Ex-CIA Agent: U.S. Established Shariah in Iraq and Afghanistan

Tim Brown

In a recent interview with WND, former Central Intelligence Agency Middle East expert Clare Lopez not only said that Barack Obama had switched sides in the war on terror, but she stated openly that the U.S. were the ones who helped establish Shariah law in the Iraq and Afghanistan constitutions.

As we have reported before, this goes back further than just an issue with ISIS or Al-Qaeda. As Pamela Geller pointed out in March 2010, he has always been a pro-jihad, usurper of the office of the presidency.

“In a stunning and historic reversal of American foreign policy, the United States is now backing one of the same horses it fought during World War II.” She wrote. “Instead of fighting against Nazism and racism, Obama has effectively joined the jihad waged during World War II by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.”

While Clare Lopez told WND, “the global war on terror had been an effort to ‘stay free of Shariah,’ or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates,” she would later point the finger back at the Bush administration without realizing it.

In response to Barack Obama’s hasty retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing that Islam would dominate those cultures, she said, “But we’d already written their Shariah constitutions, so the actual ultimate physical domination was already prepared with the legal precedent and foundation.”

So, when were these Shariah constitutions established? They weren’t established under Obama, but under Bush.

Afghanistan’s constitution was approved in January 2004 and signed on January 26, 2004 by current President Hamid Karzai. It clearly contains Shariah compliant rulings, when the Constitution doesn’t speak to a particular issue. These rulings can then appeal to Hanafi jurisprudence.

As for Iraq, the current constitution was approved in October of 2005. Though the Iraq constitution contains a section in it which says there is the right to freedom of religion, it also says that Islam is the state religion and that it is the foundation for the country’s laws. Additionally, it states:

* No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam

* No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

* No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Hopefully, you see the obvious problem here. Since Muhammad taught his followers to kill the infidels (all non-Muslims, specifically Christians and Jews), then how does one not contradict themselves by stating that one has freedom of religion and yet, the law cannot contradict the Constitution? The fact is that is not the case.

I’m not here to defend the Bush administration at all in any of this, but they were the forerunners for what we see coming out of the Obama administration. Barack Obama has just stepped it up. He hasn’t switched sides. He’s always been on the side of Islam, period.

While Lopez told WND that the goal of the War on Terror after September 11, 2001 was to defeat jihadism in the Middle East and globally, the fact remains that Bush would never call the enemy out. He would never say we were at war with Islam. He said we were at war with those that “hijacked Islam.” These are similar words to the capitulations we saw of Lt. Col. Allen West in a letter shortly before he left office.

WND reported that Lopez affirmed my claims that there is no “radical” Islam, only Islam.

“Above all, we must acknowledge that the enemy is supremacist forces of Islamic jihad,” Lopez told WND. “We must name, acknowledge, confront the enemy as he is – not as we wish him to be.”

She scoffed at the notion that what others call radical Islam was a “defeated ideology.”

“Oh? What ideology is that? The 1,400-year-old one that’s already made mincemeat out of six or seven major world empires? That one?”

The making “mincemeat out of six or seven major world empires,” is exactly what Walid Phares was pointing to in his book, Future Jihad. America is doing the exact same thing, empires of the past have done in fighting against Mohammedans. Ultimately, they go bankrupt and the Islamists overrun them. Does this ring a bell with anyone as to what is going on today?

She added, “Everybody waits for the U.S. to stumble into the scene once again like some deus ex machine, so the whole charade can begin all over again. American blood and treasure spent, amidst clamor for infidels to exit Muslim lands, boiling Muslim rage about the imperative to strike ‘the far enemy’ again, hit the kuffar (non-Muslim) in his homeland, even while the Caliphate consolidates its rule, begins to govern as the Islamic State it claims to be, and, all the while, the wealthy-beyond-imagination sheikhdoms supposedly most threatened by this ‘un-Islamic’ horde – and the emerging Shi’ite hegemon of the Persian Gulf – respond lackadaisically, if at all. What is wrong with this picture?”

Understanding the difference between Sunni or Shiite, doesn’t really matter. The issue is always Islam.

Ms. Lopez also went on to say exactly how Obama was picking up from Bush and now implementing the “physical domination” side of things.

“In many ways, al-Qaeda prepared the ground for the Islamic State,” she said. “Al-Qaeda, which means, ‘the base,’ did its job, which was to awaken the Muslim masses, to prod the ummah to action against the infidel after a long hiatus. It spawned off-shoot franchises across the globe, not to mention in the virtual spaces of the Internet. It did its job and may now be superseded by [ISIS]. We shall see about that.”

The infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into key positions in our federal government has also been a serious problem. From Hillary Clinton’s chief deputy Huma Abedin to the many people in high security who advise Barack Obama, such as Mohammad Elibiary, these people do not have America’s best interests at heart. They have her destruction in mind.

Lopez found it impossible to understand the current administration’s consistent apologizing for Islam, “even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

It’s not hard to understand. They are Islamists and they are Islamic supporters. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood has advanced from the beginning. Read their own handwriting!

Though I discount her claims that former Egyptian President Morsi was not involved in the attacks in Benghazi, I do like her perspective on dealing with the Islamic threat though, and hold this view as my own:

“If [ISIS] makes one move against our regional partners – Israel, Jordan, the Kurds – we clobber them, then leave,” she said. “If we determine that [ISIS] is plotting by itself or in conjunction with a nation-state, or other sub-national terror organization like Hezbollah, again – like Iran did with al-Qaeda and Hezbollah – we clobber both of them, all of them, then leave. No nation building. They pick up the pieces, not us.”

Ultimately, our nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq was doomed from the start because we left the root of the evil intact. If you want real justice, real law, real peace and prosperity, in a land, then uproot the Quran and install the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. General Douglas MacArthur, following World War II, called on Christian missionaries to come and aid Japan and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians largely ignored the call. In what is taking place now, America is afraid to call Islam the enemy and as such she is unwilling to uproot it from the culture and has allowed the seeds to be planted in our own back yard. It’s high time we started confronting the Islamists here before worrying about those 8,000 miles away.

Source: BarbWire, via Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

Religious Freedom Advocate: Saudi royal family will not allow Obama to defeat Sunni ISIL militants

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

Why do we hate Putin more than Islamic terrorists?

Franklin Graham talks about the Syrian situation

Presidential Candidacy of Leftist Pentecostal in Brazil Shoots Up After Suspicious Plane Crash And Bolsters Globalist Interests

Pro-business socialists versus anti-business socialists

By Julio Severo

Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist whose research on security issues I first knew in my favorite conservative website WND, tackles the skyrocketing rise of Marina Silva, a radical environmentalist, socialist who is the most likely candidate to defeat the socialist incumbent, Dilma Rousseff, in the Brazilian presidential election.

Madsen has some interesting points, but in other respects he fails to see what is obvious for us Brazilian conservatives. For example, he said, “Rousseff’s defeat would signal a victory for the Obama administration’s covert activities to eliminate from the scene progressive presidents throughout Latin America.”

Well, why would progressive Obama want to eliminate his progressive counterparts in Latin America? The standard, according to Madsen, seems to be “pro-business” versus “anti-business” — and the U.S. champions business. So if a progressive president in Latin America is opposed to the big businesses of the progressive U.S. president, he will be opposed by the U.S. government. On the other side, if a Latin American progressive president advocates abortion and homosexuality, he will face no opposition from his counterpart in the White House. The avid pro-sodomy and pro-abortion policies of Rousseff have never faced any opposition from the U.S. government. She is facing it only over business issues.

Madsen also seems to think that “socialist” and “pro-business” are strange bedfellows.

If “pro-business” does not qualify a socialist to be a socialist, then China, with its thousands of American factories, certainly is not socialist in this definition. But the truth is, China is rabidly socialist and a great and privileged commercial U.S. ally.

Socialists in Brazil may have varied nuances to address economics, but their approach to fundamental moral issues is basically equal. In words and political actions, they have advocated, in a greater or lesser degree, abortion and the gay agenda, especially gay “marriage,” the way the Western socialists do.

Madsen says that Marina Silva is “pro-Israeli.” What is his basis for such statement? He seems to dislike Israel. Al Jazeera, a Muslim news site not known for sympathies for Israel, has reported sympathetically about Silva. No mention about “pro-Israeli” stances of Silva.

The apparent anti-Israel stance of Madsen makes no sense, because George Soros, denounced by him as behind of the rise of progressive individuals like Silva and, consequently, the “destabilization” of the Brazilian election, is equally investing in the destabilization of the traditional evangelical support of Israel. He successfully invested in the destabilization of Ukraine. Such is his power. As usually leftists do, Soros puts his anti-Israel socialist ideology above his Jewish heritage. Similarly, Silva puts her socialist ideology above her Christian faith.

I talked to Midnight Call in Brazil, the biggest pro-Israel group in Brazil, and they know nothing about a “pro-Israeli” Silva. Besides, her political allies are anti-Israel socialists.

Perhaps Madsen supposed that because Marina Silva is a member of a Pentecostal church — the Assemblies of God —, it follows that she is naturally pro-Israel as are most of the Brazilian Pentecostals. Yet, her original religious roots come from most popular form of Catholicism in Brazil: Liberation Theology, which is anti-Israel.

This theology is very common among Catholics in Brazil, which is the largest Catholic nation in the world. But it is not common among Pentecostals. Usually, people who have a conversion in the Assemblies of God are required to abandon their past life, including Catholicism and Liberation Theology. There is no explanation for what happened in Silva’s case and why her popular Catholic Marxism has been allowed to survive her religious conversion to Pentecostalism.

My e-book “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity” says, “Marina Silva, who today is a member of the Assembly of God in Brasília, brags that she knew the ‘living Gospel’ in Liberation Theology that she learned from Leonardo Boff, one of the most important propagandists of that theology in Brazil. Boff and his theology were officially condemned by the Vatican during the papacy of John Paul 2nd, but that official condemnation didn’t keep Silva from following the man and his theology” (p. 12). Boff is her counselor.

Marina Silva complained about the “wave of conservatism” that almost defeated Dilma Rousseff in the 2010 presidential election. The conservative wave was the expression of strong Christian feelings against abortion and homosexuality. Instead of a staunch stance against the blatantly pro-abortion and homosexualist history and positions of Rousseff and the Workers’ Party, Silva, in her “Open Letter to Presidential Candidates Rousseff and Serra”, criticized openly what she saw as “that obstinate conservatism that colonizes the Brazilian politics and sacrifices any Utopia on behalf of a limitless pragmatism” (p. 16).

Her political background is the same as Rousseff’s: the ruling socialist Workers’ Party. She would qualify to be a Brazilian female version of Jim Wallis.

Madsen’s analysis has just one conclusion: the U.S. will only support “pro-business” (a.ka. pro-U.S.) progressives.

My opinion is that Brazil should get rid of both (pro and anti-U.S.) progressives. And America should also get rid of her progressive occupier in the White House.

About CIA killing individuals who are an inconvenience to the interests of the U.S. government, I recommend the book “Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton,” which shows how the CIA predecessor may have been the responsible for the murder of Patton, who wanted the overthrow of the Soviet Union. In fact, this book shows CIA and its predecessor killing many other (innocent or not) enemies of the interests of the U.S. government.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not opposed if the U.S. government and the CIA kill the bad guys. There is information that when the military overthrew communists in Brazil in the 1960s, the U.S. government helped them. But the current U.S. administration is betraying the anti-communist military and helping only Brazilian progressives to bolster the interests of “pro-business” American progressives.

Now the war is not about communists versus conservatives. It is pro-U.S. progressives versus anti-U.S. progressives. It is “pro-business” American progressives against “anti-business” foreign progressives.

Interestingly, Madsen makes no mention of the massive and unified socialist obsession for the promotion of abortion and homosexuality. Do economic issues matter more for him than moral and ethical issues? Obama and Rousseff have no disagreement about imposing their progressive abortion and homosexual ideologies. Their disagreements are just economic. In other respects, they are “family” — a progressive family.

Now read the Madsen analysis having in mind what the Bible says:

“Test everything. Hold on to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 GWV)

All factors point to CIA aerially assassinating Brazilian presidential candidate

Wayne Madsen

The plane crash that killed Brazilian presidential candidate Eduardo Campos, who was running in second place behind incumbent President Dilma Rousseff, has severely harmed Rousseff’s chances for re-election. Campos’s successor on the ticket, former Green Party leader Marina Silva, a George Soros puppet, now stands a very good chance of unseating Rousseff in an expected run-off election. Rousseff’s defeat would signal a victory for the Obama administration’s covert activities to eliminate from the scene progressive presidents throughout Latin America.

A review of post-World War II history reveals that of all the many ways intelligence services have used to eliminate political and economic threats, murder by plane crash rank in second place, just ahead of automobile accidents and poisoning, and only behind the use of firearms and munitions, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s favorite modus operandi for political assassination.

The aerial assassinations of United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold, Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira, Portuguese Prime Minister Francisco sá Carneiro, Pakistani President Muhammad Zia Ul-Haq, prospective Indian Prime Minister Sanjay Gandhi, American United Auto Workers’ Union President Walter Reuther, former Texas Senator John Tower, and Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone all bore the markings of the involvement of one or more U.S. intelligence agencies in putting ends to political careers that threatened the underpinnings of Imperial America.

Latin America, in particular, has been plagued by plane crashes that have killed two leaders who were determined to pull away from American political influence, President Jaime Roldos Aguilera of Ecuador and President Omar Torrijos of Panama. Both leaders died in 1981, with Roldos dying just a few months before Torrijos. John Perkins, the author of «Confessions of an Economic Hitman» and a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, fingered the United States in both plane crash assassinations.

This background of U.S. involvement in aerial assassinations makes the August 13 crash of the Cessna 560XLS Citation aircraft in Santos, Brazil, which killed pro-business Brazilian Socialist Party presidential candidate Campos, his aides, and the crew, all that more suspicious, The timing of the crash, during an election campaign that had favored an easy victory for Rousseff, has raised significant questions among Brazilian investigators and the general public. 

Since its introduction in 1996, the Cessna 560XLS Citation model has enjoyed a perfect safety record. The sudden death of Campos upended the Brazilian presidential election campaign in a manner that may benefit the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency's long-range agenda for Latin America.

Disturbing questions are being raised about the ownership of the aircraft bearing the tail number PR-AFA. The plane's murky record of owners and registration, along with the lack of cockpit voice recordings thanks to an apparent malfunction in the plane's cockpit voice recorder, has a number of Brazilians wondering whether the plane was sabotaged by the United States. Rather than having the recording of the conversations of Campos's flight crew, the recorder only had the voice recordings from a previous flight.

The plane was flying en route from Rio de Janeiro-Santos Dumont Airport to Guaruja when it crashed in a residential area of Santos.

The plane was operated by AF Andrade Enterprises and Holdings, which is based in Ribeirão Preto in Sao Paulo state, but leased from Cessna Finance Export Corporation, a division of Textron, a major U.S. defense and intelligence contractor. Cessna is a division of Textron. The malfunctioning cockpit voice recorder was manufactured by another U.S. defense and intelligence contractor, L-3 Communications. AF Andrade's business is centered on its ownership of a distillery. A spokesman for AF Andrade said the $9 million aircraft had not been recently inspected but stressed that it had a perfect maintenance record.

However, the spokesman for AF Andrade could not specifically state who owned the aircraft but admitted that it, but likely only the lease, was up for sale and had recently been purchased by a group of «factory owners and importers» from Pernambuco. Campos was a former governor of Pernambuco.

The purchasers turned out to be a consortium that included Bandeirantes Tires, Ltd. The tire company said that negotiations on transferring ownership were ongoing when the plane crashed and that Cessna Finance Export Corporation had not yet approved the final leasing rights. Brazilian observers believe the Cessna that crashed was a «ghost plane», with murky ownership in order to cover up the plane's use for covert operations involving the CIA. Similar planes with spotty ownership and registration records were used by the CIA to rendition kidnapped Muslims for interrogation and imprisonment at American «black sites» around the world.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a team to Brazil to investigate the plane crash. However, if the NTSB’s performance on such crashes as TWA 800 and American Airlines 587 is any indication, the agency only excels at cover-ups of criminal actions.

Campos was replaced on the ticket by Silva, who is a darling of the Soros-financed and directed globalization and «civil society» movement. Silva, who is a pro-Israeli adherent of the Assemblies of God Pentecostal church, is much more pro-business and pro-American than Rousseff of the left-leaning Brazilian Workers' Party. Recently, Rousseff, along with her fellow BRICS leaders from Russia, India, China, and South Africa, created a new development bank that challenges the supremacy of the U.S.-run World Bank. The creation of the bank infuriated Washington and Wall Street.

Silva, who may be enjoying more than a mere sympathy vote, recently gained in polls against Rousseff. The Brazilian president is seen by Washington as an adversary, especially after details were leaked by Edward Snowden of massive National Security Agency surveillance of the Brazilian president. 

If Rousseff were forced into a run-off with Silva as either first or second-place finisher in the first round, Aecio Neves, of the conservative Social Democratic Party has stated he would endorse Silva if he comes in third. The political arithmetic could then spell trouble for Rousseff, who would have likely glided to victory had it not been for Silva's advancement to the head of the Socialist Party ticket.  Silva's vice presidential running mate is Beto Albuquerque, whose «civil society» credentials in consumer and human rights protection indicates a Soros «upbringing».

The current polls for the October 5 first round is Rousseff with 36% of the vote, Silva with 21%, and Neves with 20%. However, with Neves out of the race in the scheduled October 26 second round, some polls show Silva beating Rousseff 47% to 43% while others show Silva defeating Rousseff by a staggering 9%. Of course, opinion polls are no longer independent but corporate and Western intelligence agency contrivances used to sway public opinion and engage in the «predictive programming» of entire populations.

The favorable outcome for Silva as a result of the possible aerial assassination of Campos and his aides has many suspicious about the CIA's role in the plane crash, especially after CIA fingerprints were discovered on presidential aerial assassinations of Torrijos and Roldos in 1981. Just this past February, the presidential helicopter normally used by Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, a strong opponent of Washington's policies and an ally of Rousseff, crashed in the mountains on a flight from Guayaquil to Quito. Correa's personal pilot was killed in the crash. Correa, who was addressing a campaign rally at the time of the crash, stressed that he was not scheduled to be on the flight of the Indian-made Dhruv helicopter. However, the suspicion of CIA sabotage could not be suppressed among the Ecuadorian population. 

Silva is being touted as Brazil's «Third Way» candidate. Third Way is an international movement that has been used by corporate politicians, many of them financed by Soros, to infiltrate and take over historically pro-labor, socialist, and progressive parties. The Third Ways' most notable politicians include Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder, Canada's Justin Trudeau, French Prtesident Francois Hollande, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and former Prime Minister Romeo Prodi, Portugal's Jose Socrates, Israel's Ehud Barak, and officials of the Brazilian Socialist, Green, and Social Democratic parties, including Silva, Neves, the late Eduardo Campos, and former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. However, when it becomes advantageous to assassinate one Third Wayer in order to promote another, there is no problem to eliminate someone like Campos in order to make way for a more popular (and controlled) politician like Silva, especially when the interests of Israel and Wall Street are at stake.

The Cessna carrying Portuguese Prime Minister Sá Carneiro, which crashed while the prime minister was flying to a re-election rally in Porto, destroyed the leftist Democratic Alliance’s future prospects because the two Sá Carneiro loyalists who succeeded him lacked his charisma. Eventually, Mario Soares, a Third Way and pro-NATO «socialist-in-name-only», a «SINO», became prime minister and ushered Portugal down the path of «Third Way» subservience to a united Europe and globalization. The ambassador to Portugal at the time of Sá Carneiro’s death was CIA officer Frank Carlucci, whose fingerprints were on the 1961 assassination of former Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. Carlucci became deputy director of the CIA, and National Security Adviser and Defense Secretary under President Ronald Reagan. Carlucci is also the chairman emeritus of the CIA-connected Carlyle Group. The suspicious death of Campos in Brazil appears to be a carbon copy of the CIA’s quick dispatch of Sá Carneiro, with Rousseff the ultimate target of the action and Silva and her globalist backers as the beneficiaries. 

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation, via Julio Severo in English

Portuguese version, with Severo’s commentary, of this article: Acidente suspeito de avião dispara candidatura presidencial de pentecostal socialista e fortalece interesses globalistas

Recommended Reading:

Brazilian Pentecostals: Church Growth Endangered by Socialist Embrace

Liberation Theology and Neo-Pentecostalism: A Leading Challenge to the Evangelical Churches in Brazil

The Perfect Revival?

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

Secret Jordan base was site of covert aid to insurgents targeting Assad

Aaron Klein, WND correspondent in Jerusalem

Comment by Julio Severo: This significant WND article shows how the U.S. government trained many of the Islamic terrorists who have been torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians in Iraq and Syria. There is also information from WND that CIA was delivering arms to these terrorists. The current article also reveals that ISIS received assistance from two big U.S. allies: Turkey and Saudi Arabia. All of them helping to exterminate Christians in Syria and Iraq. I ask my American friends to help end the U.S. war on Christians by proxy. A nation founded by persecuted Christians should help persecuted Christians, not to help shed their blood.

U.S. Army trainers

JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.

The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.

The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.

In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region.

That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.

Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.

Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.

Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine’s report. The French foreign ministry and Britain’s foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.

The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.

ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah, whom they view as an enemy of Islam.

WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.

WND further reported that, according to a Shiite source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group that has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad also was training fighters in Turkey.

The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of the group Iraq of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, the ISIS, is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located.

He called Obama “an accomplice” in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government the U.S. helped establish through the Iraq war.

The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria to join the effort to establish an Islamic caliphate subject to strict Islamic law, or Shariah.

Source: WND, via Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

Religious Freedom Advocate: Saudi royal family will not allow Obama to defeat Sunni ISIL militants

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

Why do we hate Putin more than Islamic terrorists?

Franklin Graham talks about the Syrian situation

Churches warned: “Tidal wave of gay theology” looming

Evangelist sued for Bible preaching sees lesbian worship singer as harbinger

Bob Unruh

An evangelical Christian worship singer who has been urging churches to change their doctrine on homosexual behavior since announcing she is a lesbian is at the forefront of a coming tidal wave of “infiltration” of the church by promoters of the “gay” agenda, contends evangelical attorney, evangelist and activist Scott Lively.

Vicky Beeching

Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, said that with insiders on the offensive such as Vicky Beeching, a British-born artist who has become popular among evangelicals in the U.S., he expects “attacks on Christians in America like we’ve never seen before.”

He explained that after the Stonewall riots in 1969, homosexual activists banded together to oppose every American institution that did not fully accept and promote homosexual behavior.

The first victory was over the American Psychiatric Association, and within 40 years, every other group had been conquered, he said. The Boy Scouts were the latest to fall, just a year ago.

Now, the only organization left is the church, he said.

“All of their battle-hardened activists and enormous resources are all directed at the church,” he said.

The problem is that church leaders haven’t been preparing for such a fight, Lively said, and don’t really know what the movement is about.

Beeching revealed she is a lesbian in an interview last week with the Independent newspaper of London.

“What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people,” she said.

Lively, however, said Beeching represents “the drawing back of the tide before a tsunami” and an indicator of “how bad this is going to get.”

He’s published a brochure for pastors that explains what the Bible says about homosexuality.

“Not a single biblical passage portrays homosexuality positively,” the brochure says. “Jesus unequivocally condemned ALL sexual sin including homosexuality by affirming the ‘one flesh’ paradigm of Genesis.”

It contends a “dangerous modern heresy called ‘gay theology’ is infiltrating the Christian church at an alarming pace.”

“Many believers, fearful of being called ‘haters,’ are trivializing the threat by calling homosexuality ‘just another sin,’” it says.

“But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is NOT ‘just another sin.’ It is a symbol of extreme rebellion against God and harbinger of His wrath.”

Listed are multiple biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior.

He said his goal is to put the brochure into the hands of every pastor and Christian leader in America and around the world so they have a biblical explanation for why homosexual behavior is sinful.

Lively noted one of the founders of the “gay” agenda, Herbert Marcuse, expressed a desire to see the “disintegration of the … monogamic and patriarchal family.”

“One last barrier to ‘gay’ cultural hegemony remains: the Christian church,” Lively said.

Lively is not unfamiliar with attacks on Christians. He’s being sued by activists in Uganda who accused him under the Alien Tort Statute of inciting the persecution of homosexuals.

The case is significant because a ruling against him would mean that an international agenda based on anti-biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution’s freedom of speech and religion.

U.S. District Judge Michael Posner has let the case brought against Lively by an African group called Sexual Minorities Uganda, or SMUG, proceed.

SMUG calls Lively’s speech against homosexual behavior a “crime against humanity” in violation of “international law.” The plaintiffs allege the Alien Tort Statute in the United States allows them to make the charge in a U.S. court.

But Lively’s attorney, Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel, says his client’s preaching is protected by the Constitution.

“We believe SMUG’s claims are firmly foreclosed, not only by the First Amendment right to free speech, but also by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel, which eliminated Alien Tort Statute claims for events that allegedly occurred in foreign nations,” he said.

Yet, Posner took nearly 80 pages to say that he thought SMUG’s allegations were substantive and needed to be adjudicated.

Everything you think you know about Nazis and homosexuals is wrong. Read Scott Lively’s controversial bestseller “The Pink Swastika.”

Source: WND, via Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

The Perfect Revival?

By Julio Severo

Brazil has experienced an explosive growth of Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal (neo-charismatic) churches. Large crowds of poor people have been attending these churches looking for answers for their physical, material and spiritual needs.

The Brazilian Catholic Church, plagued by the Liberation Theology, has been worried about this growth. And even mainline Brazilian Protestant churches, similarly plagued by Protestant versions of the Liberation Theology, have been worried.

International onlookers see such growth as a phenomenon or even evidence of “revival.” Yet, Brazilian Calvinist critics question that if it were genuine, Brazil would not have now a socialist government. But what if Brazil depended just on the Catholic Church and its Liberation Theology? It would be already a Catholic Cuba. What if Brazil depended just on mainline Protestant churches and their Protestant versions of the Liberation Theology? It would be already a Protestant Cuba.

The Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil is far from perfection. But virulent critics from mainline Protestant churches, which are very small in Brazil in comparison to large Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches, have used the imperfections to point that the “revival” in Brazil is counterfeit, misleading, and even demonic. Calvinist critics have consistently condemned the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil.

They ignore that revival does not equal perfection. They ignore the grave imperfections of the perfectly charismatic church of 1 Corinthians.

They point that the result of a perfect revival is change and transformation in Christians and their behavior. This change affects everyone: lawyers, farmers, and even politicians. If there is a large numbers of Christians in a government, it is expected that it will conform to the Christian values and justice by the testimony and presence of Christians.

They point that the perfect revival was the Great Awakening in America and the preaching of men like Jonathan Edwards.

Let us use their standard to analyze a “perfect revival.” First, came the Great Awakening, by Jonathan Edwards and others. Next, the birth of the United States by men simultaneously Protestant and Mason. This is, most of the Founding Founders were Protestant at the same time affected by the Great Awakening and Masonry!

If America is today plagued by Mason symbols and taints, the example was set by these Mason Protestants who lived under the influence of the strong spiritual culture left by the Great Awakening.

The largest Presbyterian denomination in Brazil, founded by U.S. Mason Presbyterian missionaries in the midst-1800s and cradle of the first Protestant version of the Liberation Theology in the 1950s, has a difficult time to discipline its countless Mason ministers and other leaders, who nevertheless have been busy criticizing the many “heresies” of the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth.

So by their logic, if the Great Awakening was a perfect revival, it follows that Masonry plaguing Protestant politicians is ok, because if it is not ok, it follows that the Great Awakening was an imperfect revival. And Calvinist critics in Brazil have just one answer to imperfect revivals: systematic criticism.

Never mind that what God’s Word says also applies to Masonry among Protestant ministers, politicians and other leaders:

“Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14 GWV)

The Great Awakening was the greatest blessing for the birth of America. But Masonry was not a blessing, and it will be, with its schemes of New World Order, her fall.

The Great Awakening was not a perfect revival. Only God is perfect. The Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil is not perfect. Only God is perfect.

If Brazil is today more socialist, Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals are not to blame. In the 1990s, Rev. Caio Fábio, the greatest Presbyterian leader in the Brazilian history, led the Brazilian Church to support the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores), which is the ruling socialist party in Brazil, and today Rev. Fábio is a fallen man, because of his sexual and financial scandals. More information about his huge influence in the Brazilian Church can be found in my free e-book “Theology of Liberation Versus Theology of Prosperity” here: http://bit.ly/15AJmMC

The Workers’ Party and other socialist parties are determined to impose abortion and homosexuality in Brazil. The only hindrance to their project, by their own admission, is the daring testimony of neo-Pentecostal televangelists, who are under a heavy barrage of “theological” criticism from Calvinist critics comfortably in a religious environment plagued by Masonry and the Theology of Integral Mission, which is the Protestant version of the Liberation Theology.

Their inspiration is often John MacArthur, a Calvinist theologian who believes the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Calvinist churches increasingly embracing homosexuality, abortion and stances against Israel and MacArthur and his Brazilian followers worried about what the Holy Spirit can or cannot do today. Why do not he and other Calvinist critics use their judgmental “gift” toward PCUSA and many other cessationist, liberal Protestant churches?

Why do not they use their judgmental “gift” toward the Theology of Integral Mission and Masonry?

If they did it, many Calvinist critics in Brazil would begin to busy themselves with these colossal problems in their own midst, and understandably they would be left no time to attack Pentecostals and charismatics and much less to require their growth to conform to Calvinist expectations of the Great Awakening.

If they want to criticize “imperfect” revivals, what about Masonry among Founding Fathers who were affected by the Great Awakening? Why do they refuse to see Masonry as intricate witchcraft? If they want perfection in others, why is their midst plagued by the Theology of Integral Mission? Why does this liberal and leftist theology affect predominantly Calvinists in Brazil? Why do they have never criticized their former theological celebrity, Rev. Caio Fábio, for his instrumental role promoting the Theology of Integral Mission and evangelical involvement with the Workers’ Party?

Is there a perfect revival? Of course, not. But if Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals do not criticize the Great Awakening, why do Calvinist critics consistently criticize the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil?

As for me, I say: there is no reason to reject the Great Awakening and the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal growth in Brazil because of their imperfections. Mature Christians will appreciate both events and will know how to reject their imperfections without tossing away what God did and is doing.            

Portuguese version of this article: O reavivamento perfeito?

Source: BarbWire, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

Liberation Theology and Neo-Pentecostalism: A Leading Challenge to the Evangelical Churches in Brazil

Brazilian Pentecostals: Church Growth Endangered by Socialist Embrace

R.C. Sproul: There Is No True Prophecy Today

Julio Severo Interviews Brazilian Congressman Marco Feliciano: How Massive Homosexualist Opposition Has Skyrocketed His Name into Fame, Making Him the Most Prominent Evangelical Politician in Brazil