United Nations: A Threat To National Sovereignty?

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

On September 19, 2017, President of the United States Donald Trump held his first speech for the countries of the United Nations. In the speech, he made a clear position on the expected tasks of the United Nations: “This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars, to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision, that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.” He advocated that the United Nations should be used as a tool for cooperation, rather than as a supranational entity.

A common theme in the political debate today has been on the topic of Globalism and Nationalism. The United Nations and the European Union has been argued as prime examples of a growing “Globalism” in the world. Globalism can be defined as the centralization of worldwide power to a single entity, while Nationalism is state control of their local nations. This is the definitions in regards of state control, but they can also be defined in terms of identity. “Globalists” believe themselves to be citizens of the world, Nationalists, citizens of their respective countries. In this article, I will focus on power centralization as followed by the definitions in the former.

Should people be worried that the establishment of the United Nations could turn into worldwide centralization of power? Alex Jones of Infowars is known as the reporter who speaks most out about Globalism, and is by many outlets labeled a conspiracy theorist. The claims that an evil clique could have worldwide power in the 21st century is unthinkable for many today, but could the tyranny of the 20th century return to our time if we’re not careful? Let’s take a look at how the United Nations first got established, how their political system works today, and whether or not it could be misused for tyrants to get global power, the dream of every tyrant throughout history.

William J. Murray presents his case against the UN in Chapter 9 of his 2016 book Utopian Road to Hell. He quotes G. Edward Griffin to supposedly have revealed that “dozens of Americans in our government who were involved in creating the United Nations were actually secret Communist agents!” The Post-War Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45 is mentioned for listing the main founders of the UN. This document is mostly unavailable, and thus it is difficult to fact-check that the names mentioned are linked to the creation of the UN, so I will link other sources to look for connections. Mr. Murray claims that 16 out of 17 of the founders of the UN were connected to the Communist movement, all except of Dean Acheson, who was a far-left liberal.

Dean Acheson:
“Acheson supported the containment of communism”
“In the 1940s, Acheson also represented the United States in negotiations that led to the creation of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Monetary Fund.”
Solomon Adler:
Though it is clear he was an economist in the U.S. Treasury Department, their website has no info about him.
“Adler had been one of the subjects of a large-scale FBI investigation of pro-Soviet espionage activities in the United States for more than two years.”
“[T]he FBI had first heard allegations of Adler’s Communist party membership more than two years earlier.”
“United States Treasury Department representative in Chungking, China, was making information available to this Soviet espionage parallel for transmittal to the Soviet Union.”
“This admitted Soviet agent [Bentley] advised also that Adler was a member of the Communist Party, USA, and that party dues were collected from him by Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and turned over to this Soviet agent”
“He reportedly continued consulting the Chinese leadership in the period of China’s economic transition.”
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Virginus Frank Coe:
“Coe was accused by WHITTAKER CHAMBERS and ELIZABETH T. BENTLEY, admitted former Espionage Agent, as being a Communist in the mid-1930’s and in the early 1940’s, was a member of the Nathan Gregory Silvermaster Group engaged in Soviet Espionage in Washington, D.C.”
“[H]e was also Technical Secretary at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. In the fall of 1945, he became Secretary of the newly established, inter-agency National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems.”
Laurence Duggan:
«The NKVD, the Soviet intelligence service, had 221 agents operating in the United States. Within the upper ranks of the U.S. Government, these agents included Alger Hiss; Laurence Duggan, Chief of the Division of American Republics at the Department of State; Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to the President; and Duncan Chaplin Lee, personal assistant to General William Donovan, head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
“Duggan moved to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), where he became a deputy of the Assistant Secretary General.”
Noel Field:
“Field was an internationalist who was disappointed that the United States had not joined the League of Nations, a fact which resulted in America’s declining international responsibility.”
“He chose instead to leave the State Department for a job at the League of Nations.”
“Field had several years of service to the Communist cause behind him.”
“Field befriended another State Department official, Laurence Duggan, whom he later described as his ‘best and almost only friend.’”
Harold Glasser:
«Harold Glasser (1905 to 1992) was an economist employed by the US Department of Treasury and later worked for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. FBI investigation and subsequently identified Russian records identified Glasser as a spy.
Alger Hiss:
Connections to the NKVD proven under Laurence Duggan.
«Alger Hiss, a well-educated and well-connected former government lawyer and State Department official who helped create the United Nations in the aftermath of World War II, was headed to prison in Atlanta for lying to a federal grand jury.
Irving Kaplan:
No other source than Wikipedia states anything specific about Irving Kaplan.
“In 1945, former NKVD courier Elizabeth Bentley told investigators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Kaplan was “a dues-paying Communist Party member” who had formerly been associated with the Perlo group of Soviet spies, later moving to the Silvermaster group. She said she learned from Nathan Gregory Silvermaster that Kaplan was a source of Information in the War Production Board.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Victor Perlo:
“Victor Perlo, a Marxist economist, [had his] career damaged by accusations during the Red scare of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s that he spied for the Soviet Union in Washington during World War II.”
«The Perlo group of spies, which he headed, included a Senate staff director, and supplied the Soviet Union with United States aircraft production figures and shipments to various fronts.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Abraham George Silverman:
«Like many of his young American contemporaries, particularly among New Deal economists, he was also interested in the Soviet model of central planning and growth.»
«In 1946, Silverman had already been the subject of an FBI investigation of Soviet espionage in the United States.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster:
«A U.S. government economist whom Soviet intelligence documents identify as a leader of a Communist Party “informational group” from 1941 to 1945.»
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
William Taylor:
Not enough available information.
William L. Ullman:
«William Ludwig Ullmann (August 14, 1908 – February 3, 1993) was an American official accused of spying for the Soviet Union.»
«Ullmann was a United States delegate to the United Nations Charter meeting at San Francisco and to the Bretton Woods Conference as Harry Dexter White’s assistant.»
John Carter Vincent:
“John Carter Vincent has been identified as a member; Harry Dexter White as a member of an espionage ring; Owen Lattimore as a member of the Communist organization; Len DeCaux as a member of the Communist Party; Alger Hiss as a member of the Communist Party; Joseph Barnes as a member of the Communist Party; Frederick V. Field as a member of the Communist Party; and Frank Coe as a member of the Communist Party.”
“Over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of IPR pressure and influence in the State Department. … The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.”
“[H]e was consul at Shanghai, Embassy counselor in Chungking and member fot [sic] eh [sic] American delegation to the United Nations conference in San Fransisco [sic] in 1945.”
Henry Julian Wadleigh:
“… was named by Whittaker Chambers as one of a small group of people who ‘actually turned over information’ to him for Soviet intelligence.”
“He moved to the Department of Agriculture at the end of the war and then, in May 1946, to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA.)”
“Wadleigh had never been a member of the Communist Party, but in 1935 he volunteered ‘to collaborate with the Communist Party’ alarmed by ‘the failure of the Social Democrats in Germany to offer effective resistance against Hitler, the growing power of the Nazis in Germany [and] of the ruling group in Japan, and the Fascists in Italy.’”
David Weintraub:
No other source than Wikipedia states anything specific about David Weintraub.
«He joined the professional staff of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and United Nations Division of Economic Stability and Development.»
Harry Dexter White:
NKVD ties proven under Laurence Duggan.
Espionage proven under John Carter Vincent.

“He was arguably the most influential figure at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July 1944, where the Allied nations met to hammer out the shape of global economy after the Second World War.”
If we are to trust the premises presented above, what does this all amount to? Again, Mr. Murray claimed 17 people to be influential in creating the United Nations, and 16 of them to be Communists and/or Soviet spies, according to The Post-War Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45. The document is hardly available, so the results from the third-party sources I mentioned above is this: (1) All except William Taylor was public information about, (2) Of the people found information about, were all except David Weintraub found to be Communist and/or Soviet spies, (3) at least 11 of 16 of the people found information about, had links to the United Nations, and, (4) at least 6 of 11 of the people with links to the UN were very influential to its creation and/or development.
But what is the relevance of the ideological roots of the United Nations? And why are Mr. Murray and others taking such issue with it? In his book, he refers to the people he calls “Watermelons” as people who appear and claim to be environmentalists (green), but have a Marxist ideology on the inside (red). Said Murray, “The United Nations was designed by Communists from the beginning of its existence to be a tool used by the Soviets to create a one-world government, where every person on earth was to be enslaved by Marxist dictators.” As reasoning he mentioned the similarity between the Soviet Constitution and the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question, where his plan was “to confuse, disorganize, and neutralize the forces of capitalism around the world; bring all nations into a single economic system; force advanced nations to send millions in aid to underdeveloped countries; and divide the world into regional groups of nations that would eventually be brought into a one-world system.”

I’ve by this point more or less described some key members in the creation of the United Nations, but how is it today? Trump suggested it be a platform for cooperation, but is it, or can it today, be used in the way Stalin suggested? The best argument for a world-wide centralization of power today is global warming. If an organization like the UN could make everyone stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, what is then the problem? The problem is the means of which to stop it, and the power it gets to solve the problem.
The World Heritage Foundation is called a “land confiscation scheme” for claiming land to be under their “protection”. Here the Yellowstone National Park is mentioned, which was established a “buffer zone” around by UNESCO in 1995 to prevent the New World Mining Corporation to conduct a mining operation which would have brought an estimated $650 million in gold, three miles from the park. The Clinton Administration enforced the zone. UNESCO have 669 reserves in 120 countries today.

The International Criminal Court is supposedly the “primary tool used to undermine national sovereignty around the globe.” It would place countries under international law if signed. Former president Clinton signed its founding document, but George W. Bush later unsigned it. Murray noted the potential consequences of American citizens being subject to the ICC: “…we will have lost our national sovereignty to the United Nations—a collection of anti-American nations the majority of which are ruled by dictators and monarchs.” I will not here list all the cases of potential UN threats to national sovereignty, but I will mention the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Law of The Sea Treaty (now Law of The Sea Convention) would allow UN to control 71% of the earth’s surface, and 97% of the world’s water. This would allow them control over some crucial parts of coastal areas and they could potentially regulate them to the extent that would affect individual nations’ GDPs. Norway’s prosperity is in large part built on findings of oil in the ocean, and a third of the United States’ GDP originates in coastal areas. Murray also notes that it doesn’t just count for the oceans of the world, but also for “all the sources of water that flow into it.” In 2012, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the federal Environmental Protection Agency could forbid a couple from building on their own bought land under the Clean Waters Act for “the discharge of any pollutant by any person into navigable waters.” The same could happen worldwide for countries signed under the Law of The Sea Convention. According to a senate report on the document written in 2004, it could also regulate “navigation and overflight of the oceans.” Said Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), “LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague two-hundred-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would swap our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and ‘we the people’ for ‘you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.” Reagan rejected the document, and thus far the United States has not signed the treaty.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has supposedly been “exposed” by Donna Laframboise in her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, according to Murray. Murray lists her key findings:
• IPCC authors are frequently not reputable scientists at all, but graduate students.
• Sources cited in IPCC documents are frequently from radical green groups, not objective scientists.
• The IPCC is pursuing a leftist, globalist political agenda, not a scientific one.
• The “peer review” process used in determining what articles get published by the IPCC is a charade. Only radical green viewpoints get favorable treatment.
• The IPCC seeks out articles with predetermined conclusions to fit the IPCC agenda.
She allegedly used two years on the research. According to her, the IPCC is so hopeless that it can’t simply be reformed, it must be shut down.

I could go over more of the branches of the UN, but let’s now look at the goals they have. Their Sustainable Development Goals include 17 goals:
Sounds all well and good, right? But how are they planning to reach them?
• No poverty:
• Cost: “To end extreme poverty worldwide in 20 years, economist Jeffrey Sachs calculated that the total cost per year would be about $175 billion.”
• Policy makers: “Governments can help create an enabling environment to generate productive employment and job opportunities for the poor and the marginalized. They can formulate strategies and fiscal policies that stimulate pro-poor growth, and reduce poverty. [emphases added].
• Private sector: “It can promote economic opportunities for the poor, focusing on segments of the economy where most of the poor are active, namely on micro and small enterprises and those operating in the informal sector.”
It certainly doesn’t say much about where the money will come from, or how they will get used, just that the market should be more favorable to poor people, though they have lower competence because of lack of education, which I hope they will go over in Goal 4.
• Zero hunger:
• Cost: “We will need an estimated additional $267 billion per year on average to end world hunger by 2030.”
• Use of money: “There will need to be investments in rural and urban areas and in social protection, so poor people have access to food and can improve their livelihoods.”
• What can I do 1: “…[S]upporting local farmers or markets and making sustainable food choices, supporting good nutrition for all, and fighting food waste.”
• What can I do 2: “… [U]se your power as a consumer and voter, demanding businesses and governments make the choices and changes that will make Zero Hunger a reality.”
There is no mention of the source of money here either, but more details on how they could get used. I don’t see how the “What can I do” points would significantly help, since they have no “food distribution” plan presented for how the extra food would get used to “eradicate hunger.”
• Good Health and Well-Being:
• Cost 1: “[I]f we spent $1 billion in expanding immunization coverage against influenza, pneumonia and other preventable diseases, we could save 1 million children’s lives each year.”
• Cost 2: “Noncommunicable diseases alone will cost low- and middle-income countries more than $7 trillion in the next 15 years.”
• What can I do to help 1: “[P]romoting and protecting your own health and the health of those around you, by making well-informed choices, practicing safe sex and vaccinating your children.”
• What can I do to help 2: “[R]aise awareness in your community.”
• What can I do to help 3: “Take action through schools, clubs, teams and organizations to promote better health for all, especially for the most vulnerable such as women and children.”
• What can I do to help 4: “[H]old your government, local leaders and other decision-makers accountable to their commitments to improve people’s access to health and health care.»
No source of money mentioned in the first one, but the second one states “low- and middle-income countries” would have to pay $7 trillion for it in the next 15 years. I’m starting to get a feeling that the UN wants to act as a one-world government here, controlling a massive amount of the world economy. Let’s look back to two of the points in Stalin’s plan: (1) bring all nations into a single economic system, (2) force advanced nations to send millions in aid to underdeveloped countries. Sounds awfully familiar.
• Quality education :
• Here the UN actually doesn’t claim to require any money, it just advocates for people to ask and lobby their governments to place education as a priority. Though it advocates for “free primary schools”, which, whether you agree with it or not, is up to the stability of the economies of the individual nations on whether they can afford it. For instance, I doubt Venezuela or Zimbabwe at this point can afford free primary schools.
• Gender equality:
• Merely advocating empowering women.
• What Can We Do: “If you are a woman, you can address unconscious biases and implicit associations that can form an unintended and often an invisible barrier to equal opportunity. [emphases added]”
• What Can We Do 2: “You can fund education campaigns to curb cultural practices like female genital mutilation and change harmful laws that limit the rights of women and girls and prevent them from achieving their full potential.»
Note that it doesn’t state anything against male genital mutilation. This is clearly sided towards feminism rather than egalitarianism.
• Clean water and sanitation:
• Cost: “US$28.4 billion per year from 2015 to 2030, or 0.10 per cent of the global product of the 140 countries included.”
• Use of money: “[E]xtending basic water and sanitation services to the unserved”
• What Can We do: “[K]eep governments accountable,» «generating awareness» and «get involved in the World Water Day and World Toilet Day campaigns.»
Source of money still unknown.
• Affordable and clean energy
• Cost: “The world needs to triple its investment in sustainable energy infrastructure per year, from around $400 billion now to $1.25 trillion by 2030. [emphasis added]”
• What Can We Do, Countries: “… can accelerate the transition to an affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy system by investing in renewable energy resources, prioritizing energy efficient practices, and adopting clean energy technologies and infrastructure.”
• What Can We Do, Businesses: “… can maintain and protect ecosystems to be able to use and further develop hydropower sources of electricity and bioenergy, and commit to sourcing 100% of operational electricity needs from renewable sources.”
It sounds suspicious that “the world” would need to triple its investment in sustainable energy, as if it were a single entity rather than many nation states, and it would be up for interpretation whether this “investment” would be used by the individual governments for said uses, or sent to the UN to let them take care of it. In the “what can we do” section however, it merely proposes advocacy for individual states to do their part in reducing emissions.
• Decent work and economic growth:
• Decent Work: “… opportunities for everyone to get work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration. [emphases added]”
• “[I]nvesting in education and training of the highest possible quality, providing youth with skills that match labour market demands”
• Advocates governments and local authorities to work on it, but doesn’t provide any budget for themselves to do anything about it.
UN advocates for everyone getting a “fair income”, but what is a fair income? Democrats and Socialists like presidential nominee Bernie Sanders for instance have been advocating for a $15 minimum wage for a long time, which would prevent employers from hiring people for labor worth less than that wage, which would only provide less jobs and/or force employers to reduce employee work hours and/or turn up the prices of the products.
• Industry, innovation and infrastructure:
• Cost: “The price is steep.”
• How can we help: “Establish standards and promote regulations that ensure company projects are sustainably managed”, “collaborate with NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations)”, and “use social media to push policymakers to prioritize the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).”
“Sustainably managed” is not given further elaboration for regulation on company projects.
• Reduced inequalities:
• What can we do: “We can ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of income if we eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices.”
• What can we do 2: “Governments and other stakeholders can also promote safe, regular and responsible migration, including through planned and well-managed policies”
If by “we”, they mean the bureaucrats in the UN, it is up to them to determine which laws, policies and practices are “discriminatory” and they can eliminate. They can also decide what “responsible migration” and “planned and well-managed policies” mean.
• Sustainable cities and communities:
• Cost: “The cost is minimal in comparison with the benefits.”
• The rest is merely advocacy for caring about your city.
• Responsible consumption and production:
• Claiming that businesses “needs to address” the 1.3 billion tonnes of food “ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retainers.”
• Advocating individuals to reduce their waste and to choose sustainable options.61
All fair and well. For the Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste, click here.62
• Climate Action:
• Cost: “The way to think about it is not in terms of how expensive it will be, but how much it will cost if we don’t take action.” “In total, public and private sector investment in clean energy needs to reach at least US$1 trillion per year by 2030, and more to build climate resilience.” “Investments of only $6 billion for disaster risk reduction over the next 15 years would result in total benefits of $360 billion in terms of avoided losses over the lifetime of the investment.”
As I argued earlier, Climate Change, whether the reports are true or not, is the best argument today for a one-world government. Donald Trump signed the US out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year, for the sake of it supposedly being unfair for the U.S. taxpayers. He stated that he wanted to negotiate “a better deal for the United States”, but leaders of France, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement saying the climate accord was “irreversible.” For a proposed plan to transition to clean energy worldwide, click here.
• Life below water:
• Cost: “[T]o sustain the global ocean [sic] require a US$32 billion one-time public cost and US$21 billion dollars a year for recurring costs.»
• What Can We Do: “[S]ustainability can be achieved only through increased international cooperation to protect vulnerable habitats.”
As long as it is cooperation it won’t be a threat to national sovereignty, if UN law could regulate the choices of individual nation states on this issue (for instance through LOST) however, that would be a significant one.
• Life on land:
• Cost: “[A]chieving sustainable forest management on a global scale would cost US$70-$160 billion per year.” “US$150-$440 billion per year is required to halt the loss of biodiversity at a global level by the middle of this century.”
• What can we do: “Well-managed protected areas support healthy ecosystems, which in turn keep people healthy.” (See: UNESCO Biosphere zones)
• Peace, justice and strong institutions:
• Merely advocates awareness to government policies, upholding checks and balances, etc.
• Partnership for the goals:
• Advocates governments and individuals to work on the goals presented in the other goals.

As other philosophies, the goals of the United Nations could give the individual good suggestions for self-improvements to help themselves, their communities, and their environment, while the philosophy may not work as well on the governmental level. This is presented throughout history with people like Lycurgus, Maximilien de Robespierre, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc. They all had a vision of the perfect world, without misery, and with total equality, but what they ended up with was an increase of exactly what they sought to eradicate. The UN have good potentialities as a platform for cooperation among nations, and Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved that the United Nations has yet to have supranational powers and that nations themselves can choose to go in and opt out of agreements as they see fit. Before the nations of the UN, he said, “As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests, above all else. But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek the future, where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.” He said that he will “put America first” and to other leaders, “you should put your countries first.” He stated that “the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition”, and in accordance with the Founding Fathers, they would likely have concurred, as they advocated for local power, hence why they implemented the electoral system. The UN can either be used as a great platform for cooperation among nations, or it can be used as a one-world government in the way Stalin proposed. From what I have presented in this article, there are in fact reasons to fear that the UN could be a threat to national sovereignty, especially from branches of the UN yet to be ratified like LOST, ICC, but also established ones like UNESCO. They have potentialities to be used as supranational entities. For reaching the goals the UN suggested in their Sustainable Development Goals, cooperation among the nations might work fantastically to solve these, but an important question is to what degree it could potentially be enforced if some nations would refuse.

• William J. Murray, Utopian Road to Hell, p. 178-9

Trump Was Right! Was Spied On By Obama Administration

Paul Manafort, former chairman of Donald Trump’s campaign, has been ordered to secretly wear a wire before and after the election in order to spy on Trump when he was only a candidate and when he was President-elect.

Earlier this year in March, Trump had stated that he had been spied on by the Obama administration but he had only certain witnesses as reliable evidence for this. The media and even ex-president Barack Obama quickly responded to Trump’s allegations saying that they were false.

What the Obama administration has done is illegal and an extreme breach of privacy. Former advisor, Steve Bannon, had said that by the end of President Trump’s four year term that a lot of Obama’s staff (and perhaps Obama himself) would be behind bars due to all of their crimes and unconstitutional decisions. The part that would seal the deal is that Obama has consciencely lied about wiretapping Trump, which tells us that Obama had clear intentions and that he knew the law is against him.

CNN was in fact morally forced into giving out a truthful article confirming that President Trump had indeed been spied on, as they have released articles in the past saying that Trump is 100% wrong and must be forced to apologise to the Obama administration. Other public figures have told Trump to apologise too, namely: Woopy Goldburg, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, GOP senator Jeff Flake and many more… It seems that those above now owe President Trump an apology for their false accusations; Trump was telling the truth all along.


Well known upstanding outlets, organisations and public figures are now backing Trump. Julian Assange has in fact said that there had been a warrent issued in order for the CIA to investigate Trump.

Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 18.59.23

CNN has recently released an article trying to take back what they said this morning. They tried to reason by talking about President Trump’s whereabouts at the time of his original tweet. You can read on from this article here: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/trump-wiretapping-manafort/index.html

Trump Calls Kim Jong Un ‘Rocket Man’ And Hits Hillary Clinton With A Golf Ball

Last week has been a very eventful week for President Donald Trump as he has donned the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, ‘Rocket Man’ and retweeted a GIF of him hitting Hillary Clinton with a golf ball.

President Trump sparked outrage over his latest retweet concerning the former secretary of state and war criminal, most of which came from the mainstream media. CNN has called this move ‘unpresidential’ and quickly turned the story into an anti-Trump rant. The GIF shows President Trump teeing off and the golf ball hitting Clinton, making her fall over as a result. President Trump had also released a thread of retweets on his twitter, one involves him pulling a load of offshore companies towards the US on a raft (him bringing the jobs back) and an all red electoral college map saying ‘Keep it up libs this will be 2020’. The majority of his supporters loved the GIF as it represents the classic Donald Trump that they love, victorious and populist.

Many celebrities have insulted Trump over his retweet, however many people came to Trump’s defence…

Screen Shot 2017-09-18 at 16.24

Regarding calling Kim Jong Un ‘Rocket Man’, this is considerably more dangerous than rubbing Hillary Clinton’s devastating loss in her face. Although Rocket Man is a very memorable nickname, like ‘Crooked Hillary’, there can be serious consequences for escalating the situation between North Korea and the US.

“I spoke to President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines are forming in North Korea. Too bad!” Tweeted President Trump on Sunday. The nickname was likely inspired from an Elton John hit called ‘Rocket Man’ and also inspired by the fact that North Korea is constantly testing their ballistic missiles and doing countless nuclear tests. This name is indeed a catchy name for Kim Jong Un, but the name is a dangerous one. Although it is all fun and games when it comes to Trump giving his enemies clever nicknames, this will undoubtedly increase tensions between the US and North Korea. Kim Jong Un has a God complex in North Korea, many believe that him and his family are holy and that the world started when one of Kim’s ancestors were born.

London Underground Bombing

A bucket bomb was set off on the London Underground in Parsons Green on Friday, leaving 22 injured – many were children. Thankfully nobody was killed.

The bomb was set off on a train carriage and the train driver reported that he could see smoke. People ran out in terror as fast as they could, many people were injured on the way out – including a pregnant woman who was crushed in the stampede. The terrorist that set this bomb off is still on the run, he has only just been identified. The metropolitan police have been informed that he is a young Muslim man around the age of 18 who was an Iranian refugee.

London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, told the people of London ‘not to panic’ and that ‘London is one of the safest places in the world’. Khan is also famous for saying that ‘terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city’ – even though Tokyo (being one of the biggest cities in the world) has had hardly any terror attacks when compared to European cities. President Trump responded by calling the terrorist a ‘loser’ and extended his sympathy. However, UK Prime Minister, Theresa May said that Trump’s comments ‘are not helping’.

Other media outlets suggested ‘keeping an open mind’ when referring to the terrorist, even though eye witnesses said that he was an Islamic terrorist. Many outlets will call the suspect ‘asian’ for the sake of political correctness and not mentioning the word ‘Islam’. This has been put in place so that modern Unorthodox Muslims would not get offended.


The Truth About The ‘Anti-Facist’ Movement

Following the very recent incidents of left-wing activist groups counterprotesting in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington, we could all know about one thing certain: the counterprotests groups that are aiming for fighting against hate, is sure not doing it properly. The “antifascist” groups responded to peaceful protesters, and then local police, by attacking them with batons, homemade shields, smoke bombs, and throwing random objects at them. Is this how to even make progress to end so-called “fascism”?

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president by 306 electoral votes, although a popular vote lower than Hillary Clinton by 2,868,691 votes, outrage, protests and riots, had started to spark within most major cities throughout the entire nation. Protesters wielded signs, shouted, and all called together to unite against the president-elect, while claiming that fascism has arrived into America, as well as comparing the president-elect with the well-known totalitarian German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and comparing his supporters and voters, “Nazis”.

However, a large fraction of voters did not vote for the Republican businessman because they wished for political injustice, or to restore systematic ethnocentrism, but, they were unhappy with illegal immigration, they were unhappy with insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they were unhappy with the large-scale of wars and troops sent to fight in them that have started since George W. Bush entered power, and then Barack Obama took control of. These supporters wanted a different choice other than the former Secretary of State Clinton, because they no longer trusted their government members, and believed a new person who may not be experienced, would represent their ideas better.

However, many anti-Trump activists criticize Trump for his politically incorrect statements about Mexican people during the beginning of his campaign. “They’re bringing drugs; they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people,” he notably said.
They also accuse him for his misogynistic words, most notably, the “Grab them by the …” line, which he said in a 2005 conversation with the then-host of “Access Hollywood”, Billy Bush, in which he also spoke other typical men’s locker-room talk, while not knowing that he was being recorded.
Many people claim due to words like these that he said, as well as his ridiculing of Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly, during an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, indirectly referring to her being on her period during the recent Republican debate. “You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes; uhh, blood coming out of her.. whatever.”
With these, many Democrat supporters across the country, label Trump as a misogynist, using these pieces of evidence, as well as some other minor examples, and they get angry with women who have supported Trump, as well as immigrants of Latino and Islamic countries who have supported him, rather than the so-called politically correct Hillary Clinton.

With this, division rose within the country, with many claiming that the 2016 election was the most divisive election in U.S. history.

Trump was elected, and, on inauguration day, more protests happened, this time in the national capital, the District of Columbia, with police being involved, using batons and tear gas, and then Antifascist Action (Antifa), responded by smashing windows of local businesses. This led to injuries, vandalism, and arrests, between both sides, and the innocent business owners who had their buildings used as a war zone without their permission.

What was wrong here? If Antifa was meant to fight fascism, why would they be targeting non-political civilians and civilian property?
There were many other incidents that happened in Free Speech rallies across the country, aiming for the innocent non-aggressive people. One such moment, was an elderly woman in boston, being pulled and pushed into the ground, just for carrying an American flag.

This, however, is not so-called self-defence against “fascism” and “White supremacy”. Fascism by definition is authoritarian nationalism, forced control of industry and commerce, and most importantly, forced suppression of speech that is against their beliefs.
These aspects were all part of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and now the “Antifascist” group today labels the Republican Donald Trump as seeking these traits, and labels their supporters as wishing to objectify women, and to put anyone who is not of European descent, into concentration and death camps. Trump’s America is not “textbook fascism”.
The actions of Antifa are actually more comparable to the “fascism” that they’re aiming against.

But rather than talking about the group like they’re a bunch of people who are evil, and need to face disciplinary action, because advocating further hatred is actually not the best option to go in a society like this, we need to give constructive criticism about this group.

Numerous claims of racism still existing in the United States, are actually true. However, governmental racism has been long over for decades. The only racism that exists are by civilians, and police officers, many of which are punished after being caught with racism, and not following correct procedure.
White supremacist groups indeed exist, and have wide support, although lower than many decades ago. The most well-known of these is the Ku Klux Klan. They aim for the superiority of Whites, against minority groups, and while being motivated by certain religious scripture that advocates such actions they find necessary.
This group, is the real definition of White supremacy. If Antifa really is a group that is against racism and hatred, then what they should do, is gather up like they do now, but in a private area first, search for the nearest Ku Klux Klan meeting, preferably in more remote rural areas—since they’re more active there and that’s where they perform their cross-burning ritual—and then take offensive measures against them there—away from non-combatant civilians, and while making sure the correct enemy is in the line of sight.
This, would make the group a much more meritable group, and would make people like even me, support them.

Fighting people on the street and vandalizing their belongings just because they voted for one political candidate that you wish to believe is Adolf Hitler, is not the way to go, Antifa. Those people voted through a peaceful election, and were influenced by being isolated and shunned by groups like you that think that dividing yourself among others is the way to prevent “fascism”.

On final note, both left and right-wing sides have violent hate groups, and both sides generalize each other as these violent groups. The left and right has a lot of very moderate, enlightened individuals who are aware of the world around them, and just seek different opinions on issues in which they were not propagandized to believe. In order to prevent national division and hatred, we must avoid political violence, unless an absolute emergency against someone who directly poses a direct threat. Politics should be about getting reliable information, and respecting each other, even if one doesn’t agree with the other’s views. Remember this, and follow this, as this is the real way to oppose authoritarianism and oppression of opposition.

Introducing The iPhone X And Yes It’s Disappointing

Varied reviews on Facebook about this new phone that Apple has made. The most common review was something like “It’s a lot of money and it’s not that good, oh well I’ll buy it anyway LOL!” I know what you are thinking, another opinion article done by a preppy British guy who knows nothing about phones. However I will explain my thesis and make any good points about anything I like about the new iPhone.

  1. The name is bad. One of the most exciting trademarks that the brand of Apple has is how they name their products. We had the first iPhone and then the iPhone 2 and then the iPhone 3 and so on. Of course we had exceptions like the iPhone 5s and the iPhone 3G, however these were essentially an extended life-cycle product of the iPhone 5 and the iPhone 3. This meant that they carried almost the same design and functions but with certain updated features. However this phone skipped 2 numbers and went straight to 10, or X as they want to sound more revolutionary. This is because Apple wants to sound more like Microsoft, like how they wanted to update Windows 8 to Windows 10 (skipping the 9). I feel like this latest move has ruined Apple’s integrity as a business model and has ruined their brand as a whole.
  2. It costs almost $1,000. This almost as expensive as an apple computer. It seems at this point that Apple is getting greedier and greedier knowing that a large loyal market will buy their products even if they triple that price.
  3. It’s too big. Whenever Apple comes out with a new product, it always thinks it has to be bigger than the last one, that and thinner too. For all we may know, in 10 or 20 years we may all be walking around with touch screens that look like A4 paper. The iPhone 6 is the biggest a phone should get as it can still fit into a pocket, the reason I don’t have one is because the material the phone is made out of allows it to bend.
  4. It has a face scanning feature. To most people, this is in fact a good feature. However I really don’t like it. I’d hate to think that my facial structure is on a database of some kind. It’s not even needed. Nowadays you can use your fingerprint to get onto your phone, you do not need this feature.
  5. The home button is gone. In order to access the home menu, you will now need to swipe upwards. Again, Apple is truly disposing of its integrity by doing this as having the button was a trademark.
  6. Still no headphone jack. Many have told me to grow up when talking about the removal of the jack, however all the other phones have decided to keep it. What Apple tried to do is make a revolutionary step by introducing wireless headphones and forcing you to buy a £125 external jack that plugs into the iPhone charger outlet in order for someone to use their headphones. This would only work if Samsung and Android did the same thing.
  7. It didn’t work in the premier of the phone. The CEO of Apple tried to make the facial recognition feature work but he couldn’t do it. This is surprisingly one of the things I like about the new phone, there is a chance that this creepy and unnecessary feature wont work.
  8. They kept the trademark aesthetics. Apple decided to keep the layout of the buttons on the sides of the phone, which is good. A lot of the stuff I like about this phone is not physically on the phone. I like how they haven’t ruined certain features just by deciding not to change them, I like how the side buttons on the phone aren’t ruined for example.

In conclusion, don’t bother wasting your hard-earned money on something that only really costs $60 to make in the first place. The price of the iPhone 6 is going to drop so go buy that instead, it practically does the same stuff and you have a headphone jack! funny15

I would rather buy this than the iPhone X.

What If Hillary Clinton Won The Presidency?

So if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, instead of Donald Trump, where would we be right now?

Would Obamacare be fully implemented? There would be bills passed and possibly executive orders signed in order to continue the single taxpayer healthcare. Clinton had also said that she would force taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgeries and she would also make it possible to kill a 9 month old unborn baby, let alone continue abortions.

Also the US would probably be at war. Clinton had said in her 2008 campaign that she wants to invade Iran. Iran has nuclear weapons and Hillary Clinton receives money offshore from many of Iran’s enemies to this day, an invasion of Iran would’ve still been possible if Clinton were elected. Last year, Clinton said she wanted to place a ‘no fly zone’ over Syria. The Pentagon administration team had announced that a ‘no fly zone’ over Syria would require the US to go to war against Syria and Russia, Clinton’s plans with Syria still remained unaltered. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, also stated that if Hillary Clinton were elected President of the United States that he would gladly go to war with her. If Clinton had won, there would be a terrifying possibility that we would all no longer be alive due to a nuclear holocaust between the said countries.

Also it is possible that due to the stress of being the leader and representative of an entire nation that Clinton’s health would continue to decline dramatically. Hillary Clinton’s doctor claimed that she has pneumonia, which may explain the coughing. This does not explain the seizures, the strange behaviour, the passing out in public, falling over things, taking days off, being unable to stand for long periods of time and constant toilet breaks in her primary debates. It is rumoured that Hillary Clinton had a brain tumour in 2011, which required brain surgery to remove it but the surgery resulted in a loss of brain tissue resulting in seizures. There are sources to confirm this but no hard evidence, however this would explain why Clinton behaves the way she does. If she had won, would the long demanding hours of the presidency make her extremely ill?

The interesting part of Clinton’s campaign is that she offered barely any change. Her campaign was only based on a few things: continuing Obama’s legacy, calling Trump a racist/sexist/nazi (etc…) and saying that she should win because she is a woman. Her most popular slogans are ‘I’m With Her’ and ‘Love Trumps Hate’, which carry little to no actual message in her campaign over how she would change America for the better. Comparing to Trump’s slogans, that are ‘Make America Great Again’ and ‘The Forgotten Will No Longer Be Forgotten’, it actually shows that Trump wanted to make a change which is probably the main reason why Hillary Clinton lost.

Another question people ask is where Donald Trump would be if the election did not come out in his favour. Some say that he would stay in politics. This is untrue. Trump has stated many times that if he had lost in the primaries or the election that he would just ‘quietly slip away’. It is unlikely that someone with the personality of Donald Trump to go into retirement, Trump would likely go back to Trump Towers and continue business as usual. The only difference being that he would have potentially billions of fans worldwide and around 60-70 million fans inside the US, making his brand extremely famous. This might have resulted in Trump being a billionaire ten times over.

Hillary Clinton has stated she has no intention of running as a candidate for 2020, for better or worse. Some want her to run again because they know that Donald Trump can easily beat her again and others want her to run again because they think she’s a good politician.



Everyone Wants To Trade With The UK

There are plenty of countries who want to strike a free trade deal with the UK, Iceland’s foreign minister has claimed.

Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, who has already cautioned European leaders about punishing Britain with a bad trade deal, called for a quick resolution to trade talks between the EU and the UK.

Quoting on what he said on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme: “You’re the fifth largest economy in the world. Everyone wants to sell you goods and services. It’s just as simple as that.”

Mr Thordarsan believes Britain should rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which is composed of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.  EFTA members are not members of the EU but have access to the single market in return for making payments to Brussels. Obviously this means that the UK does not have to even do ANY trade with the EU as it can receive practically all previously imported goods through EFTA.

The BBC released an article recently where it discredits BREXIT and claims that BREXIT will cause a shortage of food. They say that, due to the inspections at the border, the UK is running out of food. This is simply not true. The BBC has not even taken consideration of any free market trade deals or of Britain gaining back control over their waters. The EU struck a deal that would effectively leave the British Channel empty, if the wrong fish is caught then they leave it to die or the same issue if the fishermen over fish. Over time, Britain will prosper from leaving the EU as more free market deals are introduced. The free market offers a possible £52 trillion a year for Britain’s economy.

Prime Minister, Theresa May, discussed with President Donald Trump over how trade tariffs between the US and the UK can be lowered or even dropped. This potentially means that if you live in the UK then you may be seeing more American made products in your local retailing stores, and vice versa if you live in the States. This is all thanks to leaving the single market.


What To Remember On September The 11th

This is not going to be an article dedicated to any conspiracy, no matter how believable or how much evidence the conspiracy has. This article is about one of America’s largest national tragedies in the last century.

Today is a day to remember not only those who lost their lives on September the 11th but the first responders that came and extended their help to those who needed it most. Many lives were saved that day, although even one death is a death too many. On this day, extend our gratitude to those who put their own lives at risk to save others. Many first responders also died when trying to retrieve those stuck in the rubble. People helped each other regardless of ethnicity, background or political preference, a lot like how America came together in the Houston flooding.

Around 3000 people died when the planes hit the World Trade Centre, this includes the passengers that boarded the commercial aircrafts that day.

A few celebrities were caught up in 9/11 too. The creator of the adult cartoon show ‘Family Guy’, Seth MacFarlane, was actually due to board the plane that was heading towards one of the Twin Towers. Due to a hangover, MacFarlane missed his flight which ultimately saved his life. “It’s one of those things you put to the back of your head” Said MacFarlane. He also said that an experience like this could ‘eat you up if you let it’. Another person to claim to be affected by 9/11 is Chelsea Clinton. Hillary Clinton claimed that her daughter was jogging around the Twin Towers when the first plane hit, however there is no evidence to support her claim.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was in fact an attorney for Zaharias Moussaoui and many other islamic extremists that was heavily tied with 9/11. Sadiq Khan fought for them to be set free. He also said that all of his captive clients should be released immediately without an investigation so they could, quote, ‘go back to their families straight away’.

Most importantly, we should remember the families of those who were killed that day. Some families are now without Mothers and some are now without fathers. Some families have even lost children that day. These families are constantly reminded of the empty seats that were once filled and a place in that family that is now gone. God bless America and God bless those who are still trying to mend the wounds.

“Sending A GIF With A Black Person In It: DIGITAL BLACKFACE!” Says BBC

The BBC posted a video on their Facebook where it says that you can now commit blackface by posting a GIF with a black person in it. The video from the PC obsessed BBC did not imply that a GIF of a white person posted by a black person is racist, the BBC obviously doesn’t believe that reverse racism is a thing. The definition of racism is when someone discriminates against someone else because of their ethnic background, therefore what the BBC is doing (by saying black people can send GIFs with white people in them but vice versa is not allowed) is being racist. Below is the official dictionary definition of racism.


There were over 26,000 reactions to this video to this very day and most of them are the laugh react.

Is the BBC deliberately trying to push an agenda to devide people over political correctness or could it be just a right wing conspiracy? And if it is then is the reality of this just the BBC not knowing how to run the biggest news company in Britain? It is amazing how many people still rely on the BBC for their daily news.

An estimated 50% of Britain believes that the mainstream media is trustworthy, this is one of the reasons why the UK is in trouble. Half of the UK’s residents are dependant on the media, the questions to be asked is why are they so dependant on it and why dont they question it? You will not find the answer easily by Google. Google are mass censoring websites, like this one, that bring up relevant points and focus on the truth.

Nobody Cares About What Celebrities Think Anymore

In the 20th century, in order to be a celebrity you had to be talented. Entertainment then is different to what entertainment is now. Celebrities like Carmen Miranda and Laurel and Hardy were there for our amusement, now we have Katy Perry telling us how to vote and we have Kim Kardashian, a woman who is famous for porn and acting like a first class idiot for money. Wouldn’t it be nice to see something original?

Not only do people take a strong disliking to celebrities but they don’t care about them. Why should a working class citizen care what a multi-millionaire artist has to say when they only sing about lollipops, drugs, unhealthy relationships or whatever it might be. These people are so disconnected from the public that they live in a massive gated mansions with security guards protecting them in their all white neighbourhood whilst vertue signaling about how everyone need to take in more refugees (when they take in none themselves despite their 20 bedroom mansions). Surely a working class citizen should have a working class average joe representing their opinions and best interests; who actually has knowledge about politics.

A lot of artists, like Rihanna and Nicki Minaj, are very hyper-sexualised (watch S&M by Rihanna or Anaconda by Nicki Minaj and you’ll see what I mean). This can create anxiety and even depression in young girls, thinking that they have to look just like them in order to be deemed attractive. It also shows them that all women have to be as skinny as possible and wear lots of make-up in order to fit in, this gives young women poor self images on how they view their own bodies. Obviously there is nothing wrong with being a little chubby (as long as it’s not life threatening obesity) as everyone is a little chubby, however many in the industry will have young women thing that it is wrong.

The Daily Mail reports a lot on celebrities and their lifestyle choices and what dress they decide to wear for the evening, passing it off as news. It’s not news. The North Korea crisis is news and so are the natural disasters happening in the southern states in the US.

Also people getting absolutely devastated if something bad happens to celebrities. Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie’s break-up was very sad but it should not have a massive effect on some people like it does. At this point, to some people, celebrities have become Gods who dictate over how people live their lives. A lot of people get their news from celebrities, rather than trying to actively seek the truth. This can lead to them becoming heavily misinformed.

I’m not suggesting that these people’s musical tastes are wrong or distasteful, I’m simply stating these people should not idolize celebrities. A good person to idolize is someone you can heavily relate to and know that you are truly acknowledged by this person, like your Father, Mother or Grandparent. The truth is that most of the celebrities you follow don’t even care about you anyway. Some people, like Donald Trump and Ron Paul, might care about your wellbeing; however this doesn’t mean you should put people like Donald Trump on that pedestal of admiration. That pedestal is for a family member or a close friend.

So what is the answer to this? Is it banning this sort of stuff from TV? No it’s not. Nothing will ever be achieved by ‘banning all the things’. People should be informed, especially young girls, that the image that most female artists portray isnt normal and that you are not supposed to idolize them. You have every right to enjoy the music of people like Rihanna, but also be aware of the reality that Rihanna lives in a completely different world to the average joe and she does not represent you in the slightest.

The Truth Behind DACA

For those who don’t know, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Many call these people ‘dreamers’ as many of them dream of living a life in America. However, a dreamer is an illegal immigrant and many argue that it is immoral to deport a child as they don’t pose any major threat to the United States and should be allowed to stay. Many counter this argument by saying “If a thief stole your car and gave it to their son then does he have the right to keep it?” Illegal immigration is against the law, just like stealing a car, and if people want to come into the United States then they must come in legally – just like how people must buy/rent their own cars like the law instructs.

DACA was originally passed as an executive order under the Obama Administration in June 2012, 5 years ago. This move is unconstitutional and illegal because a programme like DACA must have been passed through congress for it to be applied as an official law, Obama skipped this part. If DACA would have been left alone at the time and if Obama would have been left out of the equation then congress would have stopped DACA from existing. President Trump has stopped Obama’s illegal action and has left it up to congress if they wish to keep DACA or dispose of it. Strictly speaking, President Trump has not abolished DACA but has left the decision to congress.

In order to make President Trump look like a racist minority hater, CNN has stated that he wishes to deport immigrant children (they left the word ‘illegal’ out to make him look bad). Outlets, like Atlantic, claim Trump’s move was ‘senseless’ and said that he repealed DACA – unlike what happened in real life when he sent it to congress where they will most likely repeal it within their own decision.

With the current Google censorship on all websites that are not within their monopoly, it is very hard to get the truth out so do share this article with your friends and family. Like us on Facebook and leave anything we may have missed out in the comments.


Is Jacob Rees-Mogg Predicted To Be Britain’s Next PM?

MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has the face value of a typical back-bench politician, but what does he bring to the table? Rees-Mogg is best described as very elegant and an obvious member of high society, fits in perfectly with the stereotype of the Conservative Party. Rees-Mogg is very religious and is a strong follower of the Catholic faith. However, there is more to Rees-Mogg that reaches the eye…

According to the popular British show Good Morning, Rees-Mogg does not want to run as Prime Minister but is still considering a possible run as he is gaining plenty of support (despite his unpopular opinions). Rees-Mogg is strongly opposed to same sex marriage, contraception and abortion – however he would allow the church to dictate whether same sex marriage should occur instead of passing a law himself. He has strongly endorsed Boris Johnson for Prime Minister, then Michael Gove and then every single candidate but Theresa May. Although Rees-Mogg says he likes Theresa May, he has not officially endorsed her. This might be because Rees-Mogg voted leave on Brexit, when Theresa May voted remain.

On Wednesday Morning, on This Morning, Jacob Rees-Moss was debated by Piers Morgan  over controversial social issues. Rees-Moss made it clear that he would not support abortion under any circumstance, even if the woman was raped or was in a critical condition. Piers Morgan was quick to challenge him on this but Rees-Mogg used the politicians filter and repeated the same statement over and over; “Life is sacrosanct and begins at the moment of conception”.

What would Rees-Mogg actually do as Prime Minister? Despite the controversial statements, Rees-Mogg would confront the European Union for a quicker negotiation when it comes to Brexit. Nigel Farage once said that no deal with the EU would be better than the current deal, Rees-Mogg agrees with him. Rees-Mogg has openly said in 2013 that Nigel Farage should be the deputy PM, instead of Nick Clegg. This infuriated the Conservative party as a Conservative should not endorse anyone outside their own party. Could this suggest Rees-Mogg is considerably in the wrong party? If Rees-Mogg were to be elected, would the special relations between the UK and the US strengthen? Rees-Mogg has been rumoured to having supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election, however Rees-Mogg stated his disgust for Trump when his private conversation with Billy Bush was leaked in October last year. Not long after Trump won, he made a statement saying that Trump was very passionate about the UK and that he loved Britain.

Although a run may not be likely, for better or worse, Rees-Mogg has been voted ‘favourite to win’ on a poll conducted by ConservativeHome regarding the next Conservative leader. Rees-Mogg gained 23% of the votes, earning the popular vote.