RECENTLY FOUR CARDINALS (Carlo Caffarra,  Raymond Burke,  Walter Brandmüller, Joachim Meisner)  presented Pope Francis and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with a series of five questions or “dubia” (or doubts) requesting that he clarify certain sections of his recent Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) which, they claim has caused “grave disorientation and great confusion” in the Church.

The central issue revolves around the admissibility of divorced and remarried couples to Holy Communion. The four cardinals assert that Amortis Laetitia seems to contradict earlier papal teachings, specifically Familiaris Consortio given by Pope John Paul II. Specifically, they point out concern with Chapter Eight paragraphs 300-305, which they claim are being used by some bishops to permit divorced and remarried couples to receive the sacraments in violation of perennial Church teaching.

Pope Francis is accused of being fuzzy, unclear and dogmatically in error.  The real problem really is that people who are making such allegations, for the most part, “don’t get it”.

The Church just passed through a “Year of Mercy”. Presently, the entire universe is resounding with the echo of Divine Logos: “Mercy-Mercy-Mercy” and of His Mother who is asking for reparation from her children for the sins of others, asking  penance from those who love God for those who are steeped in sin. Our Lord and Our Lady are asking for love, mercy, compassion, and sacrifice for sinners while Catholic ultra-conservatives are calling for their heads, calling for punishment, divine retribution, alienation and chastisement. The pope is correct, they “don’t  get it”. But neither do the ultra-liberals who make excuses for sins, condone them, militantly embrace their own sin and that of others and refuse to ask for forgiveness – they don’t get it either.

The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ – His representative on earth. As such, he is expected to mirror the wishes, will, and desires of his King. And it is the King’s will, at this special moment of human history, that mercy be the theme of His Church, that mercy be showered over all the earth from the rising of the sun until its setting in every clime and place. Jesus, Himself, revealed to Saint Faustina that this gift of mercy is His last gift to the Church before He returns in glory as the world’s judge.

Until that time, between now and then, He desires Mercy, especially mercy for the greatest sinners. Thus, He further revealed to Saint Faustina that those who have the most right to His mercy are the most grievous sinners:

“Let the greatest sinners place their trust in My mercy. They have the right before others to trust in the abyss of My mercy. … Souls that make an appeal to My mercy delight Me. To such souls I grant even more graces than they ask”  (Diary of Saint Faustina Para 1146).

 

Jesus has a

“…special compassion for the worst sinners, because they are most in need of His mercy.”

Pope Francis is keenly aware of God’s mercy and of His desire to extend it everywhere, especially toward hardened sinners. He is acting accordingly as the Vicar of Christ; he expects Catholic clergy and laity to do the same. God wants forgiveness, mercy and compassion, not judgment, severity and legalism.

The Hour of Mercy is a time to pronounce, to pronounce the good news, not to renounce.

“For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47, John 3:17).

With this Message of Mercy ingrained in mind, it is easy to unravel the confusion. We are living in an Hour of Mercy. Mercy is the universal theme of the Church being announced and lived by its universal shepherd. The pope is not in error; he has not forgotten or rejected earlier church teaching about the sanctity of marriage and the sinfulness of illicit union.

However, he is teaching as a pastor, as a “Good Shepherd”, the good shepherd who has “come to save that which was lost”, the good shepherd who leaves ninety-nine righteous people and goes in search of the one that is lost because it is the will of the Father than none of his sheep be lost:

“What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and go to seek that which is gone astray? And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18: 12-14)

Now, if no one goes after them, the stray and sinning sheep, but instead reject, criticize, judge and in their self-righteousness ostracize them, how are they to be saved? The pope unlike the self-righteous Pharisees who murmur, saying: “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them“, is willing to embrace a sinner with mercy and compassion; mercy and compassion are slow to judge but quick to love.

If the first thing a person does vis a vis a hardened sinner is judge, the relationship is over. The quickest way to the mind is through the heart – it does not work the other way for most people, especially people who have been conditioned by a culture of sin, by a constant barrage of propaganda and manipulation, psychological warfare by means of association etc. In such a world as this, there are many sheep gone astray and they need a shepherd.  If clergy and lay evangelists act with a judgmental attitude, few will be evangelized.

Modern men and women are like sheep in desperate need of a wise and loving friend to shepherd them; however, they often remain without a shepherd because the shepherds on the extreme left are often too blinded by concupiscence and irascibility to properly lead anyone, while those on the ultra-conservative right are often too busy satisfying themselves intellectually and too judgmental to have compassion.

What is the attitude of Jesus the Good Shepherd? When He looked upon the vast throng of lost humanity, He had COMPASSION ON THEM” because they were lost and in agony  – being lost in deep sin is not fun!

“And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed” (Matthew 9:36).

It was then that He said to His apostles, “The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few”.

Francis is acting like a good laborer in the Hour of Mercy. He is acting like St. John Bosco, a saint who did get it, a saint who reached out to the street boys, the gang-bangers, of Northern Italy and beyond when no one else, including many clergy, wanted anything to do with them – too upsetting to a comfortable life-style, too filthy to bring home – too risky to deal with – too impure to mingle with their cultural refinement. St. John Bosco had man adages, a man full of folk-wisdom. One of his many: “The time is long, but  the cure is sure“.  Dealing with sin requires time and patience, patience that grows out of love and mercy. With love, with mercy, over time healing can occur; it does not occur (in most people) by a quick intellectual fix following some sage advice from a counselor – this is for relatively advanced people, which a sinner – lost in sin – is not.

At  this time in human history, a time of MERCY, the Church must do its evangelical work pastorally.  To fail pastorally is to fail as a shepherd.  Shepherds pastor sheep, they do not discuss philosophical and theological treatises with them.  Clergy formation involves much detailed philosophical and theological formation and deep intellectual growth.  The proper place for this type of discussion is the seminary. It is hoped that before a man leaves a seminary that he makes a connection between his intellectual formation and the pastoral care he must give to his sheep. Intellectual learning is intended to facilitate his work as a pastor. A college professor is not a pastor.  Many clergy and laity, usually among the ultra-conservative, the crowd accusing Pope Francis of heresy etc., have failed to make the transition. They act as if they were still in the seminary; instead of love, mercy and compassion for sinners they are deeply dissatisfied with the state of things and want to lecture people about there faults and especially about the faults, short-comings and theological errors of the pope and bishops; indeed they want to lecture the pope himself. Instead of seeing a soul to be saved, they see a sinner to be disciplined and a pope to be castigated for not being more severe.  Correction and discipline should and must be forthcoming, but they work better after a relationship has been established on the basis of mercy and love. In the last analysis, love is greater than knowledge, love alone endures for eternity.

Saint Francis de Sales understood this well: “More bees are attracted by a spoonful of honey than by a barrel of vinegar.”

Some people, for whatever reason, just do not get this – do not get the intersection of learning and knowledge with love and mercy, the intersection of dogmatic and pastoral theology, the intersection of heart and mind.

Then, infected by this inability, they proceed to read papal teachings such as Amoris Laetitia.  Because they “don’t get it”, they approach the document as if it were an intellectual, exercise, when in fact, it is a pastoral exhortation.

They just cannot put the whole thing together. Like some Protestants who cheery-pick scriptures picking passages that support their point and neglecting or ignoring others that do not support their position, they act like the others do not exist.

hgh

Practical and Speculative Intellect- Have the Clergy forgotten Their Philosophical Education?

Every priest and many lay men and women have studied philosophy, but afterward many forget what they learned or fail to apply it to their service of others. Every priest and student of classical and scholastic philosophy has learned (or should have learned) the difference between the “speculative intellect” (SI) and the “practical intellect” (PI). In short, the SI begins its work by grasping first principles and reasoning from them to reach logical conclusions that must be accepted if the principles are true and the logic is correct (logical deduction from premise to conclusion: A-B therefore C). The PI operates differently; it is not involved in deductive logic, a purely intellectual exercise.  Rather, the PI involves the intellect in its application mode, that is when the intellect applies truths grasped by the SI to everyday practice. The SI operates in the intellectual realm of acquired wisdom, the realm of dogmatic truths that are discovered by the intellect BEFORE they are afterward applied outside the mind to practical everyday reality, where theory must meet practice if it is to be successful. The SI operates interiorly, the PI must operate in the real exterior world.  The mind and the world are two very different places.

The PI does not begin with logical first principles, it begins with the end or the conclusion reached by the SI as a result of reasoning to conclusions from principles, discursive logic. A logical conclusion or end is the last thing discovered by the SI, but it is the first principle of the PI, which must make prudential judgments about which means are to be chosen to reach a desired end. The human mind necessarily ascents to a logical conclusion derived by way of the SI, but the means derived by the PI to achieve a derived end are only probable. No one necessarily ascents to them because many other means may be discovered, some better than others, some faulty some not – no one knows for sure if the means they choose will actually result in the acquisition of the end – they are only probably sure. Thus, for the SI the end is last in the order of acquisition (the end or fruit of as long train of thought), but for the PI, the end is first in the order of operation because without the end no one would know where they were going or how to derive means to get there.

Thus, the work of the practical intellect begins with the end and is calculative and probable while that of the SI begins with first principles to discover an end and it is rational and certain of its conclusions. That is, the SI necessarily ascents to its conclusions in order to avoid a logical contradiction. The SI begins with first principles to reach certain conclusions, but the PI begins with ends to reach probable conclusions.

For example, if after an exhaustive study of the human soul, the SI determines that human beings should pursue happiness as an end then it is up to the PI to determine just how the end of happiness should be achieved. To achieve happiness, the PI must first know what happiness is and then figure out how among a world of constant change and flux that happiness can actually be attained. Because circumstances are always changing, what works in one time or place might not work in another. Even if the SI discovers necessary truths, no progress can be made toward their attainment if the PI is deficient. Knowing that happiness is an end to be achieved is a “black and white” issue – it is clear. But knowing how to achieve happiness in a given place or time among an endless array of possibilities and constantly shifting contingencies  is a very difficult exercise. It is this later that Pope Francis is concerned about; nothing is black and white in the practical ream of constantly shifting contingencies i.e., the pastoral realm.  Even if a priest, or lay evangelist, is certain of the highest truths, this certainty is practically useless unless the PI  is capable of making prudential judgments about how best to achieve these truths in diverse environments and among diverse people and cultures.

Clearly knowing the truth, knowing black and white dogma is necessary but insufficient for the work of evangelization, which is the major work of the Church!

Pastoral theology depends upon the PI as much as it depends on the SI, perhaps moreso. Pastors must deal with constantly changing realities and shifting situations that effect how they might or might not succeed given a set of unique circumstances. Moreover, before a practical or prudential judgement can be made, facts must be gathered, the greater the quantity and quality of the information the better. Clearly, it is a mortal sin to divorce, remarry, and receive the Eucharist.  This much is black and white. However, there are subjective and mitigating circumstances that might alter the judgement if they were known.

In the case of human moral decision making, the acquisition of facts presupposes proper relationships, making prudential or practical judgments requires information and knowledge of unique circumstances. Pope Francis is coming from this perspective, the pastoral perspective of the PI, while those who are confused are coming at the question dogmatically from the black and white understanding of the SI.  The latter only works in the classroom, in the university or seminary where truths are being ascertained and acquired. The real world, however, is not a place of truth acquisition, it is a place of truth implementation, implementation of truths previously acquired in the classroom.  A parish is not a seminary; it is a place of practical reality where souls must be served and saved among a constantly shifting array of unique circumstances. If a pastor fails to acquire this information because he fails at relationships, his parish will most likely fail and his sheep, will be poorly served.  He cannot treat them as a pedagogue teaching theology lessons; first the heart must be reached. This requires mercy and compassion, especially in a time as far gone as the present.

Practical decisions – pastoral decisions are not black and white. Priests must realize that they are no longer in the seminary. Moral casuistry (application of speculative or dogmatic truths to everyday contingencies) is always probable. While theological truths are unchanging and universal, their application is ever-changing and relative.  Thou shall not kill is a black and white clear moral precept. However, what about self-defense, what about soldiers defending their country, what about the mitigating circumstances of killing in the heat of passion versus pre-meditated murder etc. Things become quite complex when the move is made from speculative black and white principles to the grey are of their application – the realm of pastoral theology.

“Some priestly formation programs run the risk of educating in the light of overly clear and distinct ideas, and therefore to act within limits and criteria that are rigidly defined … and that set aside concrete situations.”

In short, people complaining that they are confused want everything to be black and white as Pope Francis asserts.

 “In life, not everything is black over white or white over black. No! The shades of gray prevail in life. We must teach them (seminarians) to discern in this gray area” (National Federation of Priests Councils).

No one can make a practical moral judgement without first acquiring the facts of a case (the gray area). But no one can adequately acquire the facts from a person living in sin if he or she does not first dismiss and overlook many faults and repulsive behaviors, which enable him to withhold judgement and enter into a relationship necessary for the acquisition of information and to make correct assessment of the state of a soul. If instead, a priest makes snap judgments based on black and white dogmatic truths pertaining to right and wrong behavior, relationships will be strained and end prematurely, or fail to develop at all, in which case there is no hope of conversion, the very purpose of evangelization.

Many rigid ultra-conservatives are looking at Francis’ teachings through the lens of dogmatic theology rather than through the lens of mercy and compassion, pastoral theology, which is often very confusing. Unfortunately, practical pastoral decisions are rarely black and white. Dealing with divorced and remarried couples is a pastoral issue. It certainly involves the application of black and white speculative or dogmatic principles, but no case is the same; shifting circumstances require prudential insight because sometimes circumstances that appear objectively sinful might be morally licit, such as the case of divorced-remarried couples living together chastely as brother and sister. If a Christian fails to acquire practical knowledge of the facts, in this case, a chaste living arrangement, but quickly jumps to a black and white conclusion thereby condemning an innocent couple, he or she sins not only against justice, but also against charity.  It is necessary to see both with the eyes of the intellect and with the eyes of the heart. One without the other is always deficient. Speculative wisdom must be united to and enlightened by emotive love because:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-6).

Priestly learning does not involve education alone – it involves education and formation.  EDUCATION in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and FORMATION in self mastery, mercy and love. Without the later, priests and laity alike are “confused” and tend to see everything in “black and white.”  The remedy is growth in mercy and love as Pope Francis continually stresses!

________________

END OF PART ONE – TO BE CONTINUED

PART TWO WILL EXAMINE THE  ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES WITHIN “AMORIS LAETITIA” IN LIGHT OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN PART ONE

UNTIL YESTERDAY ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER MATTEO RENZI had been advocating a referendum to “slim down” and “defang” the Upper Chamber of the Italian Parliament (from 315  to 100). A move that would in effect eradicate a check on the lower house and empower the central government thereby enabling Renzi to more efficiently implement his pro-European program.  A widely advertised and highly emotional campaign resulted in a near 70 percent turn put of Italy’s electorate. Of this large group a significant 60 percent voted no for the referendum.

A “No-Vote” to the Renzi sponsored referendum could be interpreted as a vote of no-confidence in Renzi and his attempts to strengthen ties with Paris and Berlin in favor of the EU and Eurozone. However, it should be pointed out up front that this referendum did not involve an exit from the European Union per se. Unlike the Brexit referendum, the Renzi referendum sought to tie Italy closer to the EU.  Thus, its failure may be indirectly interpreted as a vote to widen the gap between Italy and the EU.

Renzi promised his countrymen that if he failed to get his referendum approved, he would tender his resignation and step down from office. In wake of yesterday’s referendum’s failure, Renzi is faced with a dilemma, keeping his word and actually stepping down or ignoring his statement as political rhetoric. Renzi, has chosen the former.

Being a man of principle, he has kept his word. Sunday morning the Prime Minister announced:

“When you lose you cannot pretend that nothing has happened and go to bed and sleep. My government ends here today” (Fox News).

 

“I take full responsibility for the defeat. I will greet my successor with a smile and a hug, whoever it might be” (CNN Money).

The main beneficiary of the Renzi defeat seems to be the Italian “Five Star” movement, which is in favor of imitating Brexit in Italy by spearheading plans for another referendum asking the Italian people to withdraw from the European Union and the Euro Zone thereby discontinuing use of the Euro and reinstating the Italian Lira in its place.

In the wake of Brexit and aspiring Eurospkeoptic movements in France, Greece and Spain exacerbated by successful Euroskeptic movements in Hungary, Poland, Moldova, and Slovakia, liberal globalists are awakening to the likelihood that another populist party, such as Five Star, will rise to national prominence in Italy thereby creating ever-deepening crisis leading to questions about the on going viability of the EU itself.

Matteo Renzi Accepts Defeat Giving Rise to Hopes among Euroskeptic Parties such as Five Star for an Italian Exit

WHO IS FIVE STAR

As stated in the above video, Five Star is a “populist, anti-establishment, anti-European, increasingly popular” movement in Italy. Five Star was established by an Italian comedian, Beppe Grillo and web strategist Gianroberto Casaleggio in 2009.  As stated, the party is populist, Euroskeptic, and anti globalist. It is named Five Stars because it coalesces around five primary issues: (1) transportation (2) water (3) development (4) internet access (5) non-violence. Five Stars is in favor of direct digital democracy (direct participation of all citizens in public affairs by use of computer technology) and rejects foreign military intervention in the Middle East and specifically American intervention in Syria.

Five Star favors green technology, is anti-pollution and social justice oriented, ecological-minded, anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist. As such, it favors limited but sustainable growth, reduced production and consumption, and the growth of arts and more humane use of leisure time. Currently, Five Star has 109 deputies in the lower house known in Italy as the Chamber of Deputies, which consists of 630 members.

The BBC and other media agencies are focusing on Five Star and presenting it as the apparent front runner leading the way to change among Euroskeptic elements throughout Italy. New  Era does not agree with the BBC, which seemingly forecasts and implicitly promotes the rise of Five Star.  Five Star is a left wing movement committed to an aberrant moral agenda. The BBC is apparently pinning its hopes on a Five Star rise to power thereby presenting the movement as another populist party like those coming to the fore throughout Europe. Unfortunately, Five Star is not one of these.

A MORE LIKELY SCENARIO

There are other populist parties developing in Italy, parties more in tune with what is happening in Eastern Europe, France, Asia and Africa than Five Star.  Five Star has many valid and potentially good ideas, but without a moral foundation, it risks running the gamut of just another “hippie movement” backed by technological savvy.

Beppe Grillo, and Gianroberto Casaleggio Co-Founders of Five Star

Technological savvy and direct democracy, however, are not the answer to future problems.  Future problems  require deep roots in philosophy, theology, spirituality, social science and then technology and professional expertise.

fgfg

Five Star is being presented favorably by outlets such as the BBC because the BBC and others are fully aware that the Euroskeptic anti-liberal movement is in full swing.  Unfortunately, although Five Star has an innovative political and economic reform package, morally Five Star is just another liberal program masquerading in progressive populist guise. In 2014 the party voted for gay rights and same sex unions.

That was 2014, given the current political landscape, Five Star is back peddling on the issue.  According to the Guardian:

“After seemingly supporting the legislation for months, Beppe Grillo, the former comic who heads the protest party (Five Star), announced that members of his party could vote their conscience on the bill (advocating same sex unions).”

 

“It was a reflection, analysts said, of the changing political landscape in Italy. The country’s conservative and right-wing parties are largely in disarray and Grillo likely sees an opportunity to pick up conservative voters in upcoming local elections if he can scupper or weaken the civil unions bill.”

 

“There is an element in this of M5S (Five Star)  generally not being reliable partners. They are also opportunistic. There is an opportunity to grab votes from centre-right parties, which at this point cannot even put forward candidates in key cities,” said Wolfango Piccoli, an analyst at Teneo Intelligence in London.”

This is an opportunistic vote and party that is not to be trusted.  Beppe Grillo is asking his followers to “trust their gut not their brain“  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37aUvz-v0FE at 2:57 in video) as if they were a pack of animals unable to think for themselves.  Thus, BBC and others are hoping that people are still dim-witted enough to be unable to see through the propaganda, but that is exactly what the Euroskeptic anti-liberal movement is about: People are tired of the propaganda and will see through this campaign with just a little insight:

A win for Five Star is a win for liberalism.

To hide this fact, leaders of Five Star are beginning to strategize.  According to the Economist, “Five Star is “Smartening Up” :

“EVEN fans of the Five Star Movement, an Italian political group often described as populist, maverick and anti-establishment, would never have credited it with slickness.”

Slickness, however is not wisdom.  Given the current Christian family values renewal under way in Europe, and Five Star’s reluctance to form political alliances with other parties, Five Star’s chances of making it to power on a pro-gay agenda are slim. The Party has not definitively disowned or modified its agenda; it has merely refused to make a statement at this time and in an attempt to be “slick” it has merely left the vote to individual conscience. This ploy will have its effect, but it will not result in victory.  A more likely political party candidate for the future of Italy is Lega Nord.

As reported by the Guardian:

“When Matteo Salvini took over the leadership of the Northern League (Lega Nord) at the end of 2013, Italian politicians and the media said his job would be to officiate at the party’s funeral. Two years later, it is back from the near dead — and stronger than ever.”

 

“Whether you credit the refugee crisis, the Marine Le Pen bandwagon or what party insiders prefer to call the #effettoSalvini (the Salvini effect), the party that sank to an historic low of 4 percent in the 2013 election — below the threshold for seats in the Senate — now has 16-17 percent support in nationwide polls.

A likely scenario for Italy is a coalition movement consisting of Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, right-wing Fratelli d’Italia and Lega Nord.

Lega Nord, promotes Italy’s cultural values, supports the traditional family, is opposed to same sex union, globalism, and the spread of liberalism.

Recently, Salvini, leader of Lega Nord, hosted a Milan Conference for a new group in the European Parliament known as Europe of Nations and Freedom Group (ENF), which includes Marine Le Pen and other Euroskeptic party leaders from throughout the continent. ENF is working to establish a “Europe of free nations in which power is fully returned from the European Union to the voters of sovereign states. The group’s commitments are to sovereignty, democracy, freedom and ending mass immigration so that members may advance their own interests at the domestic level.”

In the words of Marine le Pen VP of ENF:

“Each day, the Europe of Brussels unveils its fatal design: deconstructing nations to build a new globalist order, dangerous for the security, prosperity, identity, the very survival of the European peoples.”

 

“Faced with the proponents of federalism, we are the guardians informed of the national spirit and the defenders of the interests of European peoples.”

 

“An opposing force that embodies the patriotic alternative to the globalist Europe, Brussels…”

 

“This pole of resistance, which today unites the elect of eight European nations, pursues a compelling purpose: to free Europe from the chains of servitude…and build a continent of peace and prosperity.”

At the close of the Milan meeting of ENF hosted by Salvini, Salvini had a photo taken with Le Pen and others containing the caption:

““We will not surrender to the clandestine invasion.”

In a recent Facebook Post carried by the Guardian,  Salvini stated:

“We are the real alternative to Renzi.”

Then he thanked supporters on Twitter and beckoned Renzi

 “We’re coming”,  #Salvini.

If Lega Nord or Five Star happen to pull a surprise victory (a surprise victory like the Trump surprise and the many similar surprises occurring throughout Europe) in the next election, Italian voters should expect a referendum to withdraw from the European Union or Euro Zone.

AS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD move toward an Era of Peace, the prophecy is being fulfilled that out of Poland would come the spark that would lead to world change. On the Vigil of the Feast of Christ the King (Nov 21, 2016), the bishops of Poland in union with Polish President, Andrzej Duda,  proclaimed Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, as the “King of Poland”.

Church and State officials gathered at the National Shrine of Divine Mercy in Krakow, Poland to celebrate the 1,050 years of Christianity in their nation. Together, they implored Jesus to reign over Poland, over its people and political leaders as Sovereign Lord – Christ the King. The consecration was repeated in churches throughout Poland. The people united under the leadership of the Polish episcopate and statesmen raised their voices :

“Immortal King of Ages Lord Jesus Christ, we Poles stand before you to acknowledge your reign, surrender to your law, and entrust our homeland and the whole nation to you.”

“Humbly bowing our heads before you, King of the Universe, we acknowledge your dominion over the Polish nation, those living in the homeland and throughout the world. Wishing to worship the majesty of Thy power and glory, with great faith and love, we cry out: Rule us, Christ!”

In the presence of President Andrej Duda, Prime Minister, Beata Szydło, and other ranking state officials the bishops prayed:  “We entrust to you the Polish people and Polish leaders. Let them exercise their power fairly and in accordance with Your laws.”

“Rule us, Christ! Reign in our homeland and reign in every nation — for the greater glory of the Most Holy Trinity and the salvation of mankind”

(Coverage by Radio Poland)

The kingship of Christ is ontologically rooted in His incarnation and subsequent rule over humanity as their sole Divine Head. Jesus is Lord at His birth and sits on the Throne of David as announced by the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. 

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1: 32-33).

Moreover, two thousand years ago, it was announced to the Imperial City, the city of the “Roman Emperor”,  that Christ alone is Lord”

“For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Roman 14:11).

Devotion to Divine Mercy

The Divine Mercy Message and Devotion is based on revelations given by Jesus Christ to Saint Faustina Kowalska, a poor Polish nun to whom Jesus appeared prior to World War II. Sister Faustina recorded the revelations she received about the Mercy of God in a voluminous diary, which contains the Message of Divine Mercy (PDF) that God intends for all humanity, especially for those most steeped in sin. Thanks to the love and work of Saint Faustina, Devotion to the Divine Mercy has spread throughout the world.

(c) Knights of Columbus Supreme Council

Devotion to Divine Mercy has gained the highest approbation of the Catholic Church. It has been placed on the universal liturgical calendar of the Church as the Feast of Divine Mercy celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter, also the day on which Pope John Paul II, the “Pope of Mercy” breathed his last breath as the Vicar of Christ and “Apostle of Mercy.”

“I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming” (Diary, 1732).

Sanctuary of the National Shrine of Divine Mercy, Krakow Poland – Photo During Consecration

yyfyufy

The spark of fire that would come forth from Poland began with the pontificate of Saint John Paul II and is spreading around the globe. The world press is only now beginning to take notice of it. The liberal establishment is being shaken to its foundations as Poland is being joined by Hungary, Slovakia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Malaysia, France, Austria, Moldova, Bulgaria and Russia. A general global uprising of Euro-skeptic Christian political parties and social movements is rapidly gaining momentum throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. Increasing numbers are rising to challenge secular liberalism and reasserting their Christian or native patrimonies. 

Russia is being converted as promised at Fatima, but Poland has stepped forward igniting the flame of love promised by Jesus. From Poland is coming forth the spark of spiritual renewal, of life giving and cleansing mercy, that flows from the Heart of Christ the King.

Jesus told Saint Faustina that Poland would prepare the world for His final coming.

In recognizing Christ as their King, Poland has shown its gratitude. Consequently, she is beloved by God and blessed with a special mission.

“We who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude, with which we should offer worship pleasing to God in reverence and awe. 

Consistent with sacred scripture, the Lord associated the end times with the fire of Divine Love that will consume sin: 

For “God is love” (1 John 4:8) and “God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29).

The Era of Peace promised by the Virgin Mary at Fatima is dependent on the Mercy of God that flows from the Heart of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. He reconciles men to himself by breathing on them the Spirit of reconciliation and peace. 

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20: 21-23).

Breath is required to ignite a fire. The Breath of God is required to forgive sin and to ignite a Divine Fire, a fire of mercy and love that will prepare the world for the second coming of Christ as foretold to Faustina.

We are living in the “Hour of Mercy”, the time of Christ’s final coming, a time foreseen by St. Louis Marie de Montfort, a time, in his words, when

 “…great men filled with the Holy Spirit and imbued with the spirit of Mary” who will destroy sin and establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ.”

“They are the “great souls filled with . . . zeal” (True Devotion 48), “superior to all creatures by their great zeal” (True Devotion 54). The action of the “true apostles of the end times” (True Devotion 58) consists of spreading “the fire of divine love” everywhere; they are themselves “a flaming fire” (True Devotion 56). In the battle against evil and the enemies of God, these great saints “will become, in Mary’s powerful hands, like sharp arrows,” and they will leave “an odor of death” among the worldly (True Devotion 56). Their work will not be limited to reforming the Church, but will include extending it to “the idolators and Muslims” (True Devotion 59) (Quote from EWTN).

Pope Pius IX’s (1925) wrote “Quas Primas,” an encyclical in which he taught the moral, political and spiritual importance of recognizing Christ as King and the superiority of the Divine Law over all civil, statutory, and constitutional laws that became regent with the 18th century advent of liberalism. It was then that,

“The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected… There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences…Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.”

Pope Pius continues:

“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”

The Kingship of Christ is associated with the Era of Peace promised by the Queen Mother at Fatima and with the Hour of Mercy promised by Jesus to Saint Faustina. Above all, Christ’s reign is not a time of retribution but a time of compassion, healing and mercy for all:

“I sent prophets wielding thunderbolts to My people. Today I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My Merciful Heart.” (Diary, 1588).

The eminent prelates, statesmen, and dignitaries of Poland have recognized Christ as the King of their nation; they have shown their gratitude.

“We who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude”

Like the beloved Apostle John, Poland is being pressed to the Merciful Heart of the High Priest and King of Kings (John 13:23). Many other nations will follow. What will the United States do?

NORMALLY A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT such as Barack Obama holds the ship of state steady for the short two months that the country transitions to its newly elected leadership team.

The times however, are anything but “normal”. The writing is on the wall as liberalism continues its collapse around the globe and President-Elect Donald Trump names his pro-Christian, anti-liberal, Make America Great Again Team. Liberal ideologues and their neocon cohorts are in panic mode. In addition to pro-Christian and anti-liberal players such as Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway, Trump has also named pro-Christian and ant-liberal Betsy Devoss to be his Secretary of Education. According to the Zionist daily “Forward“, Ross is a real threat to the liberal establishment:

“DeVos is not merely a conservative and a Republican Party activist; she is one of the country’s most powerful advocates for ending public education entirely and replacing it with religious schools, for-profit charter schools and home schooling. Her foundation is widely credited as the primary engine behind the so-called “school choice” movement, which has led to the establishment of voucher programs in 13 states since 2000.”

According to Forward

“DeVos isn’t just the fox in charge of the henhouse — she’s the shochet, the slaughterer.”

With a line up like this taking shape, liberal globalists are attempting to rise to the challenge before it becomes a “disastrous reality”. The lame-duck president and congress are facing perhaps their biggest challenge in Syria where the tide has also turned against them and against their Zionist controlled ally, Israel.

Due to (1) the unexpected success of Syrian government forces (backed by Russian air support) pitted against US backed Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and Daesh rebel forces and further, due to (2) President-Elect Trump’s intention to ally with Syrian and Russian military forces to eradicate the rebels, US foreign policy in the Middle East is about to suffer a severe setback. Trump has spoken against a US foreign policy built around regime change, implicitly, Syrian regime change. Consequently, despite the fact that the United States is in a lame duck transition period, a significant liberal offensive backed by the Obama administration and war-hawks in Congress is predictable.  Either they act now by risking war with Russia or accept the reality of defeat not only in Syria, but throughout the entire Middle East along with the global collapse of their liberal agenda.

Given these realities and eventualities, the US Congress is carefully considering imposing a no-fly zone on Syria to protect its rebel backed forces in order to turn the tide against the Syrian government, headed by Bashar al Assad, which is winning the war in Syria. Unfortunately, the imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria requires the consent of the sovereign government of Syria.

Since a US imposed no-fly zone presumably intends to ground Russian planes, it runs contrary to Syrian objectives to defeat the US backed terrorist forces whom the Syrians are battling with Russian air assistance. Consequently, the Syrian government is highly unlikely to give the US permission; moreover, it has already given permission to the Russian air-force to carry out operations within its airspace.

The imposition of a no-fly zone without the consent of the Syrian government would be a violation of international law and an implicit act of war against Russia and Syria. The United States is unlikely to circumvent this unfavorable political reality by appealing to the United Nations (UN) since any UN resolution giving consent to a no-fly zone would, most likely, be vetoed in the Security Council by Russia and presumably China as well.

Nonetheless, the United States  Congress is considering a bill to make a unilateral  solution possible.  Following the Trump victory on November 8, the soon to be replaced congress met in a special session to draft Resolution 5732, the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which directs military personnel to assess the implementation of a no-fly zone as well as to escalate procedures to facilitate prosecution of Syrian leaders for alleged war crimes. The bill passed the House on November 15, and has been forwarded to the Senate for their approval.

Although Newera Intelligence doubts that there will be escalation between the US and nuclear armed Russia, nothing will stop the neoliberals/neocons from trying.  From the Newera perspective, the bill will either stall in the senate or, if passed, the US  will not be able to impose a no fly zone. Surprising as it might seem, it appears that the Russians possess technological superiority, a supposed superiority that will be tested if Resolution 5732 comes to pass. Syria possesses a Russian antiaircraft system; Russian ships, headed by the Admiral Kuznetsov, are stationed in the Mediterranean near the Syrian coast and Russian aircraft are battle ready in Syria and elsewhere in the region.

According to retired Army Major General Robert Scales:

“Over the past two decades, the Russians have gotten a technological jump on us… Russian tactical drones, which spot for artillery, are far superior (and far more numerous) than ours. In 2014, when the Battle of Debaltseve began, the Ukrainians reported that as many as eight Russian tactical drones orbited over their heads at any one time.”

 

“Additionally, the electronic warfare technology demonstrated by the Russians in Ukraine is the best in the world, far better than ours. During the 240-day siege of the Donetsk airport, the Russians were able to jam GPS, radios and radar signals. Their electronic intercept capabilities were so good that the Ukrainians’ communications were crippled. Ukrainian commanders complained that a punishing barrage would follow any radio transmission within seconds” (Washington Post).

If the neocons were going to have a war with Russia, it should have happened fifteen years ago when the opportunity for success was extremely high; things are much different around the globe NOW.

https://youtu.be/3E1aZlADRQU

But, in the eventuality that the neocon and neoliberal war-hawks do succeed in desperation to rescue their global agenda by igniting a war with Russia over Syria, controlling the airspace over Syria will not be an easy task, and it is not a non-violent solution. It would involve ground troops.

According to the New York Times (2102), General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed President Obama that it would require approximately “70,000” military personnel to impose a no-fly zone over Syria – imposing a no-fly zone is not an facile maneuver. General Carter Ham who oversaw the Libyan air assault in 2011 told  CBS News that imposing a no-fly zone over Syria

“…entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.”

The fact that the US Congress would even consider such an act and at such a time (lame duck period) indicates extreme desperation in the liberal camp.

Why is This happening?

Quite simply, the neoliberal initiative to overthrow the Syrian government is about to fail, the numbers of jihadists is shrinking, global sentiment is increasingly opposed to liberalism, and President-Elect Trump has spoken against regime change and indicated he would work with the Russians to eradicate terrorism while working toward world peace and the end of globalism. For those steeped in liberalism, although they speak much of world peace etc., this type of language is not palatable.  Quite simply, neocons and neoliberals are frantic.

Neocon statesmen and their neoliberal allies who think it is their sacred duty to defend Zionism and Israel, who esteem the terrorist nation of Saudi Arabia as a key ally, and who continue to dream of an American Empire and the spreading of liberal democracy around the globe, cannot stomach a loss in Syria.  Syria is a key element in their long sought goal of global cultural conquest spearheaded by Liberalism and Zionism.

Syria shares a hostile border with Israel and is in a war with Israel over the Golan Heights; Syria is also an ally of Iran and of Russia whom the neocons, claim are the sponsors of terrorism and the major obstacles in way of their global agenda.

Because Syria refused Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s (2010) demand to sever ties with both Hezbollah and Iran and to also accept peace with Israel, Syria became the target of liberal aggression.

Thereafter, the United States and Israel worked together along with Saudi Arabia to engineer a terrorist campaign against the Syrian government. Israel admits its complicity (along with the US and Saudi Arabia) in aiding and abetting the jihadists currently in Syria (and elsewhere):

Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States,  explained in an interview with the Jerusalem Post:

“The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

 

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc.”

Consequently, it is imperative that Syria be defeated – she is an ontological threat to Zionism and the global liberal agenda. If Syria prevails, the Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese alliance will be cemented and the oil corridor from Persia to the Mediterranean will be complete; Saudi Arabia, the bastion of global terrorism, will be checked; Turkey will have to rethink its NATO alliance; Syrian and Iraqi oil will be protected from Western multinationals; most importantly, the Zionist leadership of Israel will suffer an existential threat and the spread of global liberalism will halt in the Middle East making it amenable to peace negotiations with Europe and Russia.

Clearly, according to the lame duck liberals, this s**t has got to stop!

AS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD move toward an Era of Peace, the prophecy is being fulfilled that out of Poland would come the spark that would lead to world change. On the Vigil of the Feast of Christ the King (Nov 21, 2016), the bishops of Poland in union with Polish President, Andrzej Duda,  proclaimed Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, as the “King of Poland”.

Church and State officials gathered at the National Shrine of Divine Mercy in Krakow, Poland to celebrate the 1,050 years of Christianity in their nation. Together, they implored Jesus to reign over Poland, over its people and political leaders as Sovereign Lord – Christ the King. The consecration was repeated in churches throughout Poland. The people united under the leadership of the Polish episcopate and statesmen raised their voices :

“Immortal King of Ages Lord Jesus Christ, we Poles stand before you to acknowledge your reign, surrender to your law, and entrust our homeland and the whole nation to you.”

“Humbly bowing our heads before you, King of the Universe, we acknowledge your dominion over the Polish nation, those living in the homeland and throughout the world. Wishing to worship the majesty of Thy power and glory, with great faith and love, we cry out: Rule us, Christ!”

In the presence of President Andrej Duda, Prime Minister, Beata Szydło, and other ranking state officials the bishops prayed:  “We entrust to you the Polish people and Polish leaders. Let them exercise their power fairly and in accordance with Your laws.”

“Rule us, Christ! Reign in our homeland and reign in every nation — for the greater glory of the Most Holy Trinity and the salvation of mankind”

(Coverage by Radio Poland)

The kingship of Christ is ontologically rooted in His incarnation and subsequent rule over humanity as their sole Divine Head. Jesus is Lord at His birth and sits on the Throne of David as announced by the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. 

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1: 32-33).

Moreover, two thousand years ago, it was announced to the Imperial City, the city of the “Roman Emperor”,  that Christ alone is Lord”

“For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Roman 14:11).

Devotion to Divine Mercy

The Divine Mercy Message and Devotion is based on revelations given by Jesus Christ to Saint Faustina Kowalska, a poor Polish nun to whom Jesus appeared prior to World War II. Sister Faustina recorded the revelations she received about the Mercy of God in a voluminous diary, which contains the Message of Divine Mercy (PDF) that God intends for all humanity, especially for those most steeped in sin. Thanks to the love and work of Saint Faustina, Devotion to the Divine Mercy has spread throughout the world.

(c) Knights of Columbus Supreme Council

Devotion to Divine Mercy has gained the highest approbation of the Catholic Church. It has been placed on the universal liturgical calendar of the Church as the Feast of Divine Mercy celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter, also the day on which Pope John Paul II, the “Pope of Mercy” breathed his last breath as the Vicar of Christ and “Apostle of Mercy.”

“I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming” (Diary, 1732).

Sanctuary of the National Shrine of Divine Mercy, Krakow Poland – Photo During Consecration

yyfyufy

The spark of fire that would come forth from Poland began with the pontificate of Saint John Paul II and is spreading around the globe. The world press is only now beginning to take notice of it. The liberal establishment is being shaken to its foundations as Poland is being joined by Hungary, Slovakia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Malaysia, France, Austria, Moldova, Bulgaria and Russia. A general global uprising of Euro-skeptic Christian political parties and social movements is rapidly gaining momentum throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. Increasing numbers are rising to challenge secular liberalism and reasserting their Christian or native patrimonies. 

Russia is being converted as promised at Fatima, but Poland has stepped forward igniting the flame of love promised by Jesus. From Poland is coming forth the spark of spiritual renewal, of life giving and cleansing mercy, that flows from the Heart of Christ the King.

Jesus told Saint Faustina that Poland would prepare the world for His final coming.

In recognizing Christ as their King, Poland has shown its gratitude. Consequently, she is beloved by God and blessed with a special mission.

“We who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude, with which we should offer worship pleasing to God in reverence and awe. 

Consistent with sacred scripture, the Lord associated the end times with the fire of Divine Love that will consume sin: 

For “God is love” (1 John 4:8) and “God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29).

The Era of Peace promised by the Virgin Mary at Fatima is dependent on the Mercy of God that flows from the Heart of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. He reconciles men to himself by breathing on them the Spirit of reconciliation and peace. 

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20: 21-23).

Breath is required to ignite a fire. The Breath of God is required to forgive sin and to ignite a Divine Fire, a fire of mercy and love that will prepare the world for the second coming of Christ as foretold to Faustina.

We are living in the “Hour of Mercy”, the time of Christ’s final coming, a time foreseen by St. Louis Marie de Montfort, a time, in his words, when

 “…great men filled with the Holy Spirit and imbued with the spirit of Mary” who will destroy sin and establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ.”

 

“They are the “great souls filled with . . . zeal” (True Devotion 48), “superior to all creatures by their great zeal” (True Devotion 54). The action of the “true apostles of the end times” (True Devotion 58) consists of spreading “the fire of divine love” everywhere; they are themselves “a flaming fire” (True Devotion 56). In the battle against evil and the enemies of God, these great saints “will become, in Mary’s powerful hands, like sharp arrows,” and they will leave “an odor of death” among the worldly (True Devotion 56). Their work will not be limited to reforming the Church, but will include extending it to “the idolators and Muslims” (True Devotion 59) (Quote from EWTN).

 

Pope Pius IX’s (1925) wrote “Quas Primas,” an encyclical in which he taught the moral, political and spiritual importance of recognizing Christ as King and the superiority of the Divine Law over all civil, statutory, and constitutional laws that became regent with the 18th century advent of liberalism. It was then that,

“The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected… There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences…Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.”

Pope Pius continues:

“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”

The Kingship of Christ is associated with the Era of Peace promised by the Queen Mother at Fatima and with the Hour of Mercy promised by Jesus to Saint Faustina. Above all, Christ’s reign is not a time of retribution but a time of compassion, healing and mercy for all:

“I sent prophets wielding thunderbolts to My people. Today I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My Merciful Heart.” (Diary, 1588).

The eminent prelates, statesmen, and dignitaries of Poland have recognized Christ as the King of their nation; they have shown their gratitude.

“We who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude”

Like the beloved Apostle John, Poland is being pressed to the Merciful Heart of the High Priest and King of Kings (John 13:23). Many other nations will follow. What will the United States do?

 

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.

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.