Trump and Obama: What Has Changed Between Them on Homosexuality and Saudi Arabia?

By Julio Severo

The White House said last Tuesday that President Donald Trump will continue to enforce an Obama’s executive order granting special rights to homosexuals in the workplace, making it clear that such order will remain intact “at the direction” of Trump.

“President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community,” said a statement released by the White House. “President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election.”

The White House said Trump is proud to have been the first GOP presidential candidate to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, “pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression,” which is a commonly used language and euphemism to advance the gay agenda.

How it affects churches, we do not know, but if you have a Christian organization and you do not hire homosexuals or if you do not accommodate their immoral lifestyle and ideology, the Trump administration offers to you the same thing the Obama administration offered: no financial relationship. But punishment.

About Trump’s decision to keep Obama’s homosexualist order, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), said,

“This is the first sign we have that President Trump will be triangulating on homosexuality versus abortion. As exhilarated as we were to watch the Trump administration confidently and boldly stand for the protection of the unborn at the March for Life, we are now deeply disappointed that Mr. Trump has chosen to defend false LGBTQ ‘rights’ based on changeable homosexual and gender-confused behaviors.”

He added,

“We condemned Obama when he advanced a sin-based agenda in the name of ‘Equality.’ We must do no less with President Trump.”

Pro-family leader Bryan Fischer remarked that with his decision to keep Obama’s order, “Trump bans Christian-run businesses who won’t affirm sexual deviancy from doing any work for federal government.”

The Trump administration has revealed hypocrisy in major points. If it is serious about the gay agenda as Obama was, why a normal relationship with Saudi Arabia, which murders homosexuals? The Obama administration condemned Christians opposed to the gay agenda, but had never condemned Saudi Arabia.

Last week Trump spoke by telephone with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. He did not call him to condemn Saudi Arabia for murdering homosexuals. He called “to strengthen cooperation on fighting radical Islamic terrorism.”

Considering that Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of the Islamic terrorism in the world, asking such Saudi help is akin to have Franklin Roosevelt asking Hitler to help America fight Nazism or have Ronald Reagan asking the Soviet Union to help America fight Soviet communism. It is illogical. It makes no sense.

In his call, Trump also “requested, and the Saudi king agreed to support, safe zones in Syria,” according to the DailyMail.

As admitted by the DailyMail, “Carving out safe havens in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern country would most likely require a massive deployment of US ground troops” in Syria.

For interventions in Syria, with Saudi support Obama deployed ISIS and Islamic rebels, who raped and murdered thousands Syrian Christians.

Now, with Saudi support, again, America under Trump wants to deploy thousands of American soldiers in Syria.

Because Obama and Trump never had any permission from the Syrian government to deploy troops in Syria, this is invasion.

Because the past U.S. administration created ISIS, which ravaged Syria, this is terrorism.

Because Saudi Arabia, which wants to help Trump in the invasion, is the main sponsor of the Islamic terrorism in the world, this is terrorism.

If Trump is serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, why did not he put Saudi Arabia in his black list?

If Trump is serious about helping Syrian refugees in alleged safe zones, why does not he ask the official permission from the Syrian government?

If he is serious about keeping Obama’s homosexualist decrees, why does not he condemn Saudi Arabia?

Besides, Obama imposed unfair sanctions against Russia, especially because Russia has an excellent law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. Trump has not reversed Obama’s sanctions.

Since the Obama administration, Russia has been a model against the gay agenda. As far as it depends on Trump, who seems not to want America reversing Obama’s homosexualist laws, Russia will continue to keep the leading position among Christian nations against the gay agenda.

Russia is in Syria helping Syrians, whose Christians are Orthodox as are Orthodox Christians Russians, because the Syrian government gave official permission for Russia to be in Syria. Anything less is invasion.

Trump is building a wall to protect U.S., and he deserves support on this. He is putting Islamic nations in his black list because he wants to protect the U.S.

But by keeping Saudi Arabia off his list and planning to invade Syria, he is inconsistent with conservative Christians and consistent with Obama and Hillary Clinton.

By keeping Obama’s homosexualist decrees he has the same inconsistency and consistency.

Saudi Arabia, which is an enemy of Syria, has no Christian community and bans Israelis from its territory. In contrast, Syria has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. The Bible is not banned by the Syrian government. Saudi Arabia officially bans the Bible. Why had Obama a good relationship with Saudi Arabia, not Syria? Why has Trump a good relationship with Saudi Arabia, not Syria?

Why is Trump expressing a willingness to follow in Obama’s footsteps?

If Trump wants to “help” Syria, why call Saudi Arabia, the enemy of Syria?

If Trump does not want the U.S. invaded, why has he discussed with the Saudis about invading Syria?

Conservative Christians should not make the same mistake that they made regarding to former President George W. Bush. They supported him because of his pro-life stances. But they did not question him over his invasion of Iraq, which took a heavy toll on Iraqi Christians.

Conservative Christians liked Trump’s speech against neocons, but his stance on the gay agenda is not a good thing for America now and her future. And it is not good for the world, because America is an empire that guides the world as a model for better or worse.

Good Christians prophesied a good political administration for Trump. But what good will be if he does not choose to live prophetically such calling?

Trump has no conservative history, and he had connections with Obama and Hillary. His speech against neocons in his campaign was a fresh air of real conservatism, and the current pro-life stance of his administration is also a fresh air after eight years of the foul odor of the pro-abortion stances of the Obama administration.

Yet, by keeping the same homosexualist laws of Obama, including his illegal interference in Syria with Saudi assistance, Trump chose the same foul odor of left-wing radicals and neocons.

Let us hope he may change his course.

With information from the DailyMail and the Hill.

Portuguese version of this article: Trump e Obama: O que mudou entre eles sobre homossexualidade e Arábia Saudita?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Holocaust, Abortion and Sodomy

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

God Is Good to Israel: How Providence Hindered Franklin Roosevelt from Hindering the Birth of the Modern State of Israel

By Julio Severo

In poor health two months before his death, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met with King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia, on the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal. Later, on April 5, 1945, Roosevelt wrote to King Abdul promising that as long as he was president, the United States would never recognize a Jewish state: “I communicated to you the attitude of the American government toward Palestine … that no decision be taken. … I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive … with regard to the question of Palestine … the policy of this government … is unchanged.” (As reported by Bill Federer in WorldNetDaily.)

Jewish children in Nazi death camp

Within a week of making this promise, the ailing Roosevelt died. Even so, the U.S. was not the first nation to recognize Israel. The first country to do it was the Soviet Union.

Roosevelt wanted no U.S. role in the birth of the modern State of Israel. In fact, he wanted the U.S. to prevent the birth.

Yet, his public speeches did not mirror his private talks to Saudi dictators. On March 24, 1944, Roosevelt publicly explained the original goal of the United Nations was to protect the Jews. He said, “In one of the blackest crimes of all history — begun by the Nazis … the wholesale systematic murder of the Jews of Europe goes on unabated. … Hundreds of thousands of Jews … are now threatened with annihilation as Hitler’s forces descend. … The United Nations have made it clear that they will pursue the guilty. … All who knowingly take part in the deportation of Jews to their death … are equally guilty with the executioner. … The United Nations are fighting to make a world in which tyranny and aggression cannot exist.”

Roosevelt coined the name “United Nations” for the allied countries fighting together against the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi) and Nazi anti-Semitism. His most controversial alliance was with the Soviet Union, which, nevertheless Marxist, fought Nazi anti-Semitism and had many Jewish political and military leaders.

However, this alliance supposedly to save the Jews makes no sense when you consider that Roosevelt also wanted no U.S. role in the rescue of Jews from Nazi Germany. According to David S. Wyman, American-Jewish author of the New York Times bestselling 1984 book “The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945,” the Roosevelt administration was aware of Nazi treasures and Jewish suffering from 1941 to 1945, but it ignored the Jews and took excessive care to rescue Nazi treasures.

Wyman’s charge is very simple: Roosevelt knew about the Jewish horrendous plight before and during all the World War 2, but he never intervened. He never ordered the bombing of the railroads that took millions of Jews to death camps. In contrast, his administration worked very hard to save Nazi treasures.

Even though some authors argue that Roosevelt was misled by Marxists, the deeper reality is, according to William T. Still in his book “New World Order,” that “Support for both secret societies and Marxism has run in FDR’s family. His ancestor, Clinton B. Roosevelt, a New York assemblyman, was a noted American Socialist.”

Still says that Roosevelt’s life was marked by socialism and Masonry. It was marked also by a providential death hindering him from hindering the birth of the modern State of Israel.

With information from WND, Bill Federer and “The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945.”

Portuguese version of this article: Deus é bom para Israel: Como a Providência impediu Franklin Roosevelt de impedir o nascimento do moderno Estado de Israel

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Hitler’s Strident Anti-Marxism

Jewish Issues: A Clarification to Christians about Their Perception on the Jews

In Hollywood’s Blacklist: Allah Is Loving, But Non-Acceptance of Homosexuality Leads to Violence, Sadism and Terror

By Julio Severo

Usually, in Islamic cultures fathers kill homosexual sons. Even in the Western culture, they kill them. For example, a FoxNews headlinesaid, “Los Angeles father allegedly killed son because he was gay.” This father was Shehada Issa, a Muslim man.

Yet, because in Hollywood reality makes no sense, in an episode titled “The Djinn” in the American crime thriller television series The Blacklist, the script was fantastically unreal. A Muslim businessman in the U.S. had been kidnapped, and while the U.S. police, even the FBI, are searching for him, no one knows that he is imprisoned in the bedroom of his alleged daughter Nasim, whose fantasy is to torture and kill him.

In a point, with her father bound and tortured, Nasim said, “Allah teaches us forgiveness.” This was the only mention of Allah in the movie: a loving god who supposedly teaches that instead violence, his adherents should practice love and forgiveness. But this is an artistic Allah made in USA, because the real non-forgiving Allah, who teaches his adherents to kill 100,000 Christians a year, makes no sense to politically correct minds.

So Allah needed to be reinvented by Hollywood to have an American fictitious image of what it is not in the Islamic cultures, and also to be a part of a money-making machine for a Hollywood that turns real nightmares into profitable fantasies.

Then Nasim adds, “But some things are unforgivable.”

It is obvious that for the real Allah, a Muslim accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior is “unforgivable.” But what is “unforgivable” for Hollywood and its Allah? Non-acceptance of homosexuality!

Emerges the criminal-hero Raymond “Red” Reddington (played by actor James Spader) and Nasim says to him: “What do you want?”

Reddington: “To offer my sympathies.”

Next, in one of the greatest “moral” sermons in The Blacklist, and perhaps in all the Hollywood history, he lectured how Nasim had been born a man, but his father, against his will, made him into a “woman” to protect his family from disgrace. The Reddington character uses and abuses the word “choice” in a perverse Hollywoodian way.

“Choice” is a very misleading word in Hollywood and America. You are a criminal in America if you force a woman to abort her unborn baby. But if she chooses to abort by her free will, it is not a crime. In fact, you are labeled a criminal if you try to hinder her from killing her baby!

Choice, Allah, Islam and homosexuality are sacred cows in the script, never to be mentioned negatively. Let us see their conversation:

Nasim: I know who you are.

Reddington: And I know who you are, Nasim. What a beautiful name. It means “breeze” in Farsi. But you weren’t born Nasim. You were born Nasir — “the victorious.” How ironic. But a boy. A perfectly healthy boy.

Another character says to Nasim: We know you’re The Djinn.

Reddington: And this must be your father. The butcher. Tell me, Bahram, was it so horrific to discover that your 19-year-old son, your eldest son, was gay? So horrific that you forced him against his will to go under the knife, change his gender, to give you a daughter instead of your son, who is gay?

Bahram, Nasim’s father, shakily: Clerics accept… People can get trapped in the body of the wrong sex. The law says…

Nasim: I wasn’t trapped. I liked my body. I liked men.

Bahram: I wanted to protect you, Nasim. They could have killed you.

Reddington: For being gay. They’re so homophobic that being gay is a hideous crime, but chopping off a man’s penis isn’t? Honestly, is it just me, or is the human race, armed with religion, poisoned by prejudice, and absolutely frantic with hatred and fear, galloping pell-mell back to the dark ages? Who on earth is hurt by a little girl going to school or a child being gay? Let’s be frank, Bahram. You didn’t change your son to protect him. You changed him because he disgusted you.

According to his Hollywood script, Nasim became “The Djinn,” a sadistic criminal who helps fulfill revenge fantasies through terroristic kidnappings, not because of Allah, but because his father did not accept his homosexuality. Islam is innocent in the violence of Nasim and his father.

According to Muslim demonology, the Djinn is one of a class of spirits that inhabit the earth, assume human and animal forms and exercise supernatural power. Is it any wonder that The Blacklist episode titled “The Djinn” seemed inspired by demons?

According to the Hollywood view inspired by demons, it is not Islam, or Mohammed or the Koran which leads Muslims to terrorism. It is non-acceptance of homosexuality!

Non-acceptance of homosexuality leads people to violence, sadism and terrorism — in the evil world of Hollywood. The script made it clear that its Hollywoodian Allah had no role in the violence by its Islamic adherents.

In real life is very different. The majority of Muslims in the East consider harsh treatment of homosexuals to be perfectly justified.

Textbooks for Islamic Studies, officially used by the Saudi Ministry of Education, say:

“Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death… [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place.”

Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, is the capital of Islam in the world.

Ten Muslim nations officially impose the death penalty for homosexuals. They are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and some states in Malaysia.

Other Muslim countries have no official death penalty for homosexuals, but homosexuals are murdered anyway by police and the population.

In the real Islamic world Nasim would have, by force or not, been given no opportunity to live. Homosexuality is punished with death in Islam. So the sermon given by the criminal-hero Reddington about not giving free choice to homosexuals is not about Islam, which in real life kills homosexuals, but which in Hollywood has a loving Allah. It is about Christianity.

Hollywood, which fears to treat Islam as a religion controlling people and leading them to violence, feels free to make this negative depiction of Christianity. For example, in the “Sir Crispin Crandall” episode, The Blacklist has a scene where the wicked CIA director interrogated a criminal by using the Bible. He said, showing the pictures of the criminal’s children,

 “Are you acquainted with the Bible, Mr. Karpos? I am. At one point, I actually considered the priesthood. Can you imagine? There’s a passage — Exodus 20:5-6. ‘For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children.’ We wouldn’t want that. Would we, Mr. Karpos?”

After the “veiled” threat against his children, the criminal revealed all the information the CIA director wanted!

Can you imagine Hollywood depicting a CIA director threatening violence against the children of someone by using the Koran? Hollywood is able to protect Islam and homosexuality at the same time, but not the evangelical Christianity that founded the United States.

Actually, people are controlled by ideologies, which lead them to violence. Hollywood is representative of a liberal ideology which protects violent Islam, portrays Christianity as violent and depicts homosexuality as a good and even compulsory “choice,” including for children.

Hollywood fantasies violently rape truth for the sake of its own profitable lies.

The Hollywoodian Allah forgives and accepts homosexuality. But for Hollywood, non-acceptance of homosexuality is an unforgivable “crime.”

Hollywood is philandering with Allah at the expense of truth, reality and the evangelical Christianity that founded America.

Often the cold-blood Reddington kills other criminals. I wonder what he would do to George Washington, the first U.S. president, who expelled a soldier for homosexuality.

Would Hollywood depict Washington as a criminal to be lectured and even killed by a Reddington?

Would Hollywood depict him as a man in need to learn from the Hollywoodian Allah how to forgive his homosexual soldier?

Would Hollywood depict him as a demon Djinn for his opposition to homosexuality?

Anyway, The Blacklist will never do it to Islam, the Koran and Saudi Arabia. Only Christians and the Bible are in the Hollywood’s blacklist.

What is Hollywood waiting to put Washington in its blacklist?

Portuguese version of this article: Na lista negra de Hollywood: Alá é amoroso, mas a não aceitação da homossexualidade leva à violência, sadismo e terrorismo

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

George Washington: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge God”

Palestinian Gays Want World Boycotts against Israel

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

Homosexualist billionaire Peter Thiel’s influence grows in Washington as Trump names him for his transition team

Vladimir Putin publicly accused by U.S. government of plot to interfere in presidential election against Hillary Clinton and her party

By Julio Severo

The U.S. government for the first time on Friday formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against the socialist Democratic Party and political organizations connected to the socialist presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Hillary Clinton

In an extraordinary joint public statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it was confident that Russia’s “senior-most officials” ordered the attacks. (For more information on DHS, see: “Homeland Security: More Insecurity for Christians?” See also: “Homeland Security surveillance detected on Julio Severo website”)

The statement amounts to an accusation that Vladimir Putin ordered interference in the American political system.

The Obama administration’s decision to blame Russia for the attacks is the latest downward turn in Washington’s relations with Moscow, which are under strain over Russia’s actions that are upsetting U.S. interference in Syria and Ukraine.

“This is a huge deal,” said Michael Morell, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. “I can’t think of any time in our history where we have blamed another government for trying to interfere with our elections. ... This is unprecedented across the board.”

Morell has publicly endorsed Hillary and Muslims in CIA. He has characterized Trump as Putin’s agent.

Yet, contrary to what Morell said, it is not “unprecedented.” Some weeks ago DCLeaks, a group of hackers, exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign that included Soros plans to “counter Russian foreign policy and subvert traditional Russian values.” Soros is a Hillary supporter.

The Obama administration and its agencies have had no interest in denouncing Soros, a U.S. citizen, and his campaigns to undermine Russian policies and values.

As ever, the U.S. government is very fast and comfortable with pointing fingers, blaming, accusing and mocking Russia. For what? For exposing Hillary, who is pro-abortion and pro-sodomy and is the only candidate formally supported by the U.S. Communist Party. Yet, 15 years after over 3,000 Americans were killed in the Saudi Islamic terror attack on the World Trade Center, the U.S. is not able to point any finger at Islam or Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, Bush, Obama and Hillary have said that “Islam is a religion of peace” —perhaps because they enjoy treating Islam peacefully. This feeling is not reciprocal.

They have never dared to provoke Islam and Saudi Arabia the way they provoke Russia, even though Islam and Saudi Arabia have showed very clearly that they are against the Christian America. Russia? Russians have showed very clearly that they are against Hillary and they stand with Trump, who has antagonized Muslims and Saudi Arabia. Is this bad?

U.S. intelligence officials concluded weeks ago that the Russian government was conducting or orchestrating cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to disrupt or discredit Hillary and her campaign.

High-level officials in Hillary’s party applauded Obama’s decision to formally accuse Russian hackers of political cyber attacks against Hillary’s organizations.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a statement that “[t]he administration’s acknowledgement that Russian intelligence agencies are attempting to influence the U.S. election and undermine public confidence conveys the seriousness of the threat.”

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said in a statement on Friday that “I applaud the administration’s decision to publicly name Russia as the source of hacks into U.S. political institutions.”

If they had been told that the nation behind the cyber attacks was Saudi Arabia, all of them, including Obama and Hillary, would apologize for provoking hard feelings in the Saudis. The disparity of U.S. attitude toward Saudis and Russians is blatantly shocking. Saudi Arabia kills Christians and homosexuals. Russia does not kill homosexuals, but bans homosexual propaganda to children and regulates religious activity outside its official Orthodox Christian Church — just as Israel regulates religious activity outside its official Judaism. Whom the U.S. government and press systematically criticize and condemn? Saudi Arabia? No. Russia.

The Democratic National Committee publicly disclosed intrusions into its systems in June, blaming Russia for the attacks.

Only organizations connected to Hillary were attacked. No organization connected to Donald Trump was attacked.

U.S. government officials emphasized that it would be difficult for Russian hackers to alter the results of the Nov. 8 election because each U.S. state runs its own election system. Even so, a senior U.S. official said the Obama administration is considering retaliatory steps against Russia.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the U.S. government statement but didn’t deny Russia’s involvement.

“Every day there are tens of thousands of attacks on Putin’s website. Many of the attacks can be traced to the U.S.,” Peskov was quoted as telling the Interfax news agency. “We’re not blaming the White House or Langley every time,” he added, referring to the Virginia city where the CIA is based.

Friday’s official accusation of Russian involvement adds to campaign-year fodder stoked this summer by Donald Trump, who encouraged Russia to find — and make public — missing emails supposedly deleted by Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said in July. He referred to emails on Hillary’s private server that she said she deleted. These messages involved the State Department affairs and their use in a private server constitutes crime. But Hillary has been spared prosecution.

After all, who is the criminal? Hillary, who has lied about her criminal abuse of official government messages? Or Russia, which is exposing her secret scandals, including scandals of her political organizations?

Could the accusations against Russia be a smokescreen to deflect attention from Hillary’s crimes?

With information from DailyMail, Reuters and Associated Press.

Portuguese version of this article: Vladimir Putin publicamente acusado pelo governo dos EUA de conspiração para interferir na eleição presidencial contra Hillary Clinton e seu partido

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

Olavo de Carvalho and His Nonsense on Trump and Russia

A Brazilian Neocon?

Left-Wing Billionaire George Soros and His Plan of Global Chaos

Top Anti-Russia Journalist Presents a Dossier Suggesting Trump May Be a Russian Agent

Former CIA director endorses Hillary Clinton, supports Muslims in CIA and characterizes Trump as Putin’s agent

A Trap for Trump

Russia Suspected in Cyber Attack on Campaign of Pro-Sodomy Hillary Clinton

Trump and the Pope: a Right-Wing Populist (Today) Clashing with a Left-Wing Populist

Putin Loves Hillary!

Is Trump a KGB Agent?