Monday, May 02, 2016

The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America


The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America

How the U.S. Supported the Protestant Advance against the Liberation Theology Promoted by Catholic Bishops and KGB

By Julio Severo
The information and disinformation war by the Soviet Union and the United States in the Cold War days was not limited only to the political sphere in Latin America. According to two Catholic bloggers, while the Soviet Union supported the advance of Liberation Theology, the U.S. supported the advance of evangelicals and Pentecostals.
The Soviet Union saw the Catholic Church in Latin America as a natural ally of Marxism and the U.S. saw Protestant and Pentecostal churches, which have always resisted Marxism, as natural allies of the U.S. government.
In his article entitled “La Expansión del Protestantismo Fue Parte del Plan de Guerra de la CIA para América del Sur” (The Expansion of Protestantism Was Part of CIA War Plan for South America), Catholic blogger Jorge Rondón Santos mentions a 1969 memorandum addressed to President Richard Nixon. Drafted by Republican Nelson Rockefeller, Baptist and U.S. vice-president, it said about Latin America: “the Catholic church has ceased to be an ally in whom the U.S. can have confidence.” It is confirmed by Wade Clark Roof, in the page 84 of his book “World Order and Religion” (1991 SUNY Press). Roof was Professor of Religion and Society in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santos said that Rockefeller and the U.S. government supported the Protestant advance in Latin America. Their strategy was to counter Liberation Theology by promoting Protestant churches that were rivals to the Catholic Church.
Santos uses as special example Guatemala, which according to him will be the first mostly Protestant nation in Latin America. He declares that to counter a devotional revolutionary Catholicism, the U.S. government’s plan was to stimulate Protestant missions, “which with a ‘bread and dollar’ speech drew to themselves thousands of poor people in the countryside and cities who sought spiritual power.”
Former general and former Guatemala President José Efraín Ríos Montt used, during his administration, the national broadcasting network on Sundays to preach and say that the Guatemalan people were the “elected people” and accusing the Catholic Church of being a “collaborator of Marxism,” Santos complained. Montt was a member of a Pentecostal church.
The connection between Protestant missions and CIA was more exposed in the 1980s, when several Latin American military governments expelled the Summer Institute of Linguistics (connected to Wycliffe Bible Translators), accusing its missionaries of being CIA operatives. Nevertheless its anti-Marxism and its pro-U.S. position, the Brazilian military government did not want such intrusion of missionary spies, especially in the Amazonian region, suspecting that these missionaries, funded by the Rockefeller family (unprincipled capitalist executives), were spying on the natural resources of Amazon.
In that time, I thought it was greatly unfair for the Brazilian military government to expel the U.S. missionaries and I wrote a supporting letter to the Summer Institute of Linguistics. I still support their work, but only years later I learnt, through U.S. and Brazilian sources, that actually there were and there are in Brazil American missionaries connected to CIA.
Even though it was very helpful the financial, strategic and logistic support of Nelson Rockefeller for the Protestant and Pentecostal advance in Latin America to counter the religious leftist advance from the Catholic Church, it should not go unnoticed that he was also behind the infamous NSSM 200, or the Kissinger Report, a confidential document written by the U.S. government in 1974 addressing the keeping of resources of other nations for the U.S. interests having as a focus the population reduction of those nations. The purpose of this reduction was to weaken opposition to the U.S. interests.
The harmful effect of Rockefeller’s strategy in NSSM 200 is that the goal of population reduction did not hit only leftist Catholics, but also Protestants and Pentecostals he said that he was supporting and who became equally victims of population reduction propaganda and politics disguised as “family planning.”
Rockefeller’s only success was to identify Liberation Theology as a threat. According to the American leftist Catholic blogger Mike Rivage-Seul, in his article “The First Religious War of the 21st Century”: “The Rockefeller Report of 1969 already identified liberation theology as a threat to the national security of the United States… The [Reagan] administration heeded the advice, and responded both militarily and ideologically.”
According to Rivage-Seul, there was an agreement in which Ronald Reagan would help Pope John Paul II in the campaign against communism in Poland and, in return, the pope would remain silent about U.S. campaigns against Latin American leftist Catholics. The papal collaboration happened also through the gradual replacement of pro-Liberation Theology bishops for conservative bishops. But over three decades later, huge is the number of pro-Liberation Theology Catholic bishops. The substitutions were not enough.
The anticommunist fight itself of John Paul II was imperfect, because he was a great supporter of Yasser Arafat, the founder of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist Islamic group fighting the State of Israel. In this fight, the Vatican was more comfortable with PLO, which promoted a Palestine version of Liberation Theology.
Today, the Vatican under Pope Francis is much more aligned with the leftist ideology, having approved the sainthood process for Helder Camara, the founder of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil and patron of the Brazilian Catholic Left.
As if the Brazilian Catholicism were not plagued enough by the leftist ideology, U.S. Catholic missionaries coming to Brazil brought the same ideology. In 2005, U.S. nun Dorothy Stang, who was a Liberation Theology adherent, was murdered in Brazil. She was allegedly killed for political and environmental activities in Brazil since the 1970s.
With the picture of religious war during the Cold War in which the Soviet Union used Catholics and the U.S. used Protestants and Pentecostals, I am surprised then that a Brazilian Catholic blogger said that “Marxism is a Protestant product,” when the reality is that the most Catholic region in the world, Latin America, has been mostly a garner and ally of Marxism, while Protestantism, especially its Pentecostal variants, has mostly resisted Marxism.
Another Brazilian Catholic says that the first totalitarian society (of a Marxist kind) in the Modern Age was Protestantism in Geneva under Calvin.
Yet, by considering the Latin American population growth, especially in Brazil, as a threat to the U.S. national security, Nelson Rockefeller and the U.S. government, as made evident by NSSM 200, harmed both pro-Marxism Catholics and anti-Marxism evangelicals.
NSSM 200 was produced by a U.S. Republican administration, the Richard Nixon administration, in which abortion was nationally legalized from conception until childbirth in 1973. In fact, Rockefeller was also a member of the Republican Party, which supposedly is conservative and does not want to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
Even though it has brought huge benefits to Protestants and Pentecostals in Latin America (not in the population control issue), the fight of those worldly-minded Republicans helped in no way to change the fate of the U.S., which has as its current president Barack Obama, raised up as a Muslim and posteriorly mentored in a Liberation Theology Black Protestant church.
Besides, the U.S. government gave support not only to anti-Marxist Protestants (and also Catholics). In the administration of Jimmy Carter, who as a progressive (leftist) Baptist, great was the U.S. support for the World Council of Churches (constituted by leftist Protestants) and Brazilian Catholic bishops. Papers gathered by the Carter administration against the Brazilian military government were used two years ago by the Obama administration to help Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to strengthen her socialist administration against military attempts to destabilize it. But the destabilization, and especially her impeachment, is coming exactly from Pentecostals, traditional enemies of Marxism and friends and allies of U.S. administrations that are honestly conservative.
In fact, Pentecostals can be friends and allies of any government, regardless it is American or not, that are honestly conservative. If a today’s ruler is brave to resist the politically correct trends of valuing abortions and homosexual “marriages,” he will receive support from conservative Christians, especially Pentecostals.
Today’s religious war is not any longer between CIA and KGB. It is not any longer between the Soviet Union and the U.S. Now, it is between pro-life values and pro-abortion impositions; pro-family values and homosexual “marriage” impositions. Pentecostals are more than willing to support the right side in this war.
Yet, Catholics in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, remain confused by being led for decades by mostly Liberation Theology bishops.
Times have changed. There is no longer a Soviet Union. But the U.S. government, under Obama, could be more than wiling to take advantage of their confusion, a confusion that is engulfing also Pentecostals increasingly mesmerized by the Protestant versions of Liberation Theology.
Portuguese version of this article: A guerra religiosa entre CIA e KGB na América Latina
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil


President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

CBN News
Comment by Julio Severo: Last year, the most significant position paper of the ruling socialist Workers’ Party in Brazil declared that Eduardo Cunha, a Pentecostal leader, is the most dangerous man in the Brazilian Congress, because Cunha has been advancing, as no one else, a conservative agenda. Under his leadership, the pro-abortion and homosexualist agendas are being weakened and pro-family and pro-life interests are a priority. Above all, Cunha is the man behind the impeachment. Read now the CBN report:
Dilma Rousseff
The impeachment of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff is being led by a Pentecostal Christian and the speaker of Brazil's lower legislative house, Eduardo Cunha.
Some say it shows evangelical influence is rising inside the traditionally Catholic country.
Brazilian historian Karina Bellotti told the Christian Science Monitor that "during the last roll call vote for the continuation of the process of impeachment in the lower house, several politicians dedicated their vote 'for God.'" 
"Some of them were Catholic, but most were evangelical, from the Pentecostal churches," she added.
Estimates put the number of Pentecostals in Brazil at about 45 million.
"Brazil is at the vanguard of the global trend of the Pentecostalization of Christianity," as well as "the epicenter of world Christianity, with the largest Pentecostal population," Andrew Chesnut, author of Born Again in Brazil, told CSM.
The impeachment proceedings against Rousseff stem from allegations that illegal accounting tricks allowed her administration to maintain government spending to shore up flagging support.
Her critics contend that she also hid deficits that contributed to the country's worst recession since the 1930s.
Rousseff has defended such fiscal maneuvers as common practice in Brazil. She insists the accusations are a flimsy excuse by the traditional ruling elite to grab power back from her left-leaning Workers' Party, which has governed for 13 years.
The lower Chamber of Deputies didn't agree. On Sunday, the body voted in favor of impeachment. The measure is now in the Senate, which is expected to decide by mid-May whether to put the president on trial.
A simple majority vote by senators is needed to approve a trial, and Rousseff would be suspended for up to 180 days while it was conducted.
During that time, Vice President Michel Temer, a Lebanese-Brazilian Maronite Christian, would take over.
But the impeachment leader, Cunha, is also under a cloud after his name appeared in the recently disclosed Panama Papers. An opinion poll showed 77 percent of people believe he too should be impeached.
Source: CBN News
Divulgation: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, April 07, 2016

The Hypocrisy of PayPal


The Hypocrisy of PayPal

By Julio Severo
PayPal has vowed to discontinue the expansion of its services in North Carolina after its governor passed a law to protect women and children against homosexual predators by not allowing biological men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
In answer to the PayPal boycott, on Facebook Franklin Graham, son of the legendary evangelist Billy Graham, said, “PayPal gets the hypocrite of the year award!… PayPal operates in countries including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Yemen for Pete’s sake. Just last month PayPal announced they would be expanding in Cuba, a country in which homosexuals and transgender people have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed.”
PayPal’s boycott against North Carolina, the land of Billy Graham, makes no sense, since PayPal has no boycott policy against Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations that arrest, torture and kill homosexuals.
A “small” hypocrisy eventually leads to bigger hypocrisy. The PayPal hypocrisy began in 2011, after an international campaign against ten pro-family activists, including me, Julio Severo. The campaign accused us of “homophobia,” PayPal accepted its lies and closed my account definitively. The campaign was orchestrated by U.S. homosexualist group AllOut, denounced by WND (WorldNetDaily), which run this headline: PayPal blacklists Christian writer.
PayPal has never discontinued its services to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations in a boycott against their “homophobia.” I was targeted exclusively because of my Christian values and stances.
The official PayPal answer to my case was very hypocritical. To me, PayPal explained that I am ineligible to receive donations from my friends and readers because “you are not a registered non-profit organization.” To AllOut, PayPal explained that it closed my account because “We take very seriously any cases where a user has incited hatred, violence or intolerance because of a person’s sexual orientation”.
Since 2011, I have been hindered from receiving donations from my friends through PayPal.
In a listing of the top ten anti-Christian acts in 2011, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission ranked the gay pressure on PayPal as fourth top anti-Christian act, as reported by Charisma magazine.
Portuguese version of this article: A hipocrisia do PayPal
Recommended Reading:

Monday, April 04, 2016

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis


Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

By Julio Severo
Protests against a corrupt president? A population calling for the impeachment of the corrupt president? This is what Brazil is living right now. And this is what Guatemala lived last year.
But there is a huge difference between the presidents of both nations. While Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was a Marxist terrorist who fought the military rule in Brazil in the 1960s, Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina was a general who fought communists in the past. In fact, he was trained for such fight.
Molina was a graduate of the U.S. Army School of the Americas, an institution whose specific goal was to teach “anti-communist counterinsurgency training.” He was also a graduate of the Washington DC-based Inter-American Defense College. He is one of the distinguished alumni of this college.
As a retired general, Molina founded in 2001 the Patriotic Party (Spanish: Partido Patriota, PP), which is conservative and right-wing.
The past political activism of Molina and Rousseff is opposed and antagonistic. She is an atheist with a perfect Marxist history. He is a Catholic with a perfect anti-Marxist history. But their presidencies were equally plagued by massive corruption, and massive protests.
In spite of their irreconcilable ideological differences, they equally suffered protests from contrary political forces. Molina, from left-wing forces; Rousseff, from right-wing forces.
Rousseff may be impeached or deposed in 2016, while Molina, whose opposition wanted to impeach him, resigned due to fraud and corruption in 2015.
But in Guatemala, a corrupt Left was not victorious against a corrupt right-wing president. The Guatemalan Church had been active throughout the process of political crisis, holding prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.
“God put His hand in Guatemala, it’s a miracle what happened,” prayer participant Marco Antonio Ruiz said. “We came together as Church and cried out with one voice. The effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. God heard the voice of all those who joined us in prayer.”
After Molina’s resignation, Guatemala held new elections, and Jimmy Morales, who is a conservative evangelical Christian and has studied theology, was elected in an election process equally marked by prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting. Morales supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and gay “marriage.”
About laws promoting these evils, which are plaguing Brazil and especially the U.S., Morales said, “According to my belief, my ideology, I would have to veto such laws. I think in Guatemala we will not have this because of conservative thinking. In case Congress approves such laws, my position would be against them.”
Many Guatemalan Christians believe President Morales is an answer to their prayers. Because of prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting, the transition from a corrupt right-wing president to a conservative evangelical president was very peaceful.
Is there a more powerful lesson to Brazil than the Guatemala example in this time of intense Brazilian crisis?
The answer is not in leftist politicians, including Marina Silva.
Many Brazilians see anti-communist Army officials as the only hope for Brazil.
But the ultimate answer is not in them.
The answer is in God, who answers prayers.
Perhaps the Brazilian Church should invite the Guatemalan Church to teach her about prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.
If God gave a real conservative president to Guatemala, what hinders him from giving the same blessing to Brazil?
With information from ChristianHeadLines.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Spotlight: Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church


Spotlight: Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church

By Julio Severo
Recently, I watched Spotlight, a 2015 movie that exposes abundant cases of pedophilia in the Boston archdiocese. The profile of most victims, male children, is indicative of abundant cases of homosexuality, but the word homosexuality was mildly and rarely used in the movie.
Spotlight
What is the reason for such mild and frivolous treatment? You can watch a trailer here: http://spotlightthefilm.com/
The scandals in the Boston archdiocese were exposed when American Jew Marty Baron, a new editor of The Boston Globe, led an investigative team of journalists who began, in 2001, to research and publish about pedophile priests covered by their superiors.
Baron discovered that bishops in the Boston area moved abusers from parish to parish instead of defrocking them or letting police and courts take charge of these cases. Similar scandals have since been discovered around the world.
According to the Associated Press, Australian Cardinal George Pell, the highest-ranking Vatican official to testify on systemic sexual abuse of children by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, said senior clergy lied to him to cover up abuse in the 1970s. He said that he was deceived about why abusive priests were moved from parish to parish.
Spotlight, a movie based on actual events, reports that “249 priests and brothers were publicly accused of sexual abuse within the Boston Archdiocese.”
“The number of survivors in Boston is estimated to be well over 1,000,” says Spotlight.
The Boston cardinal responsible for overseeing these cases and for moving abusive priests from parish to parish was, according to Spotlight, promoted to Rome in 2002, right in the midst of the public scandal, to lead one of the high-ranking Roman Catholic churches in the world.
The candid movie reports that similar major abuse scandals have been uncovered in many other U.S. cities.
Officially, the Catholic Church has never said that the exposed scandals by Spotlight are lies.
There is no doubt that the way bishops and other overseers have managed the cases of pedophile (especially pederast) priests was a monumental disaster.
Yet, it is an equally monumental disaster to cover up the homosexual connection. Since The Boston Globe and its talented Jewish editor had no interest to investigate this connection, perhaps the pro-life movement, which is a significant force in the U.S. Catholicism, could research and publish about it, firstly in the Catholic setting.
The pro-life movement has had a high ability to record and expose abortion clinic scandals through undercover agents. They do it because they love children and they want to protect them.
Many Catholic pro-life groups focus their attacks on gender ideology, which harms children. But pedophilia (especially pederasty) in the church equally harms children, particularly because it is committed in a place that should offer protection and high spiritual and moral authority.
Pro-life groups and leaders, not the secular media as The Boston Globe, should be the first to expose crimes against children. Not only abortion and gender ideology are a threat to children, but pedophilia (especially pederasty) too.
Hollywood, abortion clinics and homosexual groups are places of rampant depravity. Depravity and cover-up are expected from them. But Christian institutions should have a higher standard and transparency, which is light, according to Christian ethics.
The Boston Globe did a necessary job by exposing pedophile priests and superiors covering them up. But the missing link was tritely treated. Pedophilia is the broad term for rape of female and male children. The proper term for rapists of male children, pederast, was never mentioned in Spotlight. This omission is troubling.
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus (2009 Kindle edition) defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse esp. with a boy,” explaining the original Greek term, paiderastēs, literally means “lover of boys.”
The Oxford Dictionary (2010 Kindle edition) defines “pederasty” as “sexual activity involving a man and a boy.”
The 1913 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “pederasty” as sodomy and “pederast” as sodomite, a term traditionally used to designate homosexuals.
So where there is pederasty, there is always homosexuality, and where there is homosexuality, pederasty is inevitable. It is included in the packet.
Yet, the audiences would have the impression, by watching Spotlight, that boys are usually abused by priests, not homosexuals.
The Spotlight movie should have included the missing link. Yet, what to expect from liberals? They want to promote the gender agenda to children and protect them not from homosexuality but from Christianity, which, thanks to the Catholic leadership’s failure, they are pairing with pederasty, a term that is being separated from its only natural and traditional partner: homosexuality.
Why the Catholic Church has been so negligent in this matter, I do not know. Why during decades or more she gave no harsh treatment to homosexuals and their scandals in the clergy, protecting them from prosecution and jail, I do not know.
The pro-life movement, a protector of children, should have under its spotlight not only abortion and the gender agenda but also the massive scandal of homosexual, pederastic priests. This would give them moral authority to expose covered pederastic scandals of leaders and groups that treat Christian values in the same sewer of sexual perversion they live or tolerate in their midst. They would have authority to say the obvious: pederasty and homosexuality walk together wherever they are, whether in a church, school or other place.
Perverted priests should be denounced and jailed, even though only jail is a very small punishment to child-rapists. If pro-life Catholics do not move fast to protect children from perverts in their own Catholic midst, Hollywood and other liberal forces will continue to use the Catholic Church’s homosexual scandals to disparage all the conservative Christians and their values.
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Brazilian Crisis Sparks Chances for Socialist Marina Silva in the 2018 Presidential Election


Brazilian Crisis Sparks Chances for Socialist Marina Silva in the 2018 Presidential Election

By Julio Severo
In the midst of the deep political and financial crisis in Brazil, and massive protests against its leftist President Dilma Rousseff — despised by most Brazilian population who, according to Datafolha polls, wants her impeached for corruption and economic recession —, a new political scenery and possibilities begin to emerge.
Former Brazilian presidential candidate Marina Silva is one of these possibilities. According to another poll by Datafolha, she is the preferred choice for most Brazilian constituents for the 2018 presidential election in Brazil. In second place is Aécio Neves, a social democrat. In the last place is Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, from the ruling socialist Workers’ Party.
Neves, who was also a presidential candidate in the last election, had his candidacy built by Marxist strategist David Axelrod, a longtime top Obama adviser. Yet, he has received less support now than earlier, because his name is also involved in the political and financial scandals sweeping the socialist Brazilian government.
Even though not directly involved in these scandals, Marina Silva had her origins in the Workers’ Party and Liberation Theology, and today she is heavily involved in international environmentalist causes. She and other socialists have strategically supported the Brazilian protests. This is a far cry of some interpretations of the Brazilian political reality in some websites, which try to present the Brazilian anti-government protests as exclusively “anti-Marxist.”
The popular dissatisfaction has been provoked by economic constraints in the Brazilian workers’ pockets. The choice of Silva, Neves and even Lula among Brazilian constituents is an evidence that Marxism is a dominating force in the people’s aspirations.
The portrayal of the Brazilian reality in some websites as protests against Marxism is as mistaken as the portrayal of Silva as “conservative.” In fact, even the U.S. Christian media had portrayed her this way in the last election, perhaps because she is a Pentecostal from the Assemblies of God, and Pentecostals are generally conservative.
Her background is Catholic, in the Liberation Theology, never giving up this ideology. Even though the Assemblies of God is the largest evangelical denomination in Brazil, with over 15 million members, Marina Silva has not received its political support.
Most of her political support comes from liberal Catholics. Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world and its National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (NCBB) was founded by Marxist Bishop Helder Camara, who is in process of sainthood in the Vatican.
The founding of the Workers’ Party is credited to prominent NCBB bishops.
Silva and her former party are children of this institution.
So if the Workers’ Party is removed by the popular impeachment of its president, NCBB bishops will manage to support a new president with its socialist convictions.
Marina Silva’s political growth is a symptom that to come out from Worker’s Party pit, many Brazilians are willing to come into any other pit, whether socialist or otherwise, not minding that Silva’s pit is not different from Worker’s Party pit.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”


Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”

By Julio Severo
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva is, with his socialist Workers’ Party, facing a multitude of scandals of corruption.
The acts of corruption were measures to get certain results, especially financial, in spite of the laws. This is the heart of the “jeitinho brasileiro,” which is a process used to reach something desired in spite of contrary determinations (laws, orders, rules etc.).
Brazilians face a confusing and inefficient bureaucracy, which affects everybody: rich and poor. The rich use their huge power and influence to bypass difficulties while other people have their own way to practice their “jeitinho brasileiro”: traveling with more luggage than it is allowed, parking in spots for disabled people, forging documents of a businessperson to get a U.S. visa when he is not a businessperson, etc.
In legal and political matters, if a Brazilian wants something that is not permitted, he will try to figure out a loophole until he finds an alternative way.
Since the colonial period, everything in Brazil has been done through a nasty bureaucracy. So people have always to find “alternate ways” in order to survive and get things, whether good or not, done. Both left-wingers and right-wingers suffer this malady in Brazil, but only the former present its ugliest form.
These “alternate ways” are the “jeitinho brasileiro.” In other nations, this is called trickery or corruption. In Brazil, it is called “jeitinho brasileiro,” which can be translated to “the crafty Brazilian way of doing things.”
In a smaller scale, these “alternate ways” produce small corruptions and trickeries. In a greater scale, they produce a Lula, who is being prosecuted for big trickeries and corruption.
The Brazilian people protest and slam the massive use of the “jeitinho brasileiro” by politicians and businesspersons, but they do not give up their own “crafty Brazilian way of doing things.” They do not like it in others, but they tolerate it in themselves. It is a national vice as popular as samba, football and Carnival. It is an ugly face, not only of a former Brazilian president, but also of a people.
With information of The Brazil Business.
Portuguese version of this article: Lula, a face mais feia do jeitinho brasileiro
Recommended Reading:

Monday, March 14, 2016

The Neocons vs. Donald Trump


The Neocons vs. Donald Trump

By Jacob Heilbrunnmarch
Commentary by Julio Severo: Because of a lack of pro-life and pro-family credentials, I do not think Mr. Donald Trump is the best presidential candidate. But, because of a lack of credentials against neocons, I think that Mr. Ted Cruz should learn from Mr. Trump and his theoretical stances against neocon insanities. Different of Cruz, who cares about pro-family values, neocons under Obama have been able to expand an American hegemony with a homosexual imperialism. Yet, Bush also cared about pro-life issues, but he was unable to oppose neocon ambitions and foreign intrusions, greatly benefitting radical Muslims and their crimes and greatly harming Christian minorities in Muslim nations. What would Cruz do? I like Trump’s attitude of confronting neocons, but this attitude would only be helpful, and splendid, if he opposed the current U.S. abortion and homosexual imperialism around the world. Only Cruz could do it. But he needs to be much more “Trump” on foreign policy — much more anti-neocon and more like an original Republican, not meddling in the affairs of other nations, especially to benefit Islamic oppressors and harm their Christian victims. Only such a Republican, with Christian principles, can give America, which became the biggest powerhouse of global abortion and homosexuality promotion, including Islamic propaganda, a better course.
THERE they go again. The neocons who led the George W. Bush administration into Iraq are now touting a fresh crusade to save American democracy — and the Republican Party — from an authoritarian foe: Donald J. Trump.
Their campaign began with an impassioned essay in The American Interest last month by Eliot A. Cohen, a former Bush State Department official, who depicted Mr. Trump as symptomatic of the broader “moral rot” of America. Then, in an open letter, more than 100 Republican foreign policy mavens, including neocons such as Mr. Cohen and Robert Kagan, as well as more traditional Republican foreign policy figures like the former World Bank president Robert B. Zoellick, announced they were “united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency.”
Now, in a last-ditch effort, leading neocon thinkers have established what they call the National Security Advisory Council to support Senator Marco Rubio. And many are announcing that if push comes to shove, they will support Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump. Indeed, in the magazine Commentary, the neoconservative historian Max Boot wrote, somewhat hyperbolically, that Mr. Trump is “the No. 1 threat to American security” — bigger than the Islamic State or China.
The neocons are right that a Trump presidency would likely be a foreign policy debacle, not least because of his unpredictable personality and penchant for antagonizing foreign leaders and publics. But they are wrong in asserting that he is somehow a danger to the traditional principles of the Republican Party. On the contrary, Mr. Trump represents a return to the party’s roots. It’s the neocons who are the interlopers.
The extent to which the neocons and their moralistic, crusading Wilsonian mission overtook the Republican foreign policy establishment, beginning in the 1970s, was so nearly complete that it can be hard to remember that a much different sensibility had previously governed the party, one reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s own positions: wariness about foreign intervention, championing of protectionist trade policies, a belief in the exercise of unilateral military power and a suspicion of global elites and institutions.
Consider the 1919 League of Nations debate, the crucible in which much Republican foreign policy was forged. In leading the charge against United States membership in entering the league, the Republican senator Henry Cabot Lodge argued that intervening abroad would undermine American security: “If you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her power for good and endanger her very existence.”
By the 1920s, the Republicans took Lodge’s logic a step further. So-called mossback Republicans supported the punitive Immigration Act of 1924, which included provisions barring Asians and restricting African immigrants. The party also backed protectionism: In June 1930 Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which worsened the Great Depression and stoked nationalism around the world.
The party’s embrace of outright isolationism culminated in opposition to aiding Britain once World War II began in 1939. Liberal Republicans like Henry Stimson and Frank Knox were drummed out of the party at the 1940 convention for joining the Roosevelt administration, the first as secretary of war and the second as secretary of the Navy. At the same time, The Wall Street Journal editorial page argued for “realism” toward Hitler, who, it assured its readers, had “already determined the broad lines of our national life for at least another generation.”
After World War II, the right remained suspicious of militarism. It denounced Harry S. Truman’s sweeping alliances in Europe. In 1950, Herbert Hoover created a national uproar when he declared that America had to acknowledge limits to its power. Meanwhile, Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio proposed constitutional amendments aimed at destroying the president’s ability to conclude foreign treaties. And in 1951, another Ohio senator, Robert A. Taft, announced, “The principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people.”
One can hear echoes of this Republican past in Mr. Trump’s own positions. His animating credo on foreign policy seems to be to farm out the heavy lifting to other countries whenever possible. Speaking on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” last August, he made his distaste for intervention clear: “At some point, we can’t be the policeman of the world. We have to rebuild our own country." Since then, to the consternation of the party establishment, he has also forthrightly denounced the Iraq war, declaring that the Bush administration’s case for it was based on a “lie.”
The Trump doctrine, if that term can be employed, is reminiscent of basic foreign policy realist tenets. In fact, as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution first pointed out in Politico, Mr. Trump has a “remarkably coherent and consistent worldview.” Mr. Trump, you could even say, is a spheres-of-influence kind of guy: Europe should take care of Ukraine, Russia should handle Syria. “When I see the policy of some of these people in our government,” he said on MSNBC this month, “we’ll be in the Middle East for another 15 years if we don’t end up losing by that time because our country is disintegrating.”
At the same time, he’s rejected the idea of repudiating the Obama administration’s Iran deal, and says that it’s important to remain “neutral” in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians — two points that strike at the heart of Republican neocon orthodoxy. And he seems to have little use for alliances: He’s demanding that countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia pay more for the United States to defend them. At the same time, he’s ready to slap high tariffs on Japan and China — something that could trigger a global depression.
Mr. Trump’s position can resemble realism on steroids. At bottom, he doesn’t want America to lead the world; he wants the world to get out of its way. Even many die-hard realists are unwilling to follow him: Last Friday his sinister advocacy of torture, which he has since disavowed, prompted not only neocons but prominent realists like Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard Betts to sign a letter called “Defending the Honor of the U.S. Military from Donald Trump” in Foreign Policy.
None of this seems to antagonize the Republican base, which appears less ideological on taxes and foreign policy than the party elite. Once George W. Bush and the neocons led us into Iraq, it was probably only a matter of time before the neocons were called to account. Maybe the surprising thing isn’t that the party is starting to morph back into its original incarnation, but that it took this long.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of “They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.”
You can see the Portuguese translation of this article here: Os neocons versus Donald Trump
Divulgation: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, March 06, 2016

Israel Holds Its First Homosexual Beauty Contest


Israel Holds Its First Homosexual Beauty Contest

By Julio Severo
“Israel has emerged as one of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries concerning LGBT rights, letting openly gay people serve in the military and recognizing gay marriages from other countries,” said AOL News.
First Miss Trans Israel beauty pageant in Tel Aviv, Israel, March 3, 2016. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
Thirty contestants strutted down the catwalk in skinny jeans at a Tel Aviv club on Thursday, vying for a chance to enter the first “Miss Trans Israel” beauty pageant taking place in May.
Tel Aviv is today one of the world’s most gay-friendly travel destinations, standing in sharp contrast to the rest of the Middle East, where gays face persecution and death.
Among the contestants was Talleen Abu Hanna, a 21-year-old transsexual from a Catholic Arab family in the northern city of Nazareth.
As AOL News noted, with this homosexual contest, Israel emerges as a progressive nation. “Progressive” is a favorite term used by liberals and left-wing activists to label the advance of their own cause. But actually modern Israel was born progressive, by the hands of its mostly left-wing founders.
Israel is generally tolerant toward homosexuality. Gays openly serve in Israel’s military. In 1998, an Israeli homosexual singer, Dana International, won the popular Eurovision song contest.
Last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to address the LGBT community, as Tel Aviv kicked off its annual Pride Week celebrations.

“The struggle for every person to be recognized as equal before the law is a long struggle,” Netanyahu wrote on his social media page, “and there is still a long way to go.”
“As Pride Week continues, I want to send my blessing to the LGBT community,” he said.
Israel has also been open to international homosexual activists. Last January, Brazilian gay militant Jean Wyllys, who is a representative in the Brazilian Congress, gave a lecture on “homophobia” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Wyllys has built intense popularity among Brazilian socialists with uncompromising defenses of liberal issues: introducing bills promoting marijuana legalization, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren, full legalization of sex work (prostitution), etc.
Yet, homosexuality is rejected in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel.
The Jewish Bible has treated homosexuality as an “abhorrence” for over 3,000 years. One of its verses says:
“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” (Torah: Leviticus 18: 22, Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition, Oxford University.)
So when Netanyahu sent his “blessing” to the Israeli homosexual community, he contradicted his right-wing stance and, much worse, denied his Torah, where God clearly wants the Jewish people to treat homosexuality as an “abhorrence.”
King David, the most prominent political figure in the Jewish history, said:
“Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.” (Psalms 29:2, King James Version)
This Psalm was originally directed to Israel, which was the first people called to worship the LORD in the beauty of His holiness.
Yet, today Israel has preferred often to worship not the Lord, but socialism and other politically correct ideologies and treat homosexuality as “beautiful.”
This “beauty” is an abhorrence to YHWH, who created Israel not for homosexual glories, but for His own glory.
Israel is in God’s Land, but the God of Israel also needs a place in this Land and in the hearts of its inhabitants.
With information from AOL News, Associated Press and Jerusalem Post.
Recommended Reading: