Pro-Family Warmongers, Pro-Sodomy Neocons and Pro-Sodomy Non-Neocons: What Is Worse for Christians?
By Julio Severo
I was watching Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, on the left-wing CNN (https://youtu.be/_2-ycehCnuM) wisely answering questions as the host pressed him to condemn Russian intervention in Syria. For her, this intervention was responsible for massacres, but she never mentioned that Russia was fighting Muslim rebels funded, trained and armed by the Obama administration. She never mentioned that before the Russian intervention, these rebels were torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians. She never mentioned that the real objective of the Obama intervention in Syria, especially through the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, was never to fight ISIS, but help rebels to overthrow the Syrian President Assad, who is supported by Russia.
Despite the psychological pressure, Graham did not condemn Russia.
The fact is, with Hillary, the U.S. State Department was a war machine making wars against Christians in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. There is evidence that the State Secretary Clinton created and armed ISIS, which slaughtered thousands of Christians. The U.S. created a terrible mess in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan and in Syria.
Also, while Muslims have represented a clear majority of immigrants being welcome and relocated in the U.S. by the State Department, Christians victims account for less than 5 per cent.
Hillary was a pro-sodomy neocon at the State Department.
What to expect from a Trump State Secretary? Firstly, consistency with his discourse in the campaign confronting neocons, known for their partnerships with Islamic terror against Russia, and for their openness to Islamic, not Christian, immigrants.
When Trump was considering Mitt Romney for State Secretary, it was hard not to think that the spirit of Hillary would not be continuing her mission through him, because under former Governor Romney Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize homosexual “marriage.” Besides, he wanted to confront Russia in Syria and Ukraine, just as Obama was doing and just as Hillary wanted to do in her dream of a presidency.
Then Trump chose Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, for State Secretary. Tillerson has a history of good relations with Putin and Russia, but not with ISIS. And he does not seem to want wars, but good relations. This is very good sign.
Different from Hillary, who was killing Christians in Syria through Muslim rebels and ISIS and in Iraq through ISIS, Tillerson seems to understand that there is no point in supporting such unfair war and chastise Russia for its pro-Christian involvement.
Different from Hillary and Obama, hopefully Tillerson may understand that persecuted Christians, not Muslims, should be given priority for immigration.
Yet, there is a concern. Tillerson was a board member of Boy Scouts and approved its infamous decision to allow gay scout leaders. This equals him to Hillary.
However, what if Trump chose Ted Cruz? Cruz’s pro-family and pro-Israel stances are excellent. In foreign policy, he would not use the State Department to promote the homosexual agenda. But regarding Russia, he and neocons like Marco Rubio equal to Hillary: Cruz wanted a confrontation with Russia in Syria and Ukraine over Crimea, a region traditionally Russian for hundreds of years and which Russia has repossessed in 2014. His policy would be a continuation of the Hillary policy.
So, all the choices are hard. Yet, while Hillary and the Obama administration mocked and antagonized the Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and eventually imposed sanctions against Russia by using as an excuse the Crimea repossession, Tillerson has spoken out against such sanctions.
If he were so fixated on the gay agenda as Obama and Hillary are, he would probably speak out on behalf of such sanctions.
How to assess the differences? Christians like Ted Cruz are very good in defending life and family. They deserve to be commended for their pro-family efforts. But their neocon efforts to fight Russia while Russia fights ISIS and helps Christians in the Middle East put them on par with Hillary, whose anti-Russian policies were anti-Christian and pro-ISIS and pro-Islamic rebels.
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others are pro-family warmongers. Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria and other nations would barely have some hope of being helped by their policies, and their pro-family views would be helpful only to pro-family Christians outside of zones of Islamic wars.
Romney would be a continuation of Hillary, with no benefit to pro-family Christians in the U.S. and Christians persecuted by Muslims in other nations.
Tillerson does not seem to be a warmonger. He has no history of wars, but of friendships and deals. This is real change, because the State Department has had too many warmongers for too long.
Tillerson would be perfect if he were a pro-family Christian against the gay agenda — as Ted Cruz would prefect if he were not warmonger and confrontational in a time Russia is looking for peace and partnership against the Islamic terror. Russia has the exact wish Trump showed in his campaign.
If Tillerson were a homosexualist militant, there would be a confrontation between him and Putin, because while he approved gay scout masters to teach homosexual propaganda to children, Putin has approved a ban against such propaganda.
As Trump, Tillerson is open to the gay agenda, but both, different from Hillary and Obama, are open to dialogue.
Yet, when assessing between pro-family warmongers, pro-sodomy neocons and pro-sodomy non-neocons, what is important? The lives of Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria are as important as the lives of unborn babies defended by good pro-family Christians.
Any State Secretary willing to support the Russian efforts, or at least not interfere negatively as Obama and Hillary did, in Syria is helping save lives, especially Christians victimized by ISIS. In this respect, Tillerson seems to be the only hope for the State Department to stop its pro-Islamic meddling against Christians in Syria.
I hope to be right: Tillerson does not seem a neocon.
Christians Are the Most Persecuted Religious Group in the World
By Julio Severo
Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world, according to the Centre for Global Christianity.
Speaking on Vatican Radio, Massimo Introvigne, Director of the Centre for Studies on New Religions, said that around half a billion Christians in the world are unable to express their faith completely freely — with around 90,000 Christians who were killed for their faith in 2016 alone, which is the equivalent of one Christian being martyred every six minutes.
In March, the Chaldean Bishop of Aleppo reported that in just five years of conflict, the Christian population of Syria has been reduced by two thirds from 1.5 million to just 500,000, according to a Breitbart report.
Many Syrian Christians were killed by ISIS, foundedby Hillary Clinton, or by Syrian rebels, funded, armed and trained by the Obama administration. While the Syrian government was fighting ISIS, the Obama administration was helping Islamic rebels who were essentially damaging the Syrian government’s war against ISIS.
Such reality puts the U.S. behind Islamic persecution of Christians. In fact, according to the 2016 World Watch List, published by Open Doors USA, even though North Korea is the number one in Christian persecution, the other countries that ranked highest on such persecution were Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is very bad news for the U.S., which has been militarily interfering in Syria and which invaded and intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq. The results are obviously appalling, at least for Christians.
Whenever the U.S. intervenes in an Islamic nation, Islamists come to power. This is well demonstrated by the other three nations to which the U.S. brought “democracy” and where Christian minorities suffer “extreme persecution”:
Afghanistan: The supposedly “moderate” Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan’s last Christian church.
Iraq: After the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, Christian minorities were savagely attacked and slaughtered, and dozens of their churches were bombed (see here for graphic images). Christians have been terrorized into near-extinction, with well over half of them fleeing Iraq.
Surely a common theme emerges here: Where the U.S. works to oust secular autocrats, the quality of life for Christians and other minorities takes a major nosedive. Under Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad, Christians and their churches were largely protected.
Ibrahim then says, “Prominent indicators confirm that the U.S. is the chief facilitator of the persecution of Christians around the world today.”
During his campaign, Donald Trump said that the administration of former President George W. Bush lied about his reasons to invade Iraq. Trump said that he opposed such invasion. Christians in Iraq took a very heavy toll for Bush’s bad decision. The Iraqi Christian community, which was over 2 million before the U.S. invasion, is now less than 400,000.
Under Bush and Obama, while Muslims in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq had facilitated immigration to the U.S., Christians were essentially banned. Oppressors in, victims out. During his campaign, Trump promised to correct this incredible immigratory inconsistency by favoring Christian victims, not Islamic oppressors.
While Christians are the most persecuted religious group on the earth, Muslims are the main persecutors of Christians in the world. Why grant visas to persecutors, not their victims?
Let us pray that Trump may stop the trend of brutal persecution of Christians in the trail of U.S. interventions in Islamic nations.
Olavo de Carvalho and His Nonsense on Trump and Russia
By Julio Severo
Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian famous for advocating the revisionism of the Inquisition, which tortured and murdered Jews and evangelicals, said several days ago: “After all, is Trump a mad war-monger who is going to bomb Russia or he is a Russian agent who is going to pour out dollars on Moscow? Because the U.S. media accuses him of both things, it is obvious that he is neither of them.”
The mainstream media has in fact been accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, because, for one thing, he and his family have made trips to Russia. (As a capitalist, Trump always had deals with Russians, one of his business partners.) But also because he says nice things about Putin.
And of course, as confirmed by WND, one of the most prominent conservative websites in the world, Trump has been praising the Russian president and showing willingness to be friend with Russia.
However, in spite of what Carvalho asserts, the mainstream media does not accuse Trump of being “a mad war-monger who is going to bomb Russia.” They only accuse him of being a mad war-monger who wants to bomb the Islamic State. They also accuse him of praising Vladimir Putin and wanting a U.S. alliance with Russia against ISIS.
Last Wednesday, Trump declared on TV that Putin is a better leader than U.S. President Barack Obama, according to Reuters, which mentioned, “…Trump’s praise of Putin and his suggestion that the United States and Russia form an alliance to defeat Islamic State militants.”
And last Thursday, Trump was interviewed by Russia Today, a news service backed by the Russian government, to give his view on accusations that a covert plan of Russian intelligence is interfering with U.S. elections and creating distrust among American voters.
“I don’t know. I’ve been hearing about it. I’ve been reading about it. I think it’s probably unlikely,” Trump said.
If Trump had Carvalho’s mindset, he would not accept an interview from a Russian news service because he thinks this news outlet is part of a spy network and that everything written by Russians — except for the Washington toadies in Russia, of course — is lying propaganda, especially the reports that can be readily verified. If he accepted the interview, obedient neocon that he is, he might say, “It is very likely that Russia is interfering. And do you know what? Russia created ISIS.” But Trump is not Carvalho.
Carvalho’s mind is so fixated on Russia that whenever the U.S. press says that Trump is going to do something against the Islamic State, Carvalho sees only the word “Russia.”
When you search Google with “Trump” and “bomb” as key words, you get numerous hits directly pointing to news headlines like “Trump wants to bomb ISIS, the Islamic State.” Let us see:
·Donald Trump promises to ‘bomb the hell out of ISIS’ in new radio ad — Washington Post.
·DONALD TRUMP: ‘I would bomb the s— out of’ ISIS — Business Insider
·Trump Vows If He Becomes President, He Will Bomb ISIS Into Extinction. — AWM
·Trump: US has ‘no choice but to bomb’ ISIS in Libya — The Hill
When you include the key word “Russia” to “Trump” and “bomb” in the Google search, you find not comments by Trump wanting to bomb Russia, but comments by Putin on bombing ISIS. So both Trump and Putin want to bomb ISIS. They have the same goal. This is one important reason both praise one another.
Perhaps, by using a crystal ball, Carvalho saw that Trump wants to bomb Russia. But his personal fantasies are no reason or basis for him to accuse the U.S. mainstream media of saying what they have never said. Truth was raped to benefit the sentiments of an anti-Russia activist.
The mainstream media is mistaken on many things, but Carvalho falsely accused it of something it never said, namely, that Trump wants to bomb Russia. But this media has no time or willingness to answer the false accusation of a Brazilian immigrant who fancies himself a brilliant philosopher but is unknown in the U.S. (even though he has lived in the United States for more than ten years).
Things have soured for Carvalho and his “big knowledge” and “honesty.” He spent years putting Russia at the center of all evil in the universe and now, countering all his political obsessions, comes an American presidential candidate who puts Islamic terror at the center of political concerns and openly praises Russia. To keep up his reputation as a conservative, he is obliged to make an odd bedfellow with this Trump fellow, but he is clearly not comfortable with the arrangement (which Trump does not know anything about) and has little understanding of Trump’s ideas.
The only thing left for him to do is to hide his head like an ostrich in his hole of illusions that protect the Islamic State from Trump’s bombs and put Russia in its place.
Or perhaps, as a professional astrologer (which he is), he is subconsciously predicting that the American candidate will do what he has imagined, or keeps imagining and saying that Trump is going to bomb Russia, when what the U.S. press said very clearly is that he wants to bomb the Islamic State.
Usually, Carvalho has a marked and worn card against anyone minimally praising the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He calls his victim of duginist. “Duginist” is a reference to the adherents of the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, who, according to Carvalho’s exaggerations, is the most prominent conservative or leader in Russia.
In 2015, Raymond Ibrahim, evangelical author of the best-selling book “Crucified Again,” which shows how Christians in the Middle East are being slaughtered by Muslims, wrote the article “Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ on Islamic State.” The report received positive feedback, especially from evangelical readers. Even Trump has praised the Russian fight against ISIS. But a Carvalho assistant, who is a member of the Carvalho led-Inter-American Institute, strongly protestedthe positive representation of Russia as Christian and conservative by evangelical Ibrahim, averring that Russian conservatism was a “strategy.”
In the 1990s, when I was involved with Catholic leaders, evangelical leaders also often said that Pope John 2 and his pro-life activism were a Vatican “strategy.”
I am glad to have cooperated with both pro-life “strategies,” not because I am an ecumenical Christian, but because whether is the Vatican or the Russian Orthodox Church, their pro-life stances deserve our support. While I do not support most their religious doctrines, I wholeheartedly their pro-family work.
In this point, considering Carvalho’s insistent rejection of all pro-family initiatives from Russia, some might think that perhaps strategy is what the Inter-American Institute has been up to, drawing evangelicals and Catholics for the supposed purpose of pro-life and pro-family activism when the real motivation of his founder and his close assistant is anti-Russian activism.
As a basis for his accusation of Russian “strategy,” the Inter-American Institute member and Carvalho assistant mentioned “Aleksandr Dugin” in his protest in Ibrahim’s article, presenting Dugin as the most powerful man in Russia.
I attended the most important conservative meeting in Russia in 2014, with another Inter-American Institute member and many international conservative Orthodoxies, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, and Dugin did not put in an appearance. Dugin is, by the way, an admirer of René Guénon, a Catholic French who had converted to esoteric Islam.
Oddly, other Guénon’s admirer is Carvalho himself, who translated into Portuguese one of Guénon’s books. Carvalho helped found in Brazil the first tariqa, an Islamic esoteric center that teaches a kind of Muslim witchcraft, and one of his sons is an active Muslim. Even though Carvalho seems today to reject partially some of those past experiences, many of his articles praise and recommend Guénon.
Besides calling them duginist, Carvalho also frequently accuses those minimally praising Russia of being Putinists, KGB agents or Russian agents.
With Trump’s arrival and his comments supportive of Putin and Russia, Carvalho’s anti-Russia arguments fell apart. He does not dare to accuse Trump of being a Kremlin agent, but he circumvents the hazards by planting in the minds of his followers the forged image of a Trump who is “accused” of praising Russia — when actually his praises are largely proved and recorded by the powerful U.S. conservative press — and of a Trump who is accused of wanting to bomb Russia. This is indeed a blatant false accusation, made up exclusively to replace Carvalho’s knee-jerk accusations against anyone praising Russia.
The accusation that Trump is a “Russian agent” is not a conservative one. It is a neocon accusation leveled at all American groups or individuals appreciating the positive and conservative aspects of modern Russia. A former CIA director also accused Trump of being a Russian agentand said that he intends to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“It is unlikely that many average citizens in the West are aware that ISIS is fighting on the side of the Ukraine nationalists. If they were, public opinion might drastically shift towards support for Russia — as it should. Better to have Ukraine be a proxy state of Russia than yet another budding member of the global Islamic Caliphate taking shape.”
In regard to this article, Steve Baldwin, a member of the Inter-American Institute, said,
“Freedom loving people all over the world who grew up during the Cold War years learned to hate the Soviet Union and with good reason. Communism stamped out all freedom and Soviet-style communism was constantly trying to acquire more territory. But that paradigm has changed. Unfortunately, there are many political leaders, both in the USA and elsewhere, who don’t understand that the Cold War is over and that there are new threats to deal with and new alliances that need to be formed. Putin may not be a perfect leader but freedom loving people all over the world have far more in common with the Russian people than they do with radial jihadists. His [Sierra Rayne’s] article reveals the Jihadist alliance with some factions in the Ukraine and suggests that the USA form an alliance with Russia to fight the growing jihadist threat.”
The paradigm has really changed, and left Carvalho far away not only from Trump, but also from members of his own institute. But it has not left him far away from Soros and his old school.
Carvalho founded the first school of astrologers in Brazil. But how can his crystal ball accurately see the future if he inaccurately sees the present?
Reality: Trump wants to bomb the Islamic State.
Fantasy: The crystal-ball of the Brazilian astrologer-philosopher says that U.S. media is accusing Trump of wanting to bomb Russia.
Fact: Such accusation is nonexistent in the U.S. media, resulting in two possible interpretations for the astrologer-philosopher’s lies:
1.He is a cheat who deceives to his own advantage.
2.He is a sophisticated clown who uses a philosophical circus to amuse the Brazilian public.
In both cases, the result is the same: audience growth. In Brazil, it is not impossible to be a clown in political affairs and succeed in increasing one’s audience. Tiririca, a semiliterate clown, became a famous Brazilian congressman.
In addition to accusing the U.S. press of saying Trump wants to bomb Russia, Carvalho insists on fanciful self-propaganda, bragging that he alone is responsible for the downfall of the socialist Dilma Rousseff administration in Brazil, when even the U.S. conservative big media does not grant him such glory. CBN, headed by Pat Robertson (who was a Republican presidential candidate in the 1980s), did not grant the esoteric Catholic Carvalho such glory in the report “President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil.” WND also did not grant him such glory in the article “The lesson for U.S. in fall of Brazil regime.”
Yet, who cares? Not Carvalho, who does not see the downfall of Rousseff as an important event. Recently, he said that infinitely more important than removing Rousseff from the Brazilian government is to eliminate from people’s conscience the “myth” of the Inquisition, as if this bloody machine had not tortured and killed Jews and evangelicals.
He is also obsessed with attacking Russia every day, abundantly, as if Putin were Osama bin Laden and Russia were ISIS.
Meanwhile, Trump’s focus is ISIS. According to Trump, ISIS was created by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Putin has said the same thing. But I would not be surprised at all if Carvalho tried to suggest that Russia created ISIS, because his automatic answer on all universe’s evils has been to blame Russia. Interestingly, prominent neocons do blame Russia for the creation of ISIS.
In terms of the dangers facing civilization, Carvalho’s focus is not Islam. Perhaps he is not actively involved in Islamic affairs today because he has had extensive involvement in the past. He has already read and memorized the Koran in Arabic and has received an award from the Saudi government for a Mohammed biography he wrote.
While Trump’s and conservatives’ focus has been Islam and its terror and the immigrant invasion in the U.S. and Europe, Carvalho’s focus continues to be Russia, his whipping boy for all seasons. He cannot avoid it: he is the most prominent anti-Russian activist in Brazil, even though he is an immigrant in America.
He is very lucky. Obama’s immigration policies are the most generous in the U.S. history. Largely under Obama, Carvalho has kept his survival as an immigrant, and basically he does what Obama does: he focusses on Russia, not Islamic terror, as the biggest threat.
With a crystal ball in his mind and his heart, it is easy for an astrologer-philosopher to ignore reality, despise objectivity and see imaginary threats.
