyrights claims if not credited to the proper creator. However, given that internet memes often come up out of nowhere and often times come from t.v. shows such as SpongeBob SquarePants, it can be difficult to give proper credit to the creator, thus making this directive pretty much a ban on memes.
 
While hardly anything too important, it does show the kind of dangers of globalism. While the directive isn’t law yet and it needs to be applied to all countries within the Union, the fact that a globalist organization like the E.U. voted in favor of banning what is effectively a form of free speech speaks volumes about the sort of power that they have and the sort of damage they could do. Sure, banning internet memes may not be too big a deal to most people, but it shows that the EU could go farther in restricting free speech in Europe.
 
But that is a conversation for another time. The main focus of this article is the fact that an “advertisement watchdog” has deemed the Distracted Boyfriend Meme to be sexist when it’s nothing more than a tool for dry humor that’s not meant to cause any sort of emotional or psychological harm to anyone.
 
But since this is 2018 and everyone gets triggered by everything, we have a company deeming a harmless internet meme “sexist”. Now, this being a watchdog and not a government organization, they can’t really do anything about the meme or to Bahnhof. According to The Local, an English-language news organization in Sweden, “Sweden’s Advertising Ombudsman has guidelines stating that advertisements should not depict women or men as ‘mere sex objects’ or in other ways which are ‘degrading and clearly sexist’. However, the body only has the ability to make judgments on adverts, not impose sanctions.”
 
So, as it stands, Bahnhof likely won’t be punished for this meme. However, I would not be surprised if someone within the Swedish government were to try to do something to Bahnhof for this. The fact that we live in this day and age where just about anything can be considered sexist leads me to feel that way.
 
Now, I did mention earlier that the Kavanaugh case would not be entirely out of this article. Well, in the days running up to Ford’s testimony, the GOP had sought that a female attorney who is familiar with sex crimes interview Dr. Ford. Before they had done this, there was speculation from the Left that if the Republicans questioned Ford herself, it would be a “sham hearing” and a set-up. So the GOP got the aforementioned female attorney. The Left’s response? It’s “sexist”.
 
Yep. You can read these people like a book. I knew that regardless of what the GOP did, whether they interviewed Ford themselves or got someone else to do it, they would be disparaged and attacked by the Left and the media.
 
Tell me, how is it sexist to ask a female lawyer who is familiar with this sort of case to question the woman making accusations? I imagine if the GOP had hired a male lawyer with similar qualifications, the Left would have called that sexist as well because they would have “gotten a man to do this and we all know that men are pigs and rapists” or some other nonsense.
 
So it’s sexist if the GOP questions Ford themselves, sexist if they hired a male lawyer to question Ford and sexist if they hired a female lawyer to question Ford? What exactly were they hoping for? A gender-neutral human-dragon hybrid from the planet Krypton? Would that have sufficed the Left’s insanity?
 
But this is the world we currently live in. Everything anyone does, if they just so happen to disagree with the Left or even happen to use an internet meme that could somehow be considered “politically incorrect”, it is attacked and disparaged as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or any combination of all of them.
 
Similar to the EU’s meme ban, this is the Left’s attempt at restricting freedom of speech and alternative views. Anything that is deemed politically incorrect cannot be allowed on the internet. It must be taken down and the culprit shamed and be made an example of what happens to anyone who dares violate the rules set forth by the Left’s regime of oppression clumsily disguised as liberation.
 
I recently had a conversation with someone. We talked about a number of things, but primarily about the behavior the Left has been showing not just throughout the Kavanaugh case but throughout these last couple of years. We arrived at the conclusion that the next time the Left takes back power – be it the House, the Senate, the White House or any combination of the three – they would be out for blood. Not just for Trump’s blood (figuratively speaking, but I would not put it past them to try to Mussolini him throughout the D.C. streets) but for anyone who dared defy the Left at any point. We arrived at the conclusion that, if they return to power, they would make conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters everywhere pay for what we have done.
 
It wouldn’t be quick. We wouldn’t have concentration camps immediately, but I wouldn’t put it past them to do that sort of thing. In the Obama years, we saw a Democrat President dismiss the Constitution as irrelevant in much of what he did, a Democrat Party that backed everything he was doing, a Republican Party too scared to fight back and a Democrat base in love with anything and everything the President did.
 
So I wouldn’t put it past them to try and effectively destroy or render the Constitution as irrelevant or ineffective. DACA, Obamacare and many other things are already unconstitutional and not many have tried to push back against it, let alone be successful at it. With how rabid and thermonuclear the Left is, should they ever return to power, they will make all of us pay.
 
They already try to make the case that everything we do and stand for is racist, sexist, balloonist, unicornist etc. and they are the Party that’s OUT of power. Could you imagine a reinvigorated and powerful Democrat Party in Washington? It would effectively be the end of the United States as founded.
 
Earlier, I made the case that Europe’s meme ban was an infringement on people’s free speech. While largely inconsequential to most people, it does represent the sort of power the EU has. The problem Europe faces is that these people are not elected representatives. They are bureaucrats with too much power that influence too many people in Western civilization.
 
The advantage we have as a nation is that we elect our representatives. If we believe they are not doing a good job, we can usually kick them out. The problem comes when people don’t think that someone who is doing wrong is doing anything wrong. If the Democrats take back the House or the Senate, that is because we allowed it to happen. As such, we deserve precisely what would come after. As they say, “you get the government you deserve”.
 
Trump’s election didn’t drive the Left crazy – it exposed their insanity. Having unmasked themselves as the monsters they are, it has become obvious that these people cannot be allowed anywhere near Washington D.C. or any other place of power. Unfortunately, many will see differently. Too many people are either ignoring what is happening or are HAPPY with what is happening.
 
With Judge Kavanaugh, the Left is happy because this guy is being destroyed not because he did something wrong but because he dared be Trump’s pick for SCOTUS and dares be a threat to the Left. Schumer and others have said as much that there is no presumption of innocence with Kavanaugh. As such, they display they could not care less about the rule of law. Because without presumption of innocence, there is no rule of law. Kavanaugh is guilty just because the Left says so.
 
That is the sort of carte blanche power the Left believes they have and could possibly have if we are not careful. They think they're ENTITLED to this sort of power.
 
Regardless, that is all to be discussed next week. Right now, I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the Left and of the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman at calling anything they don’t like “sexist” or what have you.
 
It goes back to that Socratic idea of logic vs. ignorance. Unfortunately, it seems the ignorant are plentiful and powerful.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that does not cost you a single penny. The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store. So make sure to check it out!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On the 26th and 27th of May, 2017, Europe held the 43rd G7 summit, in which Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K, the U.S. and the European Union discussed multiple things, such as the Paris Climate agreement, the fight on terrorism, and other such issues.
 
This being the first G7 summit without Obama, the atmosphere was slightly different. And by the end of it, Angela Merkel, as well as other Globalist leaders in the summit were left dissatisfied with it. Here’s the largest reason why: the U.S. didn’t join the consensus on the Paris Climate agreement during the summit. And while that leaves them frustrated, it puts a smile on my face.
 
The Paris Climate agreement was signed in 2015 in order to deal with the hoax that is climate change and it would begin being financed in the year 2020. With our new president, who knows very well that climate change is nothing but a hoax, he’ll likely withdraw from the agreement that his predecessor Barack Obama put us in (UPDATE: He has actually pulled out of the agreement by this point).
 
Knowing this, Angela Merkel suggested that the U.S. was no longer a reliable trading partner for Germany, stating: “the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over… We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.” To which Trump replied on Twitter with: “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.”
 
I, for one, don’t really care for countries that are more than okay with destroying themselves and their own culture. What with Germany saying that they took more than 1 million refugees in 2015 that will eventually change Germany into a Muslim country, I don’t particularly care if the U.S. and Germany have trade issues in the future. And while Merkel also said that Germany should try to maintain a friendly relationship with the U.S. as well as the U.K. and Russia, I don’t think we can trust Germany to be much of an ally for us.
 
But knowing that Merkel said the things she said, and knowing the way the European Union feels about the president, it reassures me that we chose the right guy for the job of POTUS. We know that these people are all Globalists, a word that should now be synonymous with communism or socialism. And if these Globalists aren’t really happy with Trump as president of the U.S. (neither is the Pope, but that’s an article for another day), then we know that Trump was the right person for this job. Not that we didn’t know this before.
 
And here’s the thing: we now are able to clearly identify the enemy of freedom and liberty in this world. Those who are pro-EU, pro-U.N., such as Merkel and Macron, are easily identified as Globalists since we know that the EU is nothing more than a world-domination-seeking group of people. And if any of these people despise, hate, or merely dislike Trump in any way, we know who’s on our side (the president) and who our enemy is.
 
I had seen a Facebook post come up on occasion on how the more Trump is attacked by the Left and the MSM, the more we love him. Well, we can add foreign leaders who are Globalists to that list. They all see Trump as a threat to their cause. And it’s because they hate him so much that we love him even more. We know that he’s on our side and he’ll do things that will not only benefit the U.S., but also will slow down the Globalist agenda of world domination through diplomacy. Things such as possibly pulling out of the U.N., and NATO severely weakens those organizations’ cause, because a World Superpower is no longer backing them.
 
No doubt they will hate the president if and when he does those things. They hate us and they also hate the fact that they NEED us -  the most powerful nation on Earth. And they hate the fact that they have to try to work with a man they consider to be unfit for his position. And the fact that they hate him so fervently for all those reasons makes me like him even more.
 
Deuteronomy 31:6
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
 
Author: Freddie M. 

​The media and much of the country has solely been focused on the whole ‘Russian hack’ or ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ stories. Let’s be honest, until Trump leaves the White House, the media will never stop talking about it because they will never be able to prove either of those things happened. And, unless there’s a clear need to talk about it, either due to a new development in the story (created by the media, of course), or another reason, I’d rather focus on a larger and more real issue today: Globalism.
 
Over the whole of the 20th century, the largest threat to liberty and freedom throughout the world was communism. Don’t get me wrong, it still is. We just have to be able to realize what people are calling it now: Globalism/progressivism. During the Democrat Party Primaries, Bernie Sanders called himself a socialist. He was the first openly socialist candidate to run for president. But here’s the thing: everyone that runs for president in the Democrat Party (and Republican Party, if they’re from the establishment) is a socialist. Hillary said that she wasn’t socialist, but rather ‘progressive’. In reality, they are both the same.
 
Both aspire to increase the size of the government and replace God with government. Socialists, communists, progressives, liberals, globalists - call them what you will, they all want the same thing: to have unrivaled power and have people under their control. That’s why the Democrat Party fought the North during the Civil War to keep black people as slaves. That’s why the Democrat Party today insists in creating more and more government programs that cripple those with low-income salaries and force those people to be entirely dependent on government ‘assistance’.
 
The Democrat Party, as ‘progressive’ as they claim to be, hope to repeat the cycle of world history. What I mean by that is, having a country become an empire run by its massive government in which the king, or pharaoh, or emperor, or Caesar is the supreme leader of everyone. That’s why this country is so special. This country was founded a Christian country. Christianity has not only survived, but thrived in this country. And this country has not only survived, but thrived thanks to Christianity. That’s why, even after over 200 years, this country is still capable of electing Reagans and Trumps into the White House.
 
We know the history of the world. It’s a history of rebellion (against God, mostly), invasion, and destruction. A history of mad kings and evil empires. This country offers its people something no other country in the world has offered before: true freedom. The freedom to be as successful as you can be, provided you put in the effort to accomplish it. Freedom guaranteed by the country’s most basic laws: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
 
But the Left wants that gone. They surely don’t care about life, demonstrated by their desire to encourage women to have as much ‘fun’ as possible without having to worry about a pesky kid. They don’t want anyone other than themselves to have liberty, demonstrated by the fact they fought, died and killed to keep black people as slaves. And they don’t care about people's pursuit of happiness. If someone is living in a nice house, drives a nice car and is genuinely happy (not that material possession means happiness), they think it’s because they stole from the poor or they got those things illegitimately. The Left wants communism, but they can’t flat out come out and say that. Instead, they will say they want ‘Globalism’ because that way, the world is ‘united’.
 
Don’t let yourself be deceived, Globalism isn’t world unity and world peace. It’s governmental unity. Globalism isn’t about uniting people, it’s about uniting governments, with a governing system above the people. That’s what the U.N. and E.U. are. Ironically enough, the U.N. was created in order to avoid another Hitler rising up and trying to wipe out a whole race of people (*ahem* The UN is cool with Iran *ahem*).
 
Globalism is the ultimate from of big government. It is based on the communist idea conceived by Soviet Leon Trotsky of global communism. That’s why I’ve said in a previous article that Globalism is about world domination. Though not done through war or bloodshed, Globalism is simply a diplomatic way for a council of people to rule the world.
 
You know how conspiracy theorists believe in the Illuminati? Well, this would be a real Illuminati, if the Leftists of the world get what they want.
 
Now, I wish I could tell you something along the lines of “thankfully, God won’t allow such a thing to happen in this world” but I can’t. The Book of Revelation talks about the fact that Satan will rule over the Earth (through a number of beasts) until he’s imprisoned for 1000 years, after which he will be thrown in the lake of fire and sulfur. Every Christian knows that there eventually will come a point in which the Earth is destroyed by God. That there will be a Rapture and a Judgement placed on the whole world. So I can’t tell you that God won’t allow there to be a One World government. The Bible does, after all, speak of an anti-Christ.
 
However, here’s the important part: It’s ok. Since it’s in the Bible, we know that it’s part of God’s master plan. Those who follow Christ won’t even be taking part in it anyway. Us Christians won’t be present for the Judgement of the world. This world is merely temporary. Heaven awaits those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Revelation 20:4
“… I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”
 
Author: Freddie M.

As we all know, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election of 2017. This man was the socialist champion for the American Left, running against someone who is essentially the female version of Trump (as much as that is possible knowing how many socialists there are in France anyway). The Left is super ecstatic over this win, but not because Macron won. More so, because Le Pen lost.
 
Bernie Sanders tweeted “Congratulations to the people of France who today, by an overwhelming vote, rejected racism and xenophobia.” Crazy Bernie sees the election results and the first thing he says isn’t a congratulatory message to the winner, but a message to the people of France for beating what leftists consider “racism and xenophobia”. Macron doesn’t matter to them, all that matters is that the right-wing candidate lost. Because they really needed a win, and they really wanted it to be against Trump, so this will have to do.
 
The Left will probably make this whole thing to be a far bigger deal than it really is. They will likely talk about it for about a week and then stop covering it and basically forget about it. Meanwhile, it’s been half a year since Trump destroyed Hillary and they’re still recovering from that.
 
France, unlike the U.S., is not a super power in the world. It has little to do around the world. This election won’t affect the world so much, unless it pulls out of the E.U., which, thanks to this new president, they definitely won’t. But to the Left, this is almost equal to Hillary beating Trump. They really want to savor this small victory for as long as they possibly can until they return to being completely miserable and reminded that they lost to a candidate they considered to be an absolute joke.
 
But looking directly at France, I have to say, I feel sorry for these people. They, by making this terrible mistake, have voted for the same socialist policies that they despised from the previous president. The previous president of France had a 4% approval rating by the end of 2016, which explains why he didn’t run again. The French clearly disliked what he has done, but were deceived into voting for more of it with Macron. Macron isn’t of the Socialist party, unlike the outgoing president. Macron founded his own party: En Marche! Which translates to Forward! By the name of the party, you can tell that he’s a progressive, which means he’s a socialist.
 
Now, here’s the thing: France isn’t America. France wasn’t founded on the principle of freedom from oppression and persecution for Christian beliefs. Much like the Spaniards and British, the French were conquerors in the American continent. They were trying to accomplish the same thing as the Brits and Spaniards: conquering America. France is no different from other European countries, in that it was founded centuries and centuries ago. America’s founding was special. Being founded under Christian beliefs and building a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and maintain it for this long is special.
 
Therefore, France is not as likely to elect a Trump-like candidate, or even a Reagan-like candidate. There just aren’t any. France has lived under socialism for quite a while now, not just since this president (Macron) or the previous. From absolute monarchy to emperorship to socialism, France has no experience with small government like we do.
 
But the fact of the matter remains: Macron was the worse candidate for France. Unlike Le Pen, he is more than happy to keep France in the Globalist, world-domination-seeking European Union. Macron was the Obama-like candidate in this race and Le Pen was the almost-Trump-like candidate (again, hard to have someone be like Trump in issues when they were brought up in different cultures and countries).
 
The people of France have voted for more terrorism and less security in their country, without them knowing it (that's were the deception part comes into play). I pray that they stay safe as the inevitable waves of terrorism are bound to hit them and I also pray that they open their eyes and see that progressives and socialists are evil people that don’t care about their citizens’ lives.
 
I encourage the people of France that voted for Le Pen to read and reflect on the following Bible verse:
 
Romans 12:12
“Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.”
 
Author: Freddie M.