Monday, December 15, 2014

Islamic terror in Australia and Christians as second-class citizens


Islamic terror in Australia and Christians as second-class citizens

By Julio Severo
Islamic terror hit Australia. A Muslim terrorist held an unknown number of hostages in a café in Sydney for more than 16 hours on Sunday.
Terrorist Man Haron Monis
The hostages had been made to hold an ISIS flag in the window. According to Shoebat, the flag’s message was: “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
Shoebat said that, despite this very clear and obvious sign, Australia’s Prime Minister stated that he has no clue about the attacker’s motivation.
Man Haron Monis, the Muslim refugee who committed the terror attack, was killed by the special police and the hostages were freed.
Yet, Islamic terror hit was not the first major attack against Australia.
Politically correct madness hit Australia first, and it made itself abundantly clear in the Islamic terror attack:
1. The Australian media did not call the Islamic terror attack an Islamic attack or even a terror attack.
2. Celebrities and tens of thousands of everyday Twitter users flooded the social media to show support for Muslim community.
3. In the past, Monis received 300 community service hours for sending hate mail to the families of Australian dead soldiers. No prison for him.
How is consistent the politically correct madness of Australia or for that matter the Western world?
Let us use some hypothetical examples:
A Christian in Syria or Iraq needs a refugee status in Australia or another Western nation. His reason? He is fleeing ISIS, who beheaded his family and raped his female relatives. He is denied, but Monis, who is connected to ISIS, was granted a refugee status in Australia. Sadly, Monis’ example is not hypothetical!
Another case. A Christian minister held an unknown number of homosexual hostages in a café. Of course, such case has never happened, and even if it happened one single time, the Western media would treat it as terror attack. Celebrities and tens of thousands of everyday Twitter users would flood the social media to attack the Christian community.
Another case yet. A Christian minister sends hate mail to Muslim in Australia. Would courts be satisfied to sentence him to 300 community service hours? Certainly, celebrities and tens of thousands of everyday Twitter users would flood the social media to ask prison time for him.
In Muslim nations, Christians are second-class citizens. Under ISIS, they can be beheaded like pigs in a terrifying industrial scale. Celebrities and tens of thousands of everyday Twitter users do not have flooded the social media to show support for the suffering Christian community.
In the Western nations, Christians are also second-class citizens, below Muslims, who even when they commit terror acts, they are not labeled terrorists, while Christians who preach against homosexuality are labeled terrorists even when they have never committed a single terror act!
How can secular Western governments respect Christians when even Christians do not respect their brothers and sisters? After 9/11, Bush, who is an evangelical Christian, called Islam a “religion of peace.” Are its yearly genocides by Islamists against Christians a manifestation of ‘peace’?
In the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Australia, the Vatican asked, according to the Associatd Press, “the U.S. to find an ‘adequate humanitarian solution’ for prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, a reflection of Pope Francis’ vocal concern that prisoners be treated with dignity and not be subject to inhumane treatment.”
Should we care about how the U.S. treats Islamic terrorists under its custody?
Should we not care about how ISIS treats thousands and thousands of Christian men, women and children in its grip?
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, December 13, 2014

The Pope and Dogs in Heaven


The Pope and Dogs in Heaven

By Julio Severo
Some news services interpreted that Pope Francis reportedly said that dogs also go to Heaven. If he was really misinterpreted, so do these dogs have nothing to do with animals? Is another kind of dog? Should he be interpreted, in his precariously disguisable socialism, that Fidel Castro and his gang also have a chance to the heavenly Paradise?
Speaking about Fidel, why has no pope ever condemned communism in his visit to Cuba? If any other world leader visited Cuba without condemning communism, he would be branded in the least a hypocrite, a coward or even an accomplice.
Speaking about salvation of dogs, is there a chance for Fidel go to Heaven? Of course. Firstly, he should repent from his sins and accept Jesus and his forgiveness, deliverance and salvation. It is evident that after such experience, he would renounce communism.
The same is true for Obama and Brazilian socialist President Dilma Rousseff.
In fact, the same is true for socialists and anti-socialists. Anti-socialism does not save anyone. It does not grant the Heaven to anyone. If an individual spent his lifetime fighting socialism, but never knew Jesus and his salvation, he will spend the whole eternity with Karl Marx.
Portuguese version of this article: O papa e os cachorros no céu
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, December 09, 2014

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


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

Beheadings, Crucifixions, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Pogroms, Spits and Socialism

By Julio Severo
Sometimes, I receive accusations from Christians, who say that I emphasize Muslim persecution against Christians in the Middle East, but I never mention how the Jews also persecute Christians.
Actually, I have never published a single article on Jews in Israel beheading and crucifying Christians. On the other hand, I have already published many articles on Muslims committing such atrocities.
The reason for it is not omission or some attempt to hide alleged beheadings and crucifixions the Jews would be committing against Christians.
The reason is simple: these atrocities against Christians are never perpetrated by Jews — unless you want to compare a spittle with beheadings and crucifixions.
Yes, Orthodox Jews — a minority in Israel that really practices Judaism — despise Christians, and they show this contempt by spitting. It is a nasty act, but very far away from beheadings and crucifixions.
The Israeli society is not dominated by Orthodox Jews. Besides, as usual in the Christendom, Judaism has several currents: liberal, moderate, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox. Even so, there are no beheaders and crucifiers among them. There are spitters…
What is the motivation of spits and contempt? Many of them are resentful of the Inquisition and the Crusades, which savaged many Jews. But they do not distinguish between Christians. They think that every Christian is responsible for the Inquisition and for the Crusades, when in reality only the Catholic Church began and finished these things.
In their minds, the acts of the Catholic Church against the Jews are acts of all Christian churches. It is a mistaken perception. Even with this mistaken perception, they do not behead or crucify Christians in retribution for the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Yet, not only Jews have a mistaken perception. Christians who love Israel sometimes exaggerate their love by worshipping everything done in Israel. In a worship service in a large church in Brasília, Brazil, I heard a minister preaching about the alleged wonders of kibutzes — collective farms where everybody eat in a communal refectory and children are brought up in communal daycares. Kibutzes have no origin in the Bible. Its origin is socialist European Jews who settled in Israel in the early 1900s.
Yes, there is socialism in Israel. The only nation in the Middle East having legal abortion and gay parades is Israel.
The Israeli military draft is compulsory for men and women. While in the U.S. conservatives had been fighting for years to hinder their military from drafting women for combats, Israel has followed this socialist model for years.
The Israeli love for socialism is also despised by the Orthodox Jews. In fact, this Israeli love for socialism has often been used by their enemies to paint the Jews as wicked.
In Brazil, the Jews, except the Orthodox ones, are traditional supporters of the Left, including the ruling socialist Workers’ Party. In the United States, the overwhelming majority of the Jews support Obama’s party — a party that has been in the opposite direction of the interests of Israel and the real Christians.
How explain Jews’ love for socialism? Because Karl Marx was a Jew?
One of the explanations may be in the czarist Russia. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the czar sanctioned laws against the Jews, and it produced the infamous pogroms — violent attacks against the Jews and their properties.
Those attacks were supported by leaders connected to the Orthodox Church, which was not acting in a way different from the Inquisition and the Crusades of her sister, the Catholic Church.
Facing the extreme persecution from the czarist government, the Russian Jews had only two options: 1. To flee for the U.S. (which was the largest Protestant nation in the world). To flee for an Europe under Catholic influence was not in their considerations. 2. To resist and fight.
For those not fleeing for the U.S., the chosen resistance was to support Marxist movements, which gave rise to the Soviet Union. Jews’ enemies use this episode to try to portray the Jews as the creators of this evil empire, but this was not the case. By an issue of sheer survival and to end pogroms, Russian Jews gave their support to the communist revolution and the creation of the Soviet Union.
If it were possible for them, they would also have supported some way of resistance to escape the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Pogroms were a so terrifying persecution that Russian Jews did whatever was possible to put an end to the czarist empire, even getting help from American bankers to fund the birth of the Soviet Union. But the Jewish solution, though having begun intended to save lives, eventually proved to be worse than the original problem. It produced a bigger problem.
A similar phenomenon happened in Germany in the early 1930s. With communism threatening to win elections, even Lutheran ministers instructed their flocks to vote for Adolf Hitler as the only ‘salvation’ against communism. However, the solution eventually proved to be worse than the problem, especially for Jews, who suffered the Holocaust. Despair pushes peoples to deadly ‘solutions.’
Truly, in the Soviet Union the Jews were able to reach high posts in the government and in the military — something mostly impossible in the Orthodox Russia or the Catholic Europe. But the cost was very high.
Jews’ enemies enjoy emphasizing the Jewish participation in the birth of the Soviet Union, but they conveniently cover the slaughters Jews underwent in the Orthodox Russia. Those enemies are able to praise the Inquisition and the Crusades without mentioning the suffering and the slaughters the Jews endured.
Jews’ traditional love for socialism is based in these historical factors and in their fight to back movements to deliver them from intense persecutions of political regimes connected to the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.
Orthodox Jews have their historical reasons to spit on Christians. But they do not perceive that their issues are only with Catholics and Orthodoxies.
Because of these historical issues, Israel is today the only State in the Middle East where socialism and capitalism are perfectly married.
Those who hate Jews because of socialism should not ignore that they supported this system because of despair and to survive from atrocious persecutions by ‘Christians’ who loved more the Inquisition, the Crusades and pogroms than they loved Jesus Christ.
Those who love Jews should not support kibutzes or the love of many of them for socialism.
Someday the Jews are going to discover that the only salvation from the Inquisition, the Crusades, pogroms, anti-Semitism and Islamic hatred is the greatest Jews in the history — Jesus Christ.
Different from the socialist ‘salvation,’ Jesus’ salvation has no widespread deadly side effects.
Those who know the salvation of this Jew should pray so that Jews around the world may be delivered from their illusions regarding a socialist ‘salvation’ and socialist ‘messiahs.’
Recommended Reading:

Monday, December 08, 2014

Hillary Clinton: America should “empathize” and “show respect” to her enemies


Hillary Clinton: America should “empathize” and “show respect” to her enemies

By Julio Severo
Hillary Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016, has been criticized after saying that America should “empathize” and “show respect” to her enemies.
Hillary Clinton
Her speech, focused on the promotion of feminist leadership, was given at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., December 3, 2014.
Her feminist approach is for America to use “every possible tool and partner” to advance ‘peace.’ She elaborated that this approach means “showing respect, even for one’s enemies; trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.” 
How are we supposed to understand her speech? Who are these enemies of America?
We are left at least with three possibilities:
1. Muslims. Muslims, especially from Saudi Arabia, are behind the 9/11 terror attack. But if Clinton wants America to empathize with Muhammad’s followers, she came too late. George W. Bush was a pioneer in calling, immediately after 9/11, Islam a “religion of peace.” So, since Bush, we are left with an impression that Islam is not America’s enemy. If this is the case, Clinton is not referring to Muslims, who have been treated with extreme empathy by the U.S. government. The U.S. love affair with Saudi Arabia is legendary. In this perspective, Muslims are not the U.S. enemies.
2. Conservative Christians. That’s right. According to Whistleblower magazine, America’s enemies are not Islamic jihadists, but conservatives and Christians. Pro-life and pro-family work has been labeled terrorism by the Obama administration. In fact, under former Secretary Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department put homosexual rights as a top priority, and now it is not only sponsoring homosexual activism around the world, but has also committed itself to oppose international pro-family Christians engaged against the gay agenda. So obviously these Christians are, for Clinton and Obama, America’s enemies. Now, in an ultimate ‘merciful’ act, does Clinton want the U.S. government to ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to these Christians?
3. Progressives. So her call is self-serving. The real enemies of America are individuals and institutions who want to disfigure her from her original intent. The Founding Fathers were mostly evangelical Christians and intended a nation especially to Christians. Hillary and her husband, former U.S. President Bill, oppose this original form. Obama does too. And by declaring that Islam is a “religion of peace,” even Bush opposed the Founding Fathers’ intent. So, basically, Hillary Clinton meant, “I want America to ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to me, my husband, Obama, Bush and other U.S. presidents for every wicked pro-Islam act that put us on par with America’s enemies.”
Certainly, the Obama administration, the Clinton administration and, sadly, even the Bush administration would ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to themselves. I have enclosed Bush because recently he called Bill Clinton his ‘brother.’ Well, if I called Clinton or Obama a ‘brother,’ I should be considered an enemy of America.
Besides, when Bush called Islam a ‘religion of peace,’ he lied to America and to the world. Clinton and Obama have agreed with and even promoted this lie. This has been deceptive propaganda to America and the world, especially because Islam is, by far, the biggest source of persecution and martyrdom for Christians around the world.
Clinton and Obama are progressive (socialist) Protestants. So they are pro-abortion and pro-sodomy. In contrast, Bush is a generally pro-life and anti-sodomy conservative evangelical. But all of them are proclaimers of Islam as a “religion of peace.” In this respect, all of them have been liars, to the detriment of many thousands of Christians, whose blood has been shed by Islamic butchers every year.
Should America be a friend of Islam? Should America be its chief proclaimer through deception and a sordid partnership with Turkey and Saudi Arabia? Is not proclaiming Islam as a “religion of peace” cowardice and complicity in its many crimes, genocides and slaughters of innocents?
So is it any wonder that, according Dr. Raymond Ibrahim, author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” it is a confirmed fact that America has become the chief facilitator of Christian persecution?
My question to the American people is: Should you ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to Clinton, Obama, Bush and other fellow Americans while they ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to Islam and aided and abetted America to become such facilitator?
With information from Daily Mail and Weekly Standard.
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Brazilian Families Want Legal Homeschooling


Brazilian Families Want Legal Homeschooling

By Julio Severo
A group of families made a 12-hour trip to be in Brasilia, Brazil’s capital city, to attend a vote in the Brazilian Congress on homeschooling. The vote was postponed, but the presence of these families and their children touched the hearts of many congressional representatives.
Homeschool families in the Brazilian Congress
These families, who were sponsored by ANED (Associação Nacional de Educação Domiciliar, National Home Education Association), promise to be in Brasilia again next Wednesday, when there will be a possible new vote.
Congressmen touched by homeschool families
The current Brazilian government is controlled by the socialist Workers’ Party, and it is hostile to homeschooling. The past social democratic government, of the Marxist, former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, was similarly hostile.
The ideological opposition by the Workers’ Party is reminiscent of the Workers’ Party in Germany some 80 years ago. In fact, this was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, also known as Nazi Party, which banned homeschooling in Germany in the 1930s. After the ban, national socialist dictator Hitler said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”
Hitler’s ban is in place in Germany even today. Germany, which is tolerant of many kinds of radical Muslim practices and customs from its Islamic immigrants, has been radically intolerant of every homeschooling practice of Christian parents.
Germany is a long way from one of the most important founders of the modern German language, Martin Luther, who said, “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth.”
About the Brazilian government, why should it imitate the German government behavior against Christian parents? About the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who was an admirer of the Soviet Union, why should she keep a ban on homeschooling? Why should her administration persecute Christian parents who homeschool in a Christian way?
The Soviet Union no more exists. In modern Russia, homeschooling is legal. In my pro-life and pro-family meeting in Moscow two months ago, one of the most prominent homeschool leaders in the world told me that Russia has several homeschool curriculums. In today’s Russia, it is not a crime to homeschool. Why in Brazil is it?
CBN News, of Pat Robertson, reported that Russia “is one of the freest nations in which to homeschool.”
“We have complete freedom of home education in Russia, in terms of legality,” Pavel Parfentiev, a family rights advocate in Russia, said.
“The Russian Federation is sort of a champion of human rights in this particular area, so of course I think it is a good example for both Germany and Sweden where home educators are persecuted,” he said to CBN News.
If Rousseff admired the old Russia much, why should she admire new Russia less? She should allow homeschooling and even imitate a Russian ban on gay propaganda to protect children.
She should not imitate Germany, which is intolerant of homeschooling by Christian parents, but extremely tolerant of Islamic radicalisms.
Rousseff should make a trip to Russia and learn basic lessons of freedom, protection and educational choices for children.
She should ban homosexual propaganda, not homeschooling, to minors.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Muhammad tops as the most popular baby boy name in Britain


Muhammad tops as the most popular baby boy name in Britain

From Muslim cradle to British grave

By Julio Severo
There is a surge in Islamic names in the U.K. in 2014, according to the Daily Mail.
Mosque in Britain
The champion is Muhammad, which is now the most popular male baby name in Britain.
Predictably, Muslims will outnumber the ethnic British people in a few decades, and U.K. will be officially Islamic.
Today, many “English” Muslims, who are not ethnic British, are joining Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East. Usually, they were born to immigrant parents.
In the past, U.K. sent Christian missionaries to Muslim lands. Now, U.K. sends Muslims to kill Christians in Syria and Iraq. This is a foretaste of what ethnic British will experience from their fake ‘compatriots’ in the next years.
From a Christian hotbed U.K. is becoming an Islamic hotbed.
Why is this happening? The British people do not like babies and large families. When U.K. was Christian, they knew that God likes babies and large families and that the natural law fosters them.
Now Britain loves the contraceptive culture, with its bonus of death culture. But the natural law has no respect for both destructive cultures.
U.K. has no respect for their Christian heritage or the natural law.
Any culture that maintains marriage, family and babies will survive. Any culture that despises them will die away. So it just natural that the British culture is giving place to the Islamic culture.
A bigger and bigger Muslim cradle spells a bigger and bigger British grave.
Britain has lost in the cradle, and soon Muslims will give them a cultural, religious and ethnic grave.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, December 01, 2014

Are Conservatives and Socialists ‘Brothers’? George W. Bush Calls Bill Clinton His ‘Brother’


Are Conservatives and Socialists ‘Brothers’? George W. Bush Calls Bill Clinton His ‘Brother’

By Julio Severo
George W. Bush has described Bill Clinton as a ‘brother from another mother’ in a gushing interview about their surprising friendship, according to Daily Mail.
Clinton and Bush
He added that his own father ‘serves as a father figure’ to Clinton, who pushed the elder Bush out of office in 1992.
The Daily Mail reported that after becoming president, Clinton frequently sought Bush Sr.’s advice, just as Bush Jr. did with Clinton when he was elected America’s 43rd president.
Did these mutual advices include abortion and homosexuality? After all, before Obama, Clinton was the most prominent pro-abortion and pro-sodomy U.S. president. In contrast, Bush was generally pro-life and pro-family.
Did their friendship involve moral clashes? I have never heard about it.
In fact, I have never heard Bush openly criticizing Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-sodomy policies. And even now that the U.S. government has been championing, through its State Department and USAID, the promotion of the homosexual agenda around the world, Bush’s voice of protest has been heard nowhere.
In 2007, in his visit to Brazil, Globo, the largest TV network in Brazil, contacted me for an interview, because, according to its journalist, I was one of the few Brazilians supportive of Bush. My support was based on pro-life and pro-family values.
I honored Bush because of these values.
Bush could honor these same values and his alleged Christian convictions by exposing and denouncing the leftist wickedness of men like Clinton and Obama. Why does he never have done it?
They are not brothers in the abortion and the sodomy issues. But, apparently, in the U.S. foreign policy there are higher interests. Clinton funded the Venezuelan Marxism in the 1990s by letting his country to buy the Venezuelan oil, thereby helping Venezuela fund Marxism in Latin America, including Foro de São Paulo. Bush never criticized Clinton for this funding. On the contrary, he did the same thing in the 2000s. So Clinton and Bush were brothers in the funding of the Venezuelan Marxism.
They were also brothers when they supported Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two foremost Muslim nations involved in international Islamic terrorism.
It seems that the message of their ‘brotherhood’ is:
It does not matter if you are conservative or socialist, support America, which has everything you need, whether conservatism or socialism. America can satisfy your ideological preference if you support her.
America can satisfy you even religiously. If you are (conservative or liberal) Christian, America has top liberal and conservative Christians to your liking. If you are Muslim, America has a Muslim as director of CIA and Muslims even in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As you, DHS labels conservative Christians as “terrorists”!
America can satisfy you in the pro-life and pro-abortion issue. But as far as pro-life stances are concerned, America can satisfy you only in the private setting. Satisfaction about the U.S. government promoting and imposing an ideology is guaranteed only to pro-abortion and pro-sodomy activists, as the U.S. government is committed only to this cause.
Bill Clinton is socialist, and he has a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy record to confirm it.
George Bush is conservative and he has a pro-life and pro-family record to confirm it.
Yet, apparently, when the subject is U.S. supremacy, both disregard their “irreconcilable” moral and ethical differences and become “brothers.”
Another factor uniting them and making them brothers is the U.S. politics of imposing on Israel a two-state solution. This is, even though God wants only the Jews in the land of Israel, the U.S. wants Jews and Palestinian Arabs in that land. Both Democrats and Republicans are determined in this plan against Israel. Both Bush and Clinton and now Obama wanted and want to impose a Palestinian nation in the land of Israel.
For Clinton, it is easy to defend a U.S. supremacy with a government eagerly promoting the gay agenda, including by threatening developing nations with aid cut if they do not submit themselves to the U.S. homosexualist impositions.
Yet, how can be easy for Bush to be with his “brother” in this?
In fact, if the Christian conservatism of a man, American or Brazilian, matters less than nationalist interests and ambitions, just as the nation is in grave sin and threatening to turn the world into Sodom, what is the use of being a conservative?
If the Christian conservatism of a man, American or Brazilian, forms an easy alliance with socialists in a nationalist brotherhood, what is the use of being a conservative?
God-oriented conservatism makes a country strong. Socialism, which distorts and attacks God, leaves people weak.
Conservatism and patriotism is good. But when God-oriented conservatism is sacrificed on the altar of nationalism, conservatives and socialists become “brothers,” and the nationalist supremacy makes socialism a winner and pro-family and pro-life values generally big losers.
An example of the nationalist supremacy’s negative effects is the criticism from U.S. homosexual activists, feminists, leftists and rightists directed at the International Forum of the Large Family and the Future of Humanity, held in Moscow last September and attended by fine pro-family leaders from other nations, including the U.S. American leftists attacked it because it was a conservative event. U.S. homosexual activists attacked it because it opposed the gay agenda. American feminists attacked it because it was pro-life. American rightists attacked it because they think that Moscow is not entitled to hold pro-family events. All of them, even though from antagonistic ideological spectrums, were moved by nationalism.
The Moscow event was conservative. I was there. Conservative American-Jewish author Don Feder was there, attacking the culture of death and cultural Marxism. And there were other Americans, who were under threat from their homosexual, feminist, leftist and rightist ultra-nationalist compatriots.
In the past few decades America has produced Clinton, Bush and Obama. Their nationalism, marked by military interventions with a trail of suffering and death for countless Christians around the world, has been strongly accompanied — excepting Bush — by anti-family and anti-life impositions in the United Nations and around the world. The Obama administration is the most pro-Islam and anti-Christian administration in the U.S. history.
Increasingly in this terrifying nationalism, there is no place for respect for life and family. Even during the Bush administration, pro-life and pro-family values never were a top priority as sodomy and abortion have been now in the U.S. foreign policy. Even so, Bush and Clinton are ‘brothers.’ Even so, Bush have never criticized this wicked policy and sodomitic nationalism. He has never criticized the Islamic promotion by the U.S. government.
What is the use of being a pro-life and pro-family Christian conservative when the U.S. nationalism allows his values no priority or even a place of honor?
The fact the U.S. has a sodomitic top priority in its foreign policy, military interventions facilitating Islamic expansion and persecution of Christians around the world and a destructive two-state solution for Israel confirm a destructive nationalism at the service of oligarchic interests and ambitions.
If the two-state solution for Israel unites U.S. presidents in a nationalistic ‘brotherhood,’ Clinton, Bush and Obama are ‘brothers.’ And if promotion of Islam also strengthens this ‘brotherhood,’ then while Obama is the guy who is promoting Islam today, Bush was the guy who immediately after 9/11 said that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’
After a Nazi attack in 1940, would a Clinton, Bush or Obama have said that Nazism is an ‘ideology of peace’? Why then is Islam, whose adherents love Hitler, afforded a title of peace when its ideology fosters terror and death?
Why was not Bush ashamed of misrepresenting the ideology that violently attacked his country and has been slaughtering thousands of Christians every year?
As a Christian, is he aware that one of the Ten Commandments orders us not to give false testimony? Sadly, even the Pope has broken it by saying recently that “equating Islam with violence is wrong.”
The strange nationalistic ‘brotherhood’ of Clinton, Bush and Obama does not have brought benefit for Christianity and its values. On the other hand, it has been advancing socialism, Islam, abortion and sodomy around the world in a babylonic orgy.
In his autobiography “Decision Points” (Crown), George W. Bush said that he had a spiritual conversion through Billy Graham. He said, “As I read the Bible, I was moved by the stories of Jesus’ kindness to suffering strangers, His healing of the blind and crippled, and His ultimate act of sacrificial love when He was nailed to the cross.”
About his pro-life values, he explained, “The abortion issue is difficult, sensitive, and personal. My faith and conscience led me to conclude that human life is sacred. God created man in His image and therefore every person has value in His eyes. It seemed to me that an unborn child, while dependent on its mother, is a separate and independent being worthy of protection in its own right. When I saw [my daughters] Barbara and Jenna on the sonogram for the first time, there was no doubt in my mind they were distinct and alive. The fact that they could not speak for themselves only enhanced society’s duty to defend them.”
Yet, he added, “Many decent and thoughtful people disagreed, including members of my family.”
One of these people is his wife, Laura Bush, who in her autobiography “Spoken from the Heart” (Simon and Schuster), said, “I have always believed that abortion is a private decision.”
Can the killing of an innocent child be a ‘private’ decision?
To defend life, Bush had to disappoint his wife and a multitude of pro-abortion activists.
Why not disappoint a larger number of pro-death and pro-unjust war radicals? Why not disappoint the oligarchic forces ruling in the U.S. in administration after administration?
A spiritual conversion puts you in a new family.
I would like my article to reach Bush and challenge him to commit himself more to his Christian brotherhood, with international Christians suffering on the trail of the U.S. military (mis)adventures that facilitate Islamic expansion, than to his nationalistic ‘brotherhood.’
Can Clinton and Obama become Bush’s brothers? Yes. Under Christ, they can enter the new family — which has nothing to do with the promotion of socialism, Islam, abortion, sodomy and destructive oligarchic interests and ambitions.
This new family is about knowing Christ as a Savior and Lord, living with Him and seeking and expanding His Kingdom (His Government) and His righteousness.
Recommended Reading: