by Jay Lorenz
Last Wednesday, President Donald Trump retweeted three videos of Muslims performing violent or anti-Christian acts. One shows a Middle Eastern man beating a handicapped Dutch man, one a Muslim smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary, and the last a mob throwing people off of a rooftop in the Middle East.
The content of the tweets and their source, Jayda Fransen the Deputy Leader of Britain First, have been denounced by many in America and Britain. Fransen was arrested earlier this month while giving a speech in Belfast. She has been charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,” and has been convicted for hate speech in the past. A CNN headline correctly referred to her as a “convicted racist.”
Those attacking Trump for the tweets are more concerned with the exposure of the heinous crimes of Muslims and the exposure for Britain First than the crimes themselves. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted, “I hope our Government will condemn far-right retweets by Donald Trump. They are abhorrent, dangerous and a threat to our society.” A spokesperson for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was “wrong for the president to have done this.” Notice that Corbyn and May refer to Trump’s retweets about the issue as the problem, not the actual hordes of Middle Eastern and African invaders pouring into the West.
In America, anti-Whites and cucks came out of the woodwork to bash Trump for exposing Muslim crime. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Trump’s retweets “bizarre and disturbing.” Congressional cuck Jeff Flake called the tweets “highly inappropriate” and “not helpful,” while Lindsey Graham whined that “We don’t want to take a fringe group and elevate their content.”
The most deranged response of all came from Texas Rep. Al Green, who, on the House floor, accused the president of inciting racial hatred and proclaimed that, “Impeachment will be voted on before Christmas.”
Trump has been unphased by the storm. Later in the day, he fired back at Theresa May on Twitter, tweeting, “Theresa @theresamay, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!” Here, Trump points out that the focus should be on the actual acts of Muslims, not his tweets. At this point, “Radical Islamic Terrorism” has become a euphemism for all of the fallout from mass Muslim immigration to the West. The total of all non-terrorist crime and other detrimental impacts from mass Muslim migration is far worse than the effects of terrorism.
For his small action in defense of Western Civilization, many in Britain want to ban President Trump from the country. The Islamist Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, lashed out at Trump for criticizing his people, adding that it is “clear that any official visit from President Trump to Britain would not be welcomed.” Other British politicians went even further than the Muslim extremist. Labour MP Ian Murray accused Trump of committing a crime:
Others echoed him. Labour MP Paul Flynn said, “If he’s allowed to come to this country now, he should be treated as anyone else who breaks the law and charged with inciting racial hatred.” Labour MP Chris Bryant said, “The Prime Minister, while she was Home Secretary, said homophobes and racists will be arrested in this country. That’s what should happen now.” These men are literally suggesting the British government arrest the president of the United States. That would be an act of war.
However, they are technically correct about the application of the law. The British government has labeled political opposition as “hate speech” and criminalized it. Britain, and especially London, is controlled by a cabal that suppresses any criticism of Muslims, among other protected groups. British nationalists are imprisoned, while Muslim enclaves operate with complete impunity from British law.
The reason they are freaking out so much is that Trump has violated their most sacred of rules: you cannot expose the crimes of Muslims or Jews. To do so is a criminal act. This is the most important law in Britain, and they have responded as such to the president breaking it.
They won’t win many supporters in America with these actions. Americans are largely perplexed by the idea that a tweet, which makes no threat of violence, can be criminal. Most Americans are probably not aware of the anti-free speech laws of Britain and Europe. Many are learning about them now for the first time.
The Dutch government could not help but jump in to show its ineptitude as well:
Jayda Fransen’s tweet had stated that the offender was a migrant. The Netherlands Embassy tweeter unwittingly revealed that the truth is actually much worse. Not only was the Middle Eastern perpetrator born in the Netherlands, he is again walking the streets. Given lax Dutch enforcement in these situations, one wonders if he even received jail time for the crime. Attacking the defenseless is, rightfully so, considered one of the most heinous of crimes. For Britain, the Netherlands, and the American establishment to be more outraged by the tweet than the crime is very telling of their morals and principles.
The rebuttal also gets at something deeper. It doesn’t matter that the man isn’t a migrant. He is not Dutch and he never will be. It would not matter if he came five minutes ago, five years ago, or if he was born there. He is a foreigner. No amount of paperwork or legislation can negate this fact.
Donald Trump is bringing this issue to the forefront of the public consciousness. Try as they might, there is nothing the political establishment on either continent can do about it.