Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today


Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

By Julio Severo
As an American conservative evangelical who speaks and reads Russian and several European and Asian languages, Don Hank is uniquely able to explain the major challenges and dangers to the U.S., Europe and Russia.
In this interview, he will help international and especially Brazilian readers to understand what is happening to these cultures that have Christian traditions.
Don has a special concern for Christians being persecuted, raped and slaughtered as a result of misguided and malevolent geopolitical policies from the Western powers. He has written a number of articles in support of these persecuted Christians.
He has had a special connection to two of his Brazilian friends. When PayPal, under pressure of a campaign of a major gay group in the U.S., shut down my account, Don denounced this abuse in an article that was headlined at WND, titled “PayPal blacklists Christian writer.”
Another Brazilian helped by Don was philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. The first time any writing of Carvalho’s appeared in WND was through Don’s translation.
In fact, I got to know Don Hank through Carvalho. Both were very special and supportive in my times of persecution from homosexual activists.
The epic war involving massive homosexual and Islamic forces has hit the U.S., Europe and Russia in an extraordinary way. So, I have invited Don to speak to us about what he knows, because he is very familiar with these three cultures.
JULIO SEVERO: In view of the fact that the greatest threat to the world and specially Christians is Islam, why are the U.S. and Russia, both Christian nations, fighting each other, instead fighting Islam?
DON HANK: The answer to that goes so far outside our comfort zone and our normalcy bias barrier that many Westerners will refuse to believe it. But here it is for those who are willing to consider my interpretation:
The US is not Christian in the same sense as Russia. In the US, the Left has waged a war on Christianity that has left US Christians debilitated and unable to resist. A salient example is the way in which our people, including many Christians, have been subjugated to the politically correct doctrine that the Biblical ban on homosexual behavior is outdated and ‘homophobic.’ This politically correct doctrine is almost impossible to resist because the average American either accepts it or is afraid to resist it, and many others are disposed to insult or belittle anyone who expresses the opposite viewpoint. There is also an official trend to enact and enforce laws that punish Christians or others who oppose the concept of ‘gay marriage.’ Many churches accept this un-Biblical doctrine and some have pastors who are openly ‘gay.’ In Russia, there are no legal or social restraints against accepting or expressing the biblical and common-sense viewpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. Almost all Russian churches accept the Biblical view of homosexuality.
So in summary, both the government and the people of Russia are closer in their views to Christianity as it is taught in the Bible. Christianity in pure form is not an ideology. I define ideology essentially as that which falls outside common sense, and the Russians, thank God, still allow themselves to be guided by common sense. By the way, Putin, in a recent interview, said he does not have an ideology. He describes himself as a conservative and a pragmatist but insisted that these are not ideologies. In other words, in plain language, Russia is, ironically, a Christian country in truth while America is a Christian country in name. Or more precisely, the US is quickly becoming a non-Christian country guided by an ideology that can roughly be called Westernism, or Western liberalism. This ideology has many facets, such as a virulent form of secularism that is actually anti-Christian while pretending to be neutral; Russophobia (a kind of racism, similar to Hitler’s anti-Semitism, teaching, for example, that Russia is morally inferior to the West, a teaching that draws its support from the residual Cold War sentiments of many Americans who obtain most of their information from the mass media); the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which gives the US military the privilege to invade any country that opposes the US, and the now-meaningless concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ which in real terms, mean just the opposite of what they suggest; and a New World Order concept of a world divided into several easily controllable regions, one of which would be Muslim and would be dominated by sharia law. (This regionalism would create hierarchies which the Western oligarchies that created it hope to control. They give little consideration to the unexpected consequences of such a system, which could be disastrous for them. This regionalist facet of US policy is the most dangerous by far and we are just now starting to see the threat that it poses to all Western peoples because of the Middle East situation. It is hard to believe, but, while the Western oligarchs possess formidable military capability, they are ideologically impotent to oppose Islam.
For these reasons, Russia naturally supports Christians, such as Serbs and Syrian Christians, whereas US policies could ultimately cause the death and destruction of these Christians if no counterforce can come into play. The US oligarchs (as distinct from the American people) are ideologically incapable of allying themselves with Russia against Islam. In fact, I once wrote an article entitled Washington DC, the Seat of the Caliphate, which explains why this is so.
JULIO SEVERO: Don, you said, “The US is not Christian in the same sense as Russia” and “Russia is, ironically, a Christian country in truth while America is a Christian country in name.” I agree with you that the Russian Orthodox Church, which knows how to preserve its traditions, is doing better than the U.S. mainline denominations as the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church and other traditional Protestant churches. The basic mission of a traditional church is to preserve its Christian traditions. And Christianity has no tradition of supporting the killing of unborn babies and other innocents and likewise no tradition of supporting gay “marriage” and other facets of the gay agenda. Why does a high number of traditional Protestant churches in America accept these aberrations and the Orthodox Church in Russia does not? In this sense, traditional Christianity in Russia is doing better than traditional Christianity in America. But I am from the charismatic/Pentecostal variety, and in my view many Americans in this variety are doing much better, as far as I know, than Russians. For example, Russia has no David Wilkerson or Jack Deere. In fact, the most important American attending a recent pro-life event in Moscow is a member of the Assemblies of God. Let us ask other question:
William Murray has said that Saudi Arabia is the greatest financier of global Islamic terrorism. Besides, Saudi Arabia actively murders homosexuals, bans Christianity and persecutes and tortures Christians. Why doesn’t the U.S., which is the most important ally of Saudi Arabia and an active promoter of global gay rights, ever condemns them over their execution of homosexuals, but has condemned Russia over a mere law banning homosexual propaganda to minors?
DON HANK: The US is now in the hands of a small group of oligarchs who are anti-Christian. For them Russia’s law banning homosexual propaganda is not a “mere” law, it is a declaration of war on Westernism, which, though an ideology, is actually becoming a religion in the eyes of these power-hungry oligarchs, who viscerally hate anyone who opposes them… not unlike all fascists. Homosexuality is one of the pillars of this religion, one of its sacred tenets. The irony of US policies is, as you point out, Julio, that they support two mutually exclusive teachings: the homosexual agenda and Islam. For them, this is not a problem because the end justifies the means. The secret that only a few observers have articulated is that both Islam and the homosexual agenda are anti-Christian. Incredibly, then, Westernism has embraced these two teachings only for the purpose of destroying Christianity. Russia, of course, opposes both, and for that reason, Russia today is the only world power that is capable of defending Christians and Christianity.
JULIO SEVERO: Why is the U.S. so soft on Saudi Arabia, which murders homosexuals, and so hard on Russia that does not murder them?
DON HANK: Well, if the US government were really concerned about homosexuals, it would not promote Islamization as it does. Likewise, if it really were concerned about supporting Islam, it would not promote the homosexual agenda. The only explanation left for this inconsistent behavior — the default explanation — is that the US is interested primarily in destroying Christian culture, and for that reason it supports the idea of a caliphate. Saudi Arabia supports the founding of a caliphate, which is part of the New World Order concept of a world divided into regions that are easily controllable by Western oligarchs. Again, the oligarchs see Russia as lawless because it does not obey the West, and especially the US, which the oligarchs see as a law unto itself. It does not obey either God’s laws or man’s laws. It writes its own laws for its own convenience. Ironically, Russia has pointed out that it acts in accordance with international law while the US makes a mockery of international law. This is evident in a Russian televised interview with Foreign Minister Lavrov, which I have translated.
JULIO SEVERO: There is no doubt that the gay agenda and the Islamic agenda are ideologies of tyranny. How do the U.S. and Russia react domestically to these threats?
DON HANK: An expert on Russian policy, who was a retired professional analyst in the Russian government, once said in a private email to a group in which I was included, that Putin, shortly after his election, dealt with the Chechen Muslim insurgents by sending one of his generals to Chechnya with an overwhelming military force. The general told the imam of each town that they must surrender. He said if they surrendered peacefully, they would be spared. If they did not, the town would be destroyed. He kept his promise. Putin is severely criticized by the West for this policy, just as Assad is criticized for being tough on terrorists. Yet by the inaction of Western leaders, we are witnessing daily violence in the Middle East and even a growing jihadism in the West. We need to understand that inaction is more devastating in the long run than dealing harshly with murderers.
As for the homosexual agenda, Putin’s government has managed to enact and enforce laws that prohibit gay propaganda. Russia has jailed a group of women, Pussy Riot, who illegally entered and desecrated a church. The reason for Putin’s success is that, despite Western accusations that he is a tyrant, his government is much more democratic than the US government in the sense that the Russian people do not want to have pro-homosexual policies and propaganda foisted on them, and his policies respect the people’s will. In contrast, the US oligarchs in government and in NGOs, must overcome the will of the people in order to foist gay “marriage on us”. Everything is backward. The once-leftist Russia is now the most socially and economically conservative world power, while the once-conservative USA is now very radical and leftwing.
JULIO SEVERO: How did the U.S. come to have a president who is simultaneously pro-Islam and pro-sodomy?
DON HANK: In my opinion, Julio, Obama is not really as much pro-Islam or pro-sodomy as he is pro-Western liberalism, which is essentially the same as neoconservatism. He is only using Islam and the homosexual agenda to impose the West’s will on the rest of the world. And he is not acting alone. He is simply running along with the central Westernist secular ideology.
JULIO SEVERO: Ronald Reagan successfully created the Mexico City Policy, which banned, in his time, the U.S. government from funding abortion overseas. But he was unsuccessful in defeating Roe vs. Wade. Similarly, the current more conservative Russian government has successfully championed the fight against abortion in the U.N. system, but domestically it has only restricted it and banned its propaganda. What do you think about these conservative parallels?
DON HANK: I think Putin is a conservative in his heart, but like Reagan, he is a pragmatist who knows the limits of his power. Putin is already making major changes in the abortion rate and, unlike Reagan, he has both a moral reason and an economic reason for opposing abortion. The birth rate is too low to be sustainable. If any country ever bans abortion, I think it will be Russia.
JULIO SEVERO: On a larger scale, old Christian churches in Europe have been transformed in mosques. On a smaller scale, the same is happening in America. In contrast, Russia is rebuilding Christian churches and banning the construction of mosques in Moscow. Is the European and American case an example of “democracy” or suicide? Are Russians trying to stop the massive Islamic “invasion” that is transforming the European and American cultural and religious landscape?
DON HANK: Europe and America are both capitulating gradually to Islam and there is little evidence that the leaders of these regions will stop until they have been completely Islamized. The only signs of an awakening to the dangers are the rapidly growing political parties in the UK, Holland and France, which are making great strides in educating the public of the Muslim threat. The US has not had enough first-hand experience with Islam to oppose it forcefully, and of course, the Obama administration actually has Muslims in high places in government. It is widely believed that John Brennan, the head of the CIA, is a Muslim. That is a very ominous sign. So the answer to your question as to whether we are democracy or suicide, I would have to say we are headed for suicide, ironically, as a result of our obsession with democracy, though with the caveat that our “democracy” is not representative of the people’s will. A recent joint study between Northwestern and Princeton Universities showed unequivocally that the US is more of an oligarchy than a democracy.
As for Russia, while the central government has been careful to avoid confrontation with Islam, local areas and cities have, as you mentioned, taken serious measures to halt the advance of Islam, including banning mosque construction in several cities and in Moscow, refusing to issue a permit for a demonstration against ‘Islamophobia.’
JULIO SEVERO: Many people talk about Russia without understanding its language, culture and traditions. Is this your case? What do you know about Russia?
DON HANK: I hold a Master’s degree in Russian language and literature and have studied at the University of Leningrad (now Petersburg). I read Russian language articles as often as I can. It is almost impossible to understand what is really happening in Russia without looking at the Russian viewpoint. My Russophobe friends insist that almost everything that the Russians say is mere propaganda. However, it must be pointed out that Russia is no longer a monolithic government. I believe you, Julio, pointed out in a recent commentary that Moscow Times has an anti-government viewpoint. Therefore, no one can truthfully say that all news from Russia is propaganda.
There is also one very important reason why I see Russia differently from many other Americans, including conservative Christians. I have had considerable exposure to Russian literature and recognize in Putin’s words and actions the distinct influence of Russian Christian thought. Christian authors that I have read in Russian include Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, whose Christian thoughts are expressed and illustrated in Putin’s words and deeds. Likewise, Putin has had friendly relations with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a man whose writings reflected religious thought at a time when such was strictly forbidden by the communists (but without necessarily declaring himself to be a Christian). It is very difficult for Westerners with little or no exposure to Russian literature to correctly evaluate Vladimir Putin.
JULIO SEVERO: American ultranationalists as Cliff Kincaid believe that Putin is being influenced by an ideology called “Eurasianism,” which was set forth by the philosopher Alexander Dugin. In fact, he said that Dugin is an adviser to Putin. What is your opinion on this?
DON HANK: Julio, russophobia is now a cottage industry in America and the hacks who work in it are paid to give speeches and write books that essentially keep the cold war warm. None of the ones I know of, including Kincaid, have an extensive knowledge of Russian culture, literature or language and they do not read the Russian language press. It is impossible to be an authority on Russia without this background.
I know that many people here in the Western world have been told by anti-Russia critics that Alexander Dugin is a “mentor” of Putin. That is not true. Dugin is a very clever man who wants power for himself and has made desperate attempts to ingratiate himself with Putin. Dugin never really understood Putin. After Dugin made that crazy speech in a televised interview urging people to “kill, kill, kill” (the Ukrainians), many Russians demanded that Dugin be fired from his post as professor. Indeed, he was fired, and significantly, Putin did not object to this. Indeed, Putin has said repeatedly in interviews that the Russians and Ukrainians are brothers. He wants conciliation and he wants Russians to respect other peoples. Dugin was stupid to say what he did. Dugin later foolishly blamed Putin for not coming to his aid. Obviously, this man is an egotist who has no influence on Putin whatsoever, and I doubt he ever did.  Putin was recently interviewed by Russian media and was asked what his ideology was. Putin said he had no ideology at all and that he was a conservative and a pragmatist. This was a strong signal to the public that he was not in any way tied to Dugin and would not be swayed by his ideology.
JULIO SEVERO: Thanks, Don. If Russia followed the U.S. free speech model, Dugin would never be fired, because thousands of American professors proclaim nonsense and even murders (especially of unborn babies) and go unfired. In fact, the fad today in the U.S. is to fire only professors who speak out against abortion and homosexuality. So it is very interesting that in the Russian model, Dugin was fired. Now, another question:
A few days ago, the Kremlin hosted an international forum on large families and the future of humanity. Originally, the World Congress on Families was scheduled to hold its big pro-family event at the Kremlin. But leftist and homosexual groups successfully pressed the U.S. government to ban Christian and conservative groups from attending it. So the World Congress on Families had to comply under this massive negative pressure. What is the power today of U.S. gay and leftist groups to stop the freedom of Christian and conservative groups? Why haven’t other great U.S. conservative groups denounced it? On the contrary, gay activists in the U.S. trashed the Moscow event. The U.S. leftist group PFAW (People for the American Way), which attacked me some weeks ago, also trashed the event. In fact, American ultranationalists as Cliff Kincaid trashed it too. Even the secular Russian newspaper The Moscow Times, following the secular U.S. media, trashed the event, using basically the same words of Kincaid, saying that the Russian speakers were “corrupt” and accusing the American and the international participants of being “neo-cons.” This was the first time in my life I was accused of being a neocon. How do you interpret this strange “alliance” against the pro-family event in Moscow?
DON HANK: First of all, Julio, I want to heartily congratulate you for being able to attend that conference. I believe that God was with you in opening up the hearts of your readers to donate so generously to enable you to make this trip. It is incredible that the government of a “Christian” nation could allow itself to be pressured to ban your entering the Kremlin. What a wonderful and historically educational visit that would have been! I can’t tell you exactly why conservative groups have not complained about this absurd ban, but I do have a theory. Ever since web sites started publishing my articles about Putin and Russia, I have been receiving some emails from groups that I call “professional Russophobes,” activists who support the neocon view of Russia and are paid for speaking engagements and for writing books that denigrate Russia. This is little more than prostitution of their talents. Russophobia is racism, just like anti-Semitism. Both imply a fear and/or hatred of an ethnic group, which they consider morally, intellectually or otherwise inferior, while considering themselves superior. Jesus warned against this self-righteousness in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the Temple. Unfortunately, many Western Christians are also Russophobes, and this is a sign of spiritual blindness — the same kind of spiritual blindness that prevents Christians from effectively defending their faith against Islamization and the encroachment of the homosexual agenda. Only a spiritually blind person could possibly fail to see how Russia today is defending Christianity against both Islam and the homosexual agenda.
The Moscow Times is anti-Putin. The accusation of you being a neocon is beyond absurd. These people have no idea what a neocon is. Today's neocons are anti-Russian. There is a very strong anti-Putin movement in Russia and it consists mostly of what they call Westerners, who want to align themselves with the West. This dichotomy between Slavophiles and Westernizers goes back to the 1800s in Russia. The difference between these movements can best be understood by reading Turgenev's novella Nest of Noblefolk (it is available as a movie online. I highly recommend it to movie buffs who like classics). It is hard to believe, but the Westernizers are still active today and want a Russia that is closer in ideology to Europe and the US.
JULIO SEVERO: Some American pro-family leaders were very courageous and attended the Moscow conservative meeting. Now the Human Rights Campaign, the most important U.S. gay group, wants the State Department to investigate them. Is there a Gaystapo (a gay oppressive surveillance machine with state assistance) in America? Why don’t homosexual activists in Russia have the same “freedom” and apparatus to be a Gaystapo against Christians?
DON HANK: Julio, I like your word “Gaystapo” because it perfectly describes many gay activists and the state apparatus that protects them while persecuting Christians who dare to call homosexual behavior sin. I once regularly attended a church where the pastor taught the biblical view of homosexuality. There was a rebellious boy from a local seminary who occasionally attended with this pastor’s son. Once as the pastor was preaching about homosexuality, this boy jumped up from his seat and ran out the door, followed by the pastor’s son. It was a bizarre display but I suspected what was behind it.
A few weeks later, after this pastor had again preached the biblical view of homosexuality, the pastor’s home was torched and burned to the ground. Police investigators found that the fire was the result of arson, but no one was able to locate the perpetrators. Suffice to say that gay activists who portray themselves as victims are anything but victims.
JULIO SEVERO: Scott Lively, who is the greatest Christian authority today on the gay agenda, has said that possibly the Obama administration may have used the Ukrainian crisis to attack the Russian stance against the gay agenda. Before this crisis, all the U.S. media were consistently and increasingly attacking Russia over its law banning homosexual propaganda to children. In contrast, in the March cover story of Decision magazine, Franklin Graham praised the Russian government for this law and for stances more favorable to Christians. Do you believe that the Obama administration and neocons, who provoked the Ukrainian crisis, used it to draw away the attention from the Russian conservative measures?
DON HANK: Westernism, or Western liberalism, is a religion. From what I have observed, its followers are true believers, absolute fanatics who will stop at nothing to assert their goals. Julio, I therefore believe that you are right and that the Ukrainian crisis was indeed used for this purpose, but also to enforce the Wolfowitz doctrine, which demands that Russia must be contained and isolated from the former Soviet republics. This isolation is absolutely unfair in itself, but the association agreement between the Ukraine and the EU is a direct provocation of Russia. This agreement makes it illegal for Ukraine to trade bilaterally with Russia without the permission of the EU, and according to the Russians, this ban will cost Russia billions of dollars in lost trade. The EU (European Union) is a failed pseudo-state that is bringing nothing but misery to its members. Most of the northern members in Europe no longer wish to be part of the EU, but their leaders have betrayed them by denying them a referendum that would enable them to be sovereign again. I believe that the EU will eventually fall, and with it, so will the US. Both of these entities are nothing but dictatorships and have lost all legitimacy. It makes me sad to say this because I am an American. But it looks as if the America I was born in is not the America that I will die in. If it were not for my faith in God, I don’t know if I could stand the pain of seeing my country fall so far from grace. But my allegiance is to God Almighty and to Jesus Christ His Son, not to any country. Ronald Reagan once said: “I did not abandon the Democrat Party. It abandoned me.” Likewise I say that I did not abandon my country. It abandoned me.
JULIO SEVERO: Who are the neoconservatives, or neocons? Are they helpful or not to the Christian conservative movement? What is the power of neocons?
DON HANK: The term neocon describes in reality a group of powerful politicians and their enablers who simply pretend to be conservative but are left leaning promoters of a New World Order, or one world socialist government that, if it comes into being, will be a platform for the US oligarchs and their allies in banking and geopolitics to rule the world according to the doctrine of Western liberalism. Obviously, these people are not at all helpful to Christians. While they pretend to support fairness, democracy and “freedom,” one of their main goals is the destruction of Western civilization. They want to eliminate the borders around the US just as the EU has eliminated the borders around its member countries, which, as a result, are now bursting at the seams with hostile Muslims who threaten them with jihad. It is a desperate situation that, according to my European friends, will one day surely lead to civil war.
The power of the neocons in geopolitics is almost unlimited, or rather it is limited almost exclusively by Russia in the international sphere and by a few brave conservatives in the national sphere. People like you, Julio, who are not afraid to tell the truth and expose them.
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gifThe reason they are so powerful is that their policies and their ideology pervade both major political parties in the US and also extend to NATO and the EU. Essentially, the neocons first emerged within the Republican Party but their ideas in foreign policy have extended to the Democrat Party as well. A perfect example of this is Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland’s husband is historian Robert KaganCouncil on Foreign Relations member, and co-founder of the think-tank “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). The CFR is a carrier of the idea that borders must be eliminated in order to pave the way for a one world government. The fact that Kagan was an advisor to both Republicans and Democrats clearly illustrates how neocons cross party lines. This is why it seems meaningless for many people to vote for a candidate of either party, since both parties accept neocon policies that invariably lead to the destruction of Christians communities.
JULIO SEVERO: How have America, Europe and Russia, with their Christian traditions, capitulated to the Islamic and homosexual ideologies?
DON HANK: The elites of Europe and America have abandoned Christianity. Christian traditions mean nothing to them. Russia is the only world power that embraces Christianity (and this is not just a political trick. It fully reflects Russian Christian thought as expressed in the 19th Century literature. The EU and the USA are failing. The economies of these two entities are no longer sustainable in the long run, since they operate on the basis of debt, not on any sound business or banking principles. They are both in their late stage of existence, a stage where the only strategy left for them is to issue currency. But issuing currency to pay debts is like adding water to the soup when new guests arrive. Once too many guests have arrived, the soup no longer is soup. It is just water with a few vegetables floating around in it. Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic of Germany, for example, failed as a result of this policy.
To make matters worse for the US in particular, the Russians and their BRICS partners, including Brazil, are starting to de-dollarize international commercial transactions, basing them on rubles or yuan, for example. Once this strategy has advanced to a certain level, the dollar will have lost so much of its value that it will be almost worthless.
JULIO SEVERO: How could America, Europe and Russia, with their Christian traditions, work together to defeat the Islamic and homosexual ideology?
DON HANK: At some point, because of the failed policies, the US will depend on Russia and China almost completely, and at that point, the neocons will lose their power. Russians can then demand that the US and even the EU help them fight Islamization and, if they choose to do so, accept the Russian policies regarding homosexuality.
But none of this can happen without God’s intervention. We must all just wait and see….and pray.
Julio, thank you very much for this opportunity. I wish you and your readers all the best and I pray that God will continue to richly bless you all.
Article by Don Hank:

Monday, September 29, 2014

U.N. Adopts Latin American Homosexual Resolution


U.N. Adopts Latin American Homosexual Resolution

By Julio Severo
The United Nations Human Rights Council Friday adopted a resolution, by a 25-14, against anti-LGBT “violence” and “discrimination” that was pushed forward by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia — nations mostly Catholic, but relentlessly affected by Liberation Theology and other forms of socialism. Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world.
“The Human Rights Council has taken a fundamental step forward by reaffirming one of the United Nations’ key principles — that everyone is equal in dignity and rights,” said Jessica Stern, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, after the vote.
Stern correctly understood that this resolution is just the tip of iceberg for the expansion of gay rights around the world.
According to NBC News, the Latin American resolution was passed at the UN “with strong support from the U.S.,” formerly the largest Protestant nation in the world.
Secretary of State John Kerry said: “We have a moral obligation to speak up against marginalization and persecution of LGBT persons. We have a moral obligation to promote societies that are more just and more fair, more tolerant.”
Marginalization, persecution, violence and discrimination of LGBT persons are terms that were largely used in connection to the Russian laws banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. Even though these laws aim at protecting children and adolescents, the Western media and governments portray them as sources of violence. Their attacks were especially strident during the Sochi Olympic Games in Russia earlier this year when the U.S. media, Obama and his diplomats made a mockery of Russians and their country.
So it is hard to believe that the Latin American resolution is not intended to discourage other nations from protecting children and even their societies from the harmful influence of the homosexual agenda.
Latin America is not the only Catholic region to fall prey to the homosexualist illusion.
Italy and Ireland — both predominantly Catholic countries where homosexuality was not socially accepted in the past — voted for it.
Cuba and Venezuela, which are usually opposed to U.S.-backed resolutions, sided with Brazil and other Latin American nations, whose left-leaning governments have made radical strides in homosexual laws.
Chile argued that voting against the resolution would effectively condone violence against “millions of people around the world on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Nevertheless, Russia — which in the Soviet era was the first nation to have a liberal stance on homosexuality, but today is experiencing a revival of its Christian Orthodox religion — chose to vote against its trade partner — Brazil — and its resolution that would effectively destroy the Russian laws against homosexual propaganda. Other partners of Brazil in the BRICS chose not to challenge Brazil so directly. India and China abstained, but South Africa voted for it.
Islamic nations voted against it.
Both Uganda and Nigeria — where homosexuality is illegal — condemned the resolution as an attempt to influence their peoples’ culture.
Other nations accused the resolution of “cultural imperialism.”
Effectively, the resolution turns the U.N. into a tool to denounce governments opposed to homosexuality. Brazil, U.S. and the European Union can now, with the support of Cuba and Venezuela, make more mockery and attacks at nations that protect their children and societies.
With information from TeleSurTV, Washington Blade, NBC News, Glaad, U.S. State Department and Reuters.
Portuguese version of this article: ONU adota resolução homosexual latino-americana
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Brazil’s evangelicals gain clout, close to electing first president — a Liberation Theology adherent


Brazil’s evangelicals gain clout, close to electing first president — a Liberation Theology adherent

Commentary by Julio Severo: Striking in this report is the complete absence of journalistic criticism at the Pentecostalism of presidential candidate Marina Silva. This is the same media that would never spare Michele Bachmann, a Pentecostal/charismatic politician. The only difference is that Silva is rabidly socialist and Bachmann is a conservative. Even more striking is that Reuters, whose investigative journalism should supposedly have no omission, did not comment on the fundamental role of Liberation Theology in the spirituality and political career of Silva. Even after her “conversion” to the Assemblies of God church al, Silva extolled Liberation Theology as the “living gospel.” In the 2010 presidential election, she attacked the conservative wave against abortion and homosexuality.
Reportedly, Silva has connections with George Soros and, according to Wayne Madsen, the CIA has helped her.
Why did not Reuters choose attack her Pentecostalism? By the same reason that it hid the fact that she is more Liberation Theology than evangelical or Pentecostal. Socialism is her most important religion.
Now read the pro-Marina Silva report of Reuters:

Brazil’s evangelicals gain clout, close to electing first president

By Anthony Boadle
(Reuters) — Brazil's increasingly powerful evangelical Christians are tantalizingly close to electing one of their own as president next month in what would be a historic shift for the world's largest Catholic nation.
Marina Silva, an environmentalist running neck and neck in polls with incumbent President Dilma Rousseff, is a Pentecostal Christian who often invokes God on the campaign trail and has said she sometimes consults the Bible for inspiration when making important political decisions.
Some 65 percent of Brazil's 200 million people are Roman Catholics but evangelicals are rapidly gaining followers and power.
They grew from 5 percent of the population in 1970 to more than 22 percent in 2010 and the trend has continued. Evangelical groups have made particular inroads among urban working Brazilians who benefited from economic prosperity over the last two decades and are now demanding a greater say in politics.
Recent polls show evangelical voters would support Silva over Rousseff by a margin of about 54 percent to 38 percent if the two face each other in a runoff on Oct. 26, as most expect.
In a tight race, that could swing the result.
The evangelicals' rise has drawn comparisons to the "religious right" that began to influence U.S. politics in the 1980s.
There are important differences - most Brazilians are politically well to the left of Americans, perhaps inevitably in a country with one of the world's biggest gaps between rich and poor. Silva and Rousseff both call themselves socialists and push for robust welfare programs.
Infighting within evangelical groups has also limited their ability to create a unified bloc.
Yet similarities with the "religious right" abound. Brazil's evangelical faithful have turned their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, which are both illegal here, into key national political issues.
Funded by the tithes their followers are asked to pay, the more successful evangelical churches are increasingly turning their newfound wealth into political influence.
They have bought up radio and television stations across Brazil and financed campaigns to elect evangelical candidates, including many pastors, to seats in Congress.
The evangelical caucus in Congress showed its muscle in May by forcing Rousseff to revoke authorization for public health service abortions in exceptional cases of pregnancies caused by rape and of fetuses with brain defects.
For the first time in a Brazilian election, there are two evangelical candidates running for president. Silva has eclipsed the second hopeful, Pastor Everaldo, although he has made his mark in debates by accusing Rousseff's government of trampling on family values and seeking to legalize abortion.
Under evangelical pressure, Silva has changed her party's position on gay rights. And Rousseff, a Catholic who has rarely used faith in her political career, is now presenting herself as a good Christian. "Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord," she quoted from Psalms at one campaign stop.
"The evangelical vote will be decisive in this election," said Rodrigo Delmasso, a pastor of a Brasilia-based Pentecostal church, who is running for a seat in the city's legislature.
"As the community grows it's natural that our share of political representation grows too," the 34-year-old pastor said during a campaign stop where he handed out bumper stickers and posters to metro workers.
Delmasso said he voted for Rousseff in 2010, but he now backs Silva, trusting she will sweep out corruption after 12 years of rule by the leftist Workers' Party.
MORALITY
Many evangelicals believe their churches are uniquely equipped to cleanse politics - and society at large.
In a shabby shopping center in the center of Brazil's capital, two theaters that used to show porn films are now churches. In one that doubled as a strip club, pastors preach about salvation from a stage where strippers once performed.
Pentecostalism, the fastest growing branch of evangelical Christianity, was introduced to Latin America by U.S. missionaries a century ago.
These days, virtually every town and neighborhood in Brazil seems to have a Pentecostal chapel where vibrant song and prayer blare over loudspeakers onto the street outside. Many converts say the uplifting services and emphasis on material prosperity are more appealing than what they found in the Catholic Church.
The exodus is happening across Latin America and is especially strong in Brazil.
The Catholic Church retains political influence of its own - gathering all the major presidential candidates for a debate in Aparecida, the shrine of Brazil's patron saint, earlier this month, for example.
But while it bans its priests from engaging in politics, evangelical preachers are free to launch their own political careers from the pulpit or televangelist studios.
Recently, at the doors of a church in Brasilia, youths in shirts and ties handed out campaign flyers to people attending the service. A vote for the evangelical congressional candidate was "the same as voting for the Church," one of the youths said.
One major goal of evangelicals is to keep expanding their caucus in Congress, which has grown from 17 in 1985 to 76 today - about 15 percent of the Chamber of Deputies.
They have in many ways followed the path taken by the U.S. Christian right, which didn't really get involved in national politics until the early 1980s when one of its own - Pat Robertson - ran for president, said Andrew Chesnut, an expert on Brazil's Pentecostal boom.
"Up until then, American evangelicals saw the political arena as the devil's arena where even forthright Christians could be contaminated," said Chesnut, a professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.
"The view was that if they had critical mass they could elect their own people and that would inoculate them from the contagion of the political arena. That was the same in Brazil."
CONVERSION
Silva's rise could further boost political engagement among Brazilian evangelicals. Many, like Silva, are Afro-Brazilian women who come from a poor background.
Silva came to the faith somewhat late in life. She was born to illiterate rubber-tappers in the Amazon rainforest and wanted to become a Catholic nun as an adolescent, before turning to environmental activism and a career in politics.
Her conversion to Pentecostalism came in 1997 after her doctor said only a "miracle" would heal her fragile health, wrecked by malaria, hepatitis and lead poisoning when she was a child on the rubber plantation.Silva has tried to strike a careful balance between pride in her faith and not alienating more secular-minded Brazilians. She said in an interview this month that "the Bible is without a shadow of a doubt a source of inspiration," but immediately added that all of her decisions are "taken on a rational basis."
One campaign jingle celebrates "the faith of every believer and the reason of every atheist."
Last month, her Brazilian Socialist Party issued an official platform supporting gay marriage and making homophobia a crime but Silva quickly reversed the stance after Brazil's best-known televangelist, Silas Malafaia, threatened to withdraw his support for her.
It was a costly embarrassment for Silva, losing her support among young and urban middle-class voters and fueling broader concerns that she flip-flops on major issues.
Rousseff tried to capitalize, announcing after Silva's gaffe that she would push through legislation granting evangelical churches the same tax benefits as the Catholic Church.
Analysts say many evangelical voters are still up for grabs. Brazil's poor depend on social programs introduced by the ruling Workers' Party, and could vote for Rousseff regardless of what their pastor may say.
Rousseff has the backing of Brazil's second-largest evangelical church, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. Silva belongs to Assemblies of God, which has more members but is less well-organized.
Rousseff even attended the opening last month of a 10,000-seat, 11-story Solomon's Temple built in Sao Paulo by the Universal Church's leader, Bishop Edir Macedo. A media magnate, Macedo has a fortune estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.24 billion.
Macedo's PRB party backs Rousseff and even has a seat in her cabinet. But he exerts more influence with his ownership of the second largest television network, Rede Record.
Bishop Robson Rodovalho, a physicist who founded a Pentecostal church in 1992 that now has more than 1 million followers and a TV channel, said he expects that Silva still has room to grow her support in coming weeks.
"Much of the Church will converge on her candidacy," he told Reuters before going on stage to preach to the sound of rock music in a darkened church hall lit with discotheque lights.
"Brazil is a real democracy. It's only a matter of time before we have an evangelical president. That's a fact."
(Editing by Brian Winter and Kieran Murray)
Recommended Reading: