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:

Saturday, March 05, 2016

Former Richest Man in Brazil Offers Gold Coins Worth US$ 170,000 to Afro-Brazilian Deity Yemanja in a Bid To Return to Glory


Former Richest Man in Brazil Offers Gold Coins Worth US$ 170,000 to Afro-Brazilian Deity Yemanja in a Bid To Return to Former Glory

By Julio Severo
Once the richest man in Brazil, Eike Batista is claimed to have resorted to an Afro-Brazilian ritual in the hope of rebuilding his billion-dollar empire, throwing gold in the Atlantic Ocean.
Eike Batista, in his former glory
The flamboyant businessman, who suffered one of the largest personal and financial collapses in corporate history, tossed over 700 thousand Brazilian Reals (about US$ 170,000) in gold coins onto the waves off the coast of Rio de Janeiro’s Ipanema beach last month after a medium and a priest of the Umbanda religion advised he needed to appease a water-bound deity Yemanja, known in Brazil as the queen of the seas. Umbanda is one of the several Afro-Brazilian religions following syncretic polytheistic beliefs that draw on African spiritual traditions mixed with elements of Roman Catholicism.
Brazilian Catholics are often syncretic, openly going to Mass on Sundays, but secretly going to Afro-Brazilian rituals on Friday.
In the past, Batista used psychics to guide his businesses, but his superstitions were unable to prevent the tide of misfortune. In 2013, when the Brazilian economy began its worst recession in over two decades, Batista lost 99 percent of his multi-billion dollar fortune. After mediums, psychics and misfortune, he is looking for more of the same.
Chartering a yacht, he took to sea to perform an Afro-Brazilian ceremony that involved placing the gold coins in an offering of flowers, perfume, champagne and a statue of Yemanja. The Umbanda priest led prayers, meditation and chanting, prophesying Batista’s return to the top will be “in only a matter of months.” 
Umbanda priests usually receive very large sums to perform their ceremonies for the rich. Batista has declined to comment how much he paid the Umbanda priest.
He has also made no mention of pentagrams and how many animals were sacrificed. Yet, an adherent makes any sacrifice to get his wishes fulfilled by the Afro-Brazilian spirits.
Regardless their ideological affiliation, many prominent Brazilian personalities resort to witchcraft for help, power and wealth. In 2012, even the U.S. government invited a Brazilian psychic to avert Superstorm Sandy. But the effort was useless.
In her 2008 trip to Brazil, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a Presbyterian Republican, made an effort to honor the Afro-Brazilian religions as a rich legacy of Brazilians of African extraction.
With information from DailyMail.
Recommended Reading: