ALL  EYES WILL BE ON FRANCE IN 2017. France is a highly significant barometer of world affairs, a definite nation to watch. Not only is France the “Eldest Daughter of the Church” and the home of an army of saints, she is also poised to disrupt global liberalism, restore the nation’s Catholic patrimony, reconfigure the European Union, and to form a political-economic-cultural link with Russia to bring about the end of liberalism and an era of world peace. If anyone thought the Trump campaign was a saga, just wait until spring 2017 when the global forces of liberalism will be at the throat of Le Pen.

Yesterday, the center right Republican Party of France held the first round of its primary election to choose its candidate for president. Surprising, Nicolas Sarkozy was bypassed by Alain Juppe (who came in second) and by a former prime minister, Francois Fillon (appointed as prime minister by President Sarkozy, 2007-2012) who came from behind to bypass both Juppe and Sarkozy. Since neither Fillon nor Juppe received a simple majority of the vote, according to French election law, there must be a second round run-off, which will occur this Sunday.

Thus, Fillon will now square off against Juppe, who was the favorite, going into the first round, for his party’s nomination as the Center-Right candidate.  The winner of the run-off will go head to head with Marine Le Pen for the presidency of France on April 23, 2017. Right now eyes are focused on Fillon versus Juppe for the Republican nomination. As conservative Republicans, both Fillon and Juppe want to (1) decrease taxes on corporations (offset somewhat by a VAT tax), (2) cut public spending and civil service jobs and are (3) unfavorable toward labor unions and the socially liberal left.

Fillon, however, (in a bid for Catholic votes) has indicated that although not against gay marriage per se, he will abrogate a French law that permits homosexual couples to adopt children; he has also voiced support for President Bashar al Assad of Syria, wishes to expel radical Jihadists and seeks to establish political ties with Russia and Iran.

Juppe, on the other hand, wants to retain political asylum for radical Islamists (engineering some type of in-house detention), favors homosexual adoption and is opposed to Russia, Syria and Iran and therefor to any rapprochement between France (and by extension, the EU) and Russia of the type envisioned by Fillon.

Although Sarkozy has admitted defeat and thrown his support behind Fillon, most apprehensive liberals and hopeful patriots are looking beyond the Fillon-Juppe contest to envision a possible Fillon versus Le Pen contest in the spring of 2017. Marine Le Pen, who just a few years ago was a political nobody, appears to be securely in the driver’s seat. Fillon represents the right, esp on economic issues and Le Pen the far-right, more-so on cultural issues.  She has made great progress revamping and brightening the public image of the National Front at a moment in history that is favorable to much of her party’s platform. Most political experts are expecting Le Pen to ease by the first round of the presidential elections in April as both the center and far right candidates squeeze out the socialists on the left and and then square off against each other in the decisive second round. At this point, things do not seem favorable for either Fillon or Juppe.

Both are opposed to labor at a time of labor unrest throughout Europe and France; both are advocates of deregulation at a time when popular sentiment is aroused against corporate business and international finance desiring to see it reigned in by policies and laws that protect the common good and not just the interests of a few. To make matters worse, both Fillon and Juppe advocate reducing public sector employment to fund tax breaks for the wealthy at a time when public sentiment is soured by austerity and emotional reservoirs are unleashing a pent up demand for justice and an end to what is perceived as greed and exploitation.

The white working class has had enough of both conservative economic policies and of the liberal social agenda. Will they rise in France as they have in Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the US? While far-right candidates cannot normally expect support from the left; in this case it is the economic woes coming from the right that could trump their disdain for the culture agenda of Le Pen and throw them into her camp along with the white underrepresented worker. Although this is unlikely, it is increasingly possible as the left social agenda has become blatantly appalling to many at the same time that the economy is suffering a severe setback and in need of major structural readjustments.

Fillon, represents a unique challenge to Le Pen. Interestingly, both Fillon and Le Pen are pro-Russian. Fillon also supports immigration quotas and a coalition with Russia to counter terrorism. According to Bloomberg, Fillon, like Le Pen:

“…has consistently backed Russia in Syria since 2012, saying Moscow could be instrumental in resolving the conflict and refraining from calling for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s removal until the Islamic State is defeated. In 2013, Fillon was a guest of the Valdai forum, which Putin and his foreign policy elite use to communicate Russia’s policy views to Western experts; apart from calling for cooperation in Syria, he expressed hope that Europe would soon abolish short-term visas for Russia.”

 

“Fillon has also been fervently against economic sanctions against Russia following Putin’s Crimean escapade. In April, Fillon welcomed a French parliament resolution that called for lifting the sanctions. He called them “inept and strategically devastating for our farmers” as well as counterproductive. Russia, along with France, is involved in fighting the Islamic State, he reasoned.”

As such, the pro-liberal French media does not support Fillon as it does Juppe and continued liberalism. According to political analyst Eric Verhaeghe, the media in France

“….mainly supports Paris’ alliance with the US and French-German relations. “Yet in reality there is a large part of public opinion in France that (does) not often speak out openly, but know that there can be no balance in Europe without a renewed and consistent alliance with Russia.“

 

“The French elite previously didn’t feel the necessity to express its position on Francois Fillon as they didn’t think he would have had any chances to be elected. But now they see that he poses a real ‘threat’ [to their established relations with Washington and Berlin] and become interested in his program.”

According to Politico, Fillon has referred to Russia as a “crucial partner” for both France and Europe, has advocated lifting EU sanctions against her, and has blamed Western powers for having “provoked” Russia by expanding NATO too close to its borders.

Due to the these similarities between Fillon and Le Pen, “Le Pen boasted that the Republicans’ primary had been fought on her themes: French identity, reconsideration of France’s role in Europe, and a crackdown on immigration and jihadists.” These themes are likely to carry over to center stage during the spring presidential election.

Because of this likely eventuality, Sébastien Chênu, Head of Public Relations for Le Pen, has stated that Juppe would be a preferable opponent for Le Pen; he would be easier to defeat than Fillon:

“Juppe would have made a very good opponent for Le Pen… “He represented privilege, elitism, Europe — everything the French are tired of seeing. And he would not be a very energetic campaigner.”

With the surprise first round primary victory by Fillon, Le Pen must rethink her strategy due to the likelihood of vying with a political opponent less at odds with her Euro-skeptic agenda. Her most probable move will be depicting Fillon as an EU globalist friend of crony-capitalism.

Le Pen recently stated her election as president  would result in the formation of a trio of world leaders (Le Pen – Trump – Putin) that “would be good for world peace”. She also stated that

“There is a worldwide movement. A worldwide movement which rejects unchecked globalisation, destructive ultra-liberalism … the elimination of nation states, the disappearance of borders….The forces at work in these various elections are ideas, forces which could bring about my election as the president of France next May.”

If Fillon defeats Juppe, and chances are he will, France will be running two pro-Putin anti-liberal Middle East military campaign candidates for president. Either way, no matter who wins this election (Fillon or Le Pen), there will be a likely rapprochement with Russia as New Era has been indicating since its inception.

IN AN ABSOLUTELY SURPRISING MOVE REVERBERATING around the globe, Rodrigo Duterte recently elected president of the Philippines (May 9, 2016), and a leader who has an unusually high 85% approval rating, has announced his rejection of liberalism and his intention to newly align his country with China and Russia. On October 19, 2016 Duterte openly declared

1. “I will break up with America,” adding that he would rather “go to Russia and to China.”
2. “America has lost” and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin.” To tell him:
3. “There are three of us against the world, China, the Philippines and Russia.”
4. “In this venue, I announce my separation from the United States both in the military… but economics also.”

https://youtu.be/pObOVG2MPgc

Referring to the United States Duterte stated:

“Your stay in my country was for your own benefit” … “So time to say goodbye, my friend.”

“I will not go to America anymore. I will just be insulted there.”

Like other world leaders in Nigeria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, China and Russia et al, Duterte slammed the United States for the arrogance with which it imposes its unwanted liberal policies on sovereign nations around the globe as if it were the world’s moral police force.

Jonathan Kwitny authored a book entitled “Endless Enemies” in which he described the Philippines as “the Zaire of Asia,” a country in which the United States engaged in covert political activity to manipulate politics and the economy in its favor.

“Every anti-guerrilla campaign has been victorious, and every election, real or rigged, has produced the winner the US government desired.”

Manipulation such as this helps the outside observer to understand why Duterte recently told President Obama to “go to hell” and refereed to him as a “son of a whore”. In September 2016 Duterte stated that he was “about to cross the Rubicon” with the United States and announced his intention to distance himself from Washington and to turn the country toward China and Russia.

Despite all his rhetoric, Duterte plans to maintain relations with the West to benefit his country as much as possible.  According to Duterte’s Finance Secretary, Carlos Dominguez, and his Socioeconomic Planning Secretary, Ernesto Pernia:

“We will maintain relations with the West”…but we desire stronger integration with our neighbors. We share the culture and a better understanding with our region.”

Dominguez and Pernia indicated that the move is about improved business relationships and a desire for regional growth and integration. The Filipinos are also interested in Chinese capital investment and access to a regional  market of 1.8 billion people.The National Economic and Development Authority referred to Duterte’s actions as a move toward “economic regional re-balancing.”

Dominguez further explained that Duterte is not altering the country’s foreign policy but “recalibrating” it to open the country to Asian markets.

“The President has indicated to us that he’d like to strengthen and exploit opportunities…in countries other than our traditional trading partners.”

So after all the bluster and bravado, the statements by Duterte seem calculated to increase good relations with China in hopes of profiting the Philippines. During the state visit Dominguez signed several significant agreements with his new Chinese partners: two are Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) on Financing Cooperation, and an Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation.

According to the ‘Manila Bulletin“, The first MOU, is with the Export-Import Bank of China (EXIM), which will permit EXIM to fund Filipino infrastructure, energy and agricultural projects.

The second MOU, was signed with Gao Hucheng, the Chinese Commerce Minister.  This MOU provides financial support to conduct feasibility studies for major infrastructure, agriculture and rural development projects. Dominguez and Gao also signed an Agreement for Economic and Technical Cooperation. According to this agreement, China will grant approximately $700 million for anti-drug efforts underway in the Philippines and to strengthen law enforcement and security cooperation between the two countries. In all, the Chinese government has made $6 billion dollars in development assistance available to the Philippines and another $3 billion dollars in credits from the Bank of China to boost infrastructure projects in the Philippines.

Interview with Phillipine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez

These business deals, seem to support Duterte’s political rhetoric. A warning flag has been raised that could point to significant changes in Filipino foreign policy. Duterte is in favor of new partnerships contrary to American wishes and also in favor of a new tranche of investments, which will presumably involve the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) rather than continue relationships with worn out international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank who have left a bad taste in the mouths of Third World political leaders.

Moreover, four days prior to his departure for Beijing, Duterte had an interview with Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television during which he iterated his openness to joint military exercises with Russia and China and reiterated his intent to end war games with the United States.

Asked specifically  if he would consider joint military drills with China or Russia instead of the United States, Duterte stated:

“Yes, I will. I have given enough time for the Americans to play with the Filipino soldiers.”

Then, referring to joint military exercises with the US he stated:

“This will be the last. It has been programmed. I do not want my soldiers to be humiliated.”

Moreover, The Philippine leader has also manifested a keen interest in purchasing Russian weapons. According to the Washington Post, on October 5 Duterte addressed the White House and US State Department on the matter:

“Although it may sound shit to you, it is my sacred duty to keep the integrity of this republic and the people healthy…. “If you don’t want to sell arms, I’ll go to Russia. I sent the generals to Russia and Russia said ‘do not worry, we have everything you need, we’ll give it to you.’ And as for China, they said ‘just come over and sign and everything will be delivered’,” Duterte previously stated that he wanted “cheaper weapons with no strings attached.”

All this comes at a time when Japan is openly planning a Peace Treaty with Russia.  On Dec 3, Japanese Prime Minister Abe will meet with President Putin. According to STRATFOR (October 20, 2016):

“Both leaders see opportunity in cooperation; Russia, rich with energy but starved of foreign investment, is an ideal partner for Japan, hungry as it is for energy with money to burn. Trade between the two countries has quadrupled since 2006, reaching a record-high $34.8 billion in 2013.

“Russia has completed the infrastructure needed to handle 2.1 million barrels per day — nearly half of Russia’s overall oil export level of 4.8 million barrels per day. Of the 716,000 barrels per day that Russia exported in 2012, only 141,000 went to Japan — though now Russia has the capacity to send much more.

Russia is also looking to export natural gas to Asia as well.

Russian natural gas company Gazprom has announced it will build a 2,500-kilometer (1,553-mile) pipeline to the Pacific for the new natural gas supplies that it says will be online by 2016. Russia is now considering a liquefied natural gas facility at Vladivostok to handle part of the 25 billion-50 billion cubic meters that Gazprom plans to produce out of East Siberia. East Asia already receives small amounts of natural gas from Russia’s Sakhalin-2 project. Japan has increased its intake of Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural gas in recent years to 10 billion cubic meters annually compared to the 3 billion cubic meters it received before the Fukushima disaster.

The United States is not happy about these developments nor is it happy about the meeting between Putin and Abe that took place earlier this year in May.

“The (Japanese) prime minister has been bucking Washington’s pressure over Russia all year. U.S. President Barack Obama warned Abe not to visit Russia for a summit with Putin in May, but he did anyway” (STRATFOR October 20, 2016).

It seems that more and more people are bucking Washington these days. Deals such as these spell the political and economic death of liberalism in the South Pacific and Asia.

Our Lady promised an Era of Peace and She is keeping Her word. Liberalism, in the name of peace, is the world’s largest promoter of violence and war – so it has to become a thing of the past. Consequently we are witnessing its death around the globe in places such as the Philippines, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Nigeria while simultaneously witnessing the promised conversion of Russia.

TWO WEEKS AGO PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE of the Philippines announced his intention to say goodbye to the United States, his intention to halt all military exercise with the United States, and his intention to buy weapons from China and Russia. Now he has announced plans to withdraw from the 123 member International Criminal Court (ICC), the international war times court situated in the Hague, Netherlands.

Duterte is especially upset by the court’s interference with his war against narcopolitics. Any authentically real attempt to actually defeat drug lords necessarily entails violence. Duterte is serious about defending his people and putting a stop to drug trafficking in the Philippines.  Consequently, the drug lords, thugs, and narcopoliticians are feeling the actual pain of death carried out legally by the executive arm of the Philippine military and police under direct order of their president. Apparently the ICC does not appreciate strong arm tactics to end the evil of drug trafficking.  Duterte insists that the heavy hand is necessary against so immense an evil. Consequently, he announced his intent to withdraw from the ICC complaining that the international court is a covert hand of the global liberal elite for exploitation of developing nations.

Duterte is not the first to renounce the ICC. On November 16, 2016, Vladimir Putin signed an executive order withdrawing Russia from its jurisdiction. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement explaining that the ICC “did not live up to the hopes associated with it and did not become truly independent (of global liberalism).”  

Just a few weeks earlier, three African nations, Gambi, Burundi and South Africa, also announced their intent to withdraw from the ICC. The African nations are withdrawing because they perceive the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism. All three countries consider the ICC to be an “outside institution imposing its will on African nations without their input, perpetuating a history of Western intervention and African oppression.”

On October 19, Maite Nkoana Mashabane, South African Minister of International Relations formally withdrew his country from the ICC. Masganbane indicated that the ICC is overreaching its authority by forcing compliance on issues that violate the sovereign rights of the nation, specifically the ICC mandate to arrest Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan during a state visit to South Africa.

Interestingly, Israel and the United States did not sign to the “Rome Statute” that gave birth to the ICC. Some have speculated that this is due to the US being the military fist behind liberalism.  Since the US is not an ICC member, it cannot be brought before the ICC for any war crimes it allegedly committed in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.  Thus, nations like the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Burundi, and Gambi have had enough of what  they perceive to be unjust treatment, undue meddling in their internal affairs, and  unwarranted policing by Western politicians as if they occupied some type of “moral high ground” for accusing others of crimes against humanity, while getting away with crimes themselves (see video).

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has threatened government leaders in the Philippines who she says condone killings and encourage police and military to act “with lethal force.”

“Let me be clear: any person in the Philippines who incites or engages in acts of mass violence including by ordering, requesting, encouraging or contributing, in any other manner, to the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC is potentially liable to prosecution before the Court.”

Nonetheless, Duterte insists that lethal force is absolutely necessary: Narcopolitcians and national and international drug lords have created a culture of death that must be met with lethal force if they are to be successfully combated and not battled with mere political lip service. Duterte has been accused of encouraging extrajudicial (vigilante) killings. His Communications Secretary, Martin Andanar,  insists that drug-related killings and vigilante killings are “not State-sanctioned.”

The Duterte administration has repeatedly denied condoning extrajudicial killings. According to Andahar,

“In any case, the President has articulated that he is willing to submit himself for an investigation before any body.” 

According to Duterte the ICC is useless:

“They are useless, those in the international criminal (court). They (Russia) withdrew. I might follow. Why? Only the small ones like us are battered”.

President Duterte is so upset with ICC accusations against his war on drugs that he has indicted total dissatisfaction with Western Liberalism and the need for new global leadership.

 “You know (he said), if China and Russia would decide to create a new order, I will be the first to join.”

THE UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENT PARTY (UKIP), an anti European Union or Euro-skeptic party, has recently emerged in the United Kingdom as similar parties are emerging all over Europe, most prominently in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia Greece and France.

The UK story has extra merit since Nigel Farage, a founding member of UKIP is the first foreign leader to arrive on US soil to meet with president-elect Donald Trump.  Farage’s visit comes on the heels of a warning and potential snub delivered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who immediately set liberal conditions on her relationship to the new president and by extension to America itself. In her congratulatory communication to Trump,  Merkel stated:

“Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views…. I offer the next President of the United States close cooperation on the basis of these values.”

Although, the British Prime Minister Theresa May simply congratulated Trump, without the inclusion of any implicit or veiled threat, she is in an awkward position. As Prime Minister she, not Farage, a mere Member of the European Parliament (MEP), should be the one making the visit – in short, protocol has been violated and the prime minster upstaged. To make matters worse, Trump “spoke to nine other world leaders in the 24 hours after his election win before speaking with May.”

According to Time:

“Many in Westminster are coming to terms with the fact a politician long seen as a fringe figure in British politics can command the attention of the leader of the free world. On his return, Farage reported that Trump and his aides are unhappy at the attacks leveled at the President-elect during the campaign by some government figures. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, he offered to “provide introductions and to start the necessary process of mending fences” between the two governments.

Unfortunately, PM May indicated that neither she nor the government will be taking Farage up on his offer.

So Who is This Upstart Nigel Farage and What do We Know about His Party, UKIP

In 2013 Nigel Farage was ranked second among the 100 most influential conservatives in the UK, behind then Prime Minister David Cameron. Farage was also a founding member of UKIP.  In September of 2016 (2 months before his recent November visit) Farage was in the US to speak at a Trump rally before 15,000 in Jackson, Mississippi. Introducing him, Trump stated:

“On 23 June, the people of Britain voted to declare their independence — which is what we’re looking to do also, folks! — from international government.”

Mirroring the Trump introduction, Farage told the Americans gathered in Mississippi to ignore the polls and to “stand up and fight the establishment.”

“You can beat the pollsters. You can beat the commentators… Remember, anything is possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment.” He added: “We can overcome the big banks, we can overcome the multinationals.” Later he stated “I wouldn’t vote for Hilary Clinton if you paid me….So many politcal representatives are politically correct parts of the liberal media elite”

Farage spent years advocating for a UK  referendum to exit the EU (Brexit). His hard work paid off. By June 2016 the people of the UK voted to exit the EU.  Thereafter, Farage became something of a global celebrity among right-wing conservatives including Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen of France. Clinton was correct when, after Farage’s speech in Mississippi, she linked him, as well as Donald Trump, to a conservative global movement, which she hates enough to inconsistently vilify by calling it on one hand “global” and on the other “national”.

“Clinton seized on Trump’s embrace of Farage in a speech a few days later, characterizing both men as “alt-right” figures who were part of a “rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world” (PBS News).

A movement cannot be both globalist and nationalist at the same time.  Men like Trump and Farage share a set of universal values, of respect for human dignity, economic justice, fairness, family values etc. that transcend national boundaries and are truly global and universal. Hilary is caught in an imbroglio that name calling cannot fix. Nonetheless Clinton

“… went on to name Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” (PBS News).

Clearly Ms. Clinton loathes UKIP, which was founded only a few years ago in 1991. In a short time UKIP comfortably won the 2014 European elections, received the third largest vote share in last year’s UK general election, and achieved its long-held goal of an EU exit by June’s Brexit referendum. With 22 members in The European Parliament, UKIP is the largest UK party in the European Parliament; it also has 488 councilors active in UK local government and has placed six of its members on the Welsh National Assembly.

Like other Christian based political parties emerging around Europe (and the world), UKIP has been slandered as racist and xenophobic, allegations which are as untrue as Clinton’s allegation of nationalism. UKIP represents healthy love for country and national patrimony. Since the national patrimony shared among European nations is a Christian Patrimony with regional and local cultural variations; it is therefore Catholic or universal. If universal, none of these parties can be nationalist, but they are patriotic and they do stand for love of God, for homeland and family – universal values that all men can agree upon without stooping to xenophobia, universal family values that are already part of their national patrimony unlike the global lgbt values being foisted by the liberal globalists that are not part of anyone’s patrimony but their own.  The truth is, it is the liberal global crowd that are xenophobic – they aim  at a one world culture and the overcoming of local regional and national cultures by one set of values for all (anywhere the liberals finally gain power), and disrespect for the rest – that is xenophobic. Since the veneer of toleration used by the left for themselves when they were a minority has worn off as they have gained considerable power, the global xenophobic values and the way they they are forcing these values on the world are no longer tolerable. It is their hypocrisy, their blatant violation of the “Golden Rule” to treat others as they want to be treated themselves; their disrespect for any values other than their own, that has led to the global movement, of which UKIP is the British example, so feared by people like Clinton.

It is probably true to say that UKIP and other emerging parties are populist, movements being fueled by the people, people everywhere who have experienced the hypocrisy and dehumanizing results of global liberalism and are rising against it. These parties represent a true democratic revolution, if by democracy we mean respect for human dignity and the common good. World wide people have simply grown tired of being told to tolerate others who refuse to tolerate them, of hosting minorities who can burn bibles and flags and get away with under protection of the law, then turn around and respond ferociously to anyone that would dare do such a thing to objects they hold sacred or dear, and this even in the host country. Frankly, the populist message is simple; “enough is enough.”

Like other emerging parties, UKIP has a Christian face. In a formal message to UKIP members, Farage identifies the part Christianity must play in the future:

“Christianity plays a significant part in my vision for the future of Britain. I have been saying for a long time that we need a much more muscular defence of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution. This does not of course mean we should be disrespectful of other faiths, only that ours is fundamentally a Christian nation and so we believe Christianity should be recognised by Government at all levels (that is what New Era means by patrimony  – the indigenous national ethos not a foreign imposition).”

“Sadly, I think UKIP is the only major political party left in Britain that still cherishes our Judaeo-Christian heritage. I believe other parties have deliberately marginalised our nation’s faith, whereas we take Christian values and traditions into consideration when making policy. Take the family, for instance. Traditional Christian views of marriage and family life have come under attack of late, whereas we have no problem in supporting and even promoting conventional marriage as a firm foundation for a secure and happy family.”

“We share with Christians a concern for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and our policies provide a financial safety net for those who are unable to work, while encouraging self-reliance and eendeavorfor those who can. Our attitude to overseas development works in the same way: by re-focusing the foreign aid budget towards critical and essential aid for those in need and widening investment in free trade relationships, developing countries benefit more in the longer term from having a hand up, as well as a hand out. I believe UKIP has a lot to offer Christians, and we certainly value the participation of Christians in politics and in UKIP.”

Although UKIP does not represent the full spectrum of Christian values advocated by some, UKIP, is the British variant of a global phenomenon; it is moving in the right direction toward cultural rebirth, economic justice, service to the common good, and promotion of authentic human dignity, that are part of the Christian patrimony.