Swamp’s Neocon Crocodiles Want Trump to Continue Obama’s War in Syria

By Julio Severo

On April 3, U.S. President Donald Trump said about the U.S. military presence in Syria, “I want to get out, I want to bring our troops back home, I want to start rebuilding our nation.”

“Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision,” Trump noted. “I said, ‘Well, if you want us to stay maybe you’ll have to pay.’”

Trump’s decision was clear and public: He wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and that he would only keep them there if Saudi Arabia bore all expenses.

Yet, by Sunday he changed his mind. After an alleged gas attack by the Syrian government on Syrian civilians on April 7 (conveniently, just four days after Trump’s decision), Trump decided that it was time to go to war on Syria.

Trump seems to ignore the “conveniences” of the gas attack and the possibility that Saudi Muslims and Islamic rebels orchestrated it.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the two leading neocons in the U.S. Congress, rejoiced over a prospective war on Syria.

In 2016, McCain and Graham opposed Trump, who as a candidate campaigned against pushes to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria.

At last, has Trump embraced the neocon pushes?

There is a pattern of U.S. military interventions in other nations. First, there is an alleged attack by a government on its own people, and the U.S. intervenes to “help” the people and to bring “democracy.” Just four days after Trump said that he wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, allegedly the Syrian government, which has fought hard against ISIS and the Obama-backed Islamic rebels for 7 long years, made a gas attack — just to have Trump to continue Obama’s war in Syria!

The Syrian civil war was provoked by Obama jointly with Saudi Arabia. Both founded and armed ISIS, the largest modern machine of genocide of Christians.

Trump himself said in 2016 that “Obama is the founder of ISIS.”

So how did Trump want in April 3 Saudi Arabia, Obama’s biggest partner in the genocide of Syrian Christians, funding American troops in Syria? To continue in Syria what Obama started? Wherever Syria fought ISIS, it was destroyed. Wherever the U.S. and its Saudi allies fought ISIS in Syria, ISIS was liberated.

Trump’s duty was to immediately withdraw all American troops from Syria, apologize to Syria for Obama’s crimes, and make reparations to Syria for all of Obama’s crimes committed in the name of the U.S. government.

It is shameful that after his anti-Islamic speeches in 2016, Trump keeps treating, just as Obama did, Saudi Arabia as an ally, forgetting that the biggest terrorist attack on the United States was committed by Saudi Muslims.

Obama had no shame to partner with Saudi dictators. Unfortunately, Trump has given continuity to Obama’s lack of shame.

The carnage of Christian Syrians began with Obama to serve the interests of Saudi Muslims. America has for decades been at the service of Saudi Arabia. America needs urgently to protect her own borders, but she is too busy protecting Saudi interests and borders. How shameful, my God!

Bush and Obama were neocons’ puppets. Now it is Trump’s turn.

Trump had promised in 2016 to drain the swamp. Now the swamp’s neocon crocodiles have drained from him all trace of opposition to the neocon ambitions and empire.

So if Obama did little to please neocons in Syria — even though thousands of Christians were slaughtered by Saudi-backed ISIS —, is Trump going to do much more to please neocons, who were disgusted at him in 2016, but who now love him?

Monday (April 9), a prominent U.S. evangelical leader published a Facebook post decrying the gas attack in Syria and asking prayers for the U.S. troops in Syria. I answered him:

“You should point that it is not the first time the U.S. uses an alleged attack to make a military intervention. In fact, Trump abundantly condemned Obama for intervening in Syria. Trump said that Obama created ISIS. Thousands of Christians were slaughtered by ISIS because of Obama’s military meddling in Syria. And U.S. troops, since Obama, are illegally in Syria. They should leave! The chemical attack probably was made by CIA and Obama’s Islamic rebels. You certainly know it! Do not let the honor of knowing Trump making you blind to Obama’s crimes now supported by Trump. Be a prophetic voice that is not afraid of losing opportunities to meet Trump. Speak up! Mother Theresa spoke against abortion in the presence of President Bill Clinton and she had never again an opportunity to meet him. Do not be afraid! Trump needs to be confronted by a courageous testimony! Yes, I am praying. I am praying that God stop U.S. military meddling, under Obama and Trump, that eventually results in Christian carnage. The U.S. government is under neocon control. May Jesus Christ break this demonic stronghold in the U.S. government!”

“If by your invitation we Christians should pray for the alleged well-being of U.S. troops illegally in Syria who are using illegal violence in Syria, a moral question: should we Christians pray for the alleged well-being of illegal immigrants who are involved in illegal violence in the U.S.?”

It is a very hard point, but it is a point. U.S. troops in Syria are not guarding U.S. borders. They are guarding Saudi interests. They are not protecting U.S. patriotism and nationalism. They are protecting and advancing the Saudi version of Islamic terror.

My friend William J. Murray, who has been working very hard to help persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq, has told that the U.S. has 800 military bases around the world. Yet, the U.S. is unable to guard its own borders. This makes no sense. A nation guards its own borders. An empire keeps bases around the world. The U.S. government is not behaving as a nation; it is behaving as an empire that does not care about the U.S. borders, because its only concern is to deploy and use U.S. troops for unending unpatriotic wars in the borders of other nations.

Because Bush was a pro-life Protestant, I supported him even in the Iraq War, because I thought that if all the Left attacked him on every point, I had a responsibility to support him in every point. But after seeing the carnage of Christians in the trail of Bush’s War against Iraq, which was also condemned by Trump, I learnt that even though a U.S. president is a pro-life evangelical, he should not be supported when he submits himself to neocons and their wars.

May U.S. conservative evangelicals do for Trump what they never did for Bush: to confront him over wars that advance the neocons’ agenda and provoke blood shedding of Christians.

Portuguese version of this article: Crocodilos neocons do pântano querem que Trump continue a guerra de Obama na Síria

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

Trump Has Broken His Promise of Defunding the American Abortion Holocaust

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

Why Is Israel Saving Islamic Terrorists?

Islamic and Christian Syrian Reaction to Trump’s Airstrike over a Suspicious Chemical Attack

Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?

City Liberated from ISIS or ISIS Liberated from City?

An Open Letter to President Donald Trump

Exclusive Interview with William J. Murray, Defender of Persecuted Christians

Pope Francis: Catholics should treat compassion for Muslim immigrants as equal to pro-life activism

By Julio Severo

In his third papal exhortation — a 100-page guideline on how Catholics could strive for holiness in the modern world —, Pope Francis said, “Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the (Holy) Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few.”

“This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged,” he wrote.

With the crisis of massive influx of Islamic immigrants in Europe, Francis said, “For a Christian the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Some Catholics consider the situation of migrants to be a secondary issue. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him?”

Are Muslim invaders brothers of Christians? When Christians welcome them, are they welcoming Jesus himself — or Satan?

Nevertheless, Francis recognized that there are Islamic extremists: “If I speak about Islamic violence, I need to speak about Catholic violence. One thing is true: I believe that in almost all religions, there is always a small fundamentalist group. We have them, too.”

“The exhortation was widely seen as a dig at conservative Catholics in the U.S. and elsewhere who staunchly uphold tradition on abortion, homosexuality, and divorce while pushing anti-migrant laws,” said the British paper DailyMail.

In April 2016, he flew to the Greek island of Lesbos on the frontline of the migrant crisis and returned to Rome with three families of Syrian Muslims.

Even though I agree with the pope on his stance against abortion, I cannot agree with him on Islamic immigration, which poses a serious threat to the survival of the European culture and civilization.

Yet, would a right-wing pope treat Islamic immigration in Europe in a correct way? I do not know. Many right-wing Catholics look to U.S. President Donald Trump, who is a Protestant, to have a better stance on this subject. But actually Trump has been as contradictory as the pope is. Trump has enlisted Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of Islamic terror around the world, to fight terror. In fact, most of the 9/11 authors were Islamic Saudis.

Saudi Arabia has a great control over the mass influx of Islamic immigrants to Europe. But Trump has never pressed the Saudi dictators to stop it. And Trump has never ordered NATO, which is under U.S. control and is responsible for the protection of Europe, to hinder the Islamic invasion to Europe.

If pro-life, conservative Catholics are distressed about the pope’s contradictions, as a pro-life, conservative evangelical I am equally distressed about Trump’s contradictions regarding Saudi Arabia and NATO’s cowardice to hinder Europe from being destroyed by Islam.

NATO, which is Trump’s responsibility, has not been better than the pope to address the Islamic invasion in Europe. In fact, while NATO is directly responsible for this invasion, the pope is not.

Perhaps when Francis said that Muslims are brothers of nominal Christians he meant Bush, Obama and Trump and their traditional friendship with Saudi Muslim dictators.

Above all, the most powerful symbol of welcoming or even submitting to Islam is not the pope. It is the Liberty Statue. So if they tell you that a Catholic is facilitating the Islamic invasion of Europe, tell them: No, it is the largest Protestant nation in the world and its Protestant president.

With information from the DailyMail.

Portuguese version of this article: Papa Francisco: Católicos devem tratar a compaixão pelos imigrantes muçulmanos como igual ao ativismo pró-vida

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Trump and Pope Francis and Their Ideologically Fatal Smile

Trump will visit Israel, the Vatican and Saudi Arabia on his first international trip

Trump and the Pope: a Right-Wing Populist (Today) Clashing with a Left-Wing Populist

Pope says equating Islam with violence is wrong

How God Used Three Christian Young Men to Stop an Islamic Terrorist

Statue of Liberty, a Pagan-Islamic Curse on America?

Pedophilia By Any Other Name is Still Homosexuality

Paul Cameron, Ph.D., Kay Proctor, M.Ed., & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D.

As scientists, we are concerned about recent discussions regarding clergy sexual abuse. Numerous authors, like a recent Chilean post by Riccardo Cascioli (February 8, 2018), seem to believe there is a significant difference between ‘pedophiles’ and homosexuals.

Indeed, Riccardo Cascioli re-makes a point often made: “the so-called ‘pedophilia cases’ are actually an overwhelming majority of incidents of homosexuality”[1] where

“pedophilia properly refers to the attraction of adults for pre-pubescent children. When such attraction is directed towards teenagers, one must instead speak of ephebophilia which is initiated by homosexual persons. This is what we are talking about in Chile, but it also is true for at least 80% of the cases which erroneously reported in the news as cases of pedophilia in the Catholic Church. This is at least the conclusion which emerges from the reports of John Jay College on the cases of abuse registered in the Catholic Church in the United States.… [These facts allow] us to say clearly that the problem in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia but homosexuality.” 

While we heartily agree that the problem is one of homosexuality, we would make five points:

1.      ‘Pedophilia’ is not an exclusive orientation.

The definition of ‘pedophilia’ as used by American psychiatrists focuses on the client and does not assume his sexual interests lay solely with children. Laymen, on the other hand, tend to use the term as an exclusive preference. In the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV, 2000), a ‘pedophile’ is an adult who has,

“over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activities with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.”

The John Jay reports do not provide enough information to determine how many perpetrators only had sex with children under the age of 13. In 1970, the Kinsey Institute[2] surveyed 671 randomly-selected gay males regarding the proportions of their homosexual “partners” who “were 16 or younger when you were 21 or older” (i.e., at least 5 years below the age of consent in California at the time of interview). Among the respondents, 77% said “none,” 23% said “half or less,” and no one said “more than half.” Thus, none claimed to be ‘pedophiles’ in the laymen’s sense, yet 23% admitted to having sex with boys.

In Alfred Kinsey’s original survey, 27% of 646 homosexual men and 2% of 222 homosexual women reported having homosexual sex with at least one partner aged 15 or under, and 10.2% of gays but no lesbians to having sex with children under the age of 13.[3]

2.      Many, probably most, child molesters victimize a range of ages, and may also engage sexually with adults.

Both the John Jay reports and our systematic compilation of news stories captured by Google News (2011-2015) indicate that about half of the sexual abuse victims of clergy were 12 and under. Table 1 is a partial summary of our data for news stories about religiously-affiliated perpetrators in which the age of the victim(s) was reported, compared against the John Jay results. In the Google News reports, 28 Catholic clergy perpetrators included at least some boy victims under the age of 13, while 24 perpetrators only victimized boys aged 13 and above. Note that homosexual child molesters accounted for the bulk of both perpetrators and victims, and heterosexual molesters more frequently abused older victims. The last two columns of Table 1 include results from all clergy-related news stories, including those which did not report victims’ ages.

Table 1. clergy and religiously-affiliated Google News Stories, USA (2011-15)

Clergy Type	Homosexual Perps (N)		Heterosexual Perps (N)		% Perps Who Abused Homosexually	% Victimized by Homo Perps
Victim Ages	Some or all less than13 yrs	All 13+ yrs	Some or all less than 13 yrs	All 13+ yrs
Catholic	28	24	3	7	84%	98%
Protestant	20	10	16	23	43%	64%
Jewish	3	1
Mormon	2	1	2
John Jay Catholic Priest Study	Victims aged less than 10 = 1259; Aged 10-12 = 2970 (47% of same-sex victims)	Victims aged 13-17 = 4727 (53% of same-sex victims)			78%	84%

It is unknown how many perpetrators who molested kids aged 12 and under would have preferred all of them to be pre-teens; time and opportunity play large roles in who gets molested. For example, teachers who were caught almost always stuck to the age of those in their classroom. All we know is what was reported about the age of victims at the time the perpetrator made the news, not his mental state.

Importantly, anyone trying to differentiate the sexual preferences or ‘orientations’ of those who molest pre-teens (less than 13) vs. teenagers (more than 13) must account for the testimonies of molested boys. These usually indicate that the sexual contacts lasted a few (2-5) years. So, if a boy is listed as 14 in a news report, he may have recently been molested, but more likely his molestation began when he was between 10 to 12. Thus, when Fr. James Talbot of Freeport Maine was listed as having 17 victims aged 9 to 17, we know some, and perhaps all, of the boys were first recruited as pre-teens.

It is also noteworthy that those who engage in homosexuality may also have sex with the opposite sex. Perhaps 10-20% exclusively have sex with their own sex. Further, those who engage homosexually with adults may also engage in sex with children.

3.      The corrosive influence of homosexuals in positions of authority was well known generations ago.

Three generations ago, in 1950, U.S. government officials testified before Congress that

“Most of the authorities agree and our investigation [which included psychiatric testimony] has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert.

“Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office.”[4]

That same year, the U.S. Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments concluded “that homosexuals were not qualified for federal employment and that they represented a security risk because they could be blackmailed about their sexuality. In response to this report, President Eisenhower issued an executive order dismissing all homosexuals from federal employment,...”[5]

4.      The Christian Church historically condemned all forms of homosexual child sexual abuse.

While the Old Testament condemned homosexuality, it only obliquely mentioned the predilections of homosexuals toward youth, referring to boy prostitutes. The Christian Church amplified this by explicitly condemning the homosexual seduction of boys. At that time, the Jewish standard for adulthood was age 13 for males, which approximated the sign of adulthood in the Roman world, when boys donned the tunic (14-15 years old). So the Catholic Church probably regarded ‘corruption of boys’ as seduction or attempted recruitment before the age of about 15. Further, there is no evidence that the Catholic Church distinguished between pre-teens and teenagers — sodomy is just as painful and injurious in either case.

5.      ‘Mental healthism’ is not the answer.

Making a distinction between pre-teens (less than 13) and teenagers (more than 13) — a distinction apparently irrelevant to homosexual molesters and past investigators — does nothing to protect boys. Let the mental health ‘experts’ argue about whether raping boys of this or that age indicates a different ‘orientation’ — it is still male-on-male homosexuality. Calling a skunk by a different name does not make it stink any less. And is either worse, abusing a pre-teen or a teenager? The Catholic Church should not defer to those who would parse the homosexual nature of these sexual crimes into a narrow slice, as if somehow a fundamentally different ‘thing’ depending on the victim’s age.

Almost all the American school shooters have been under treatment by these experts. Yet, laymen diagnosed the Valentine’s Day Florida shooter as a clear and present danger, while mental health experts took pains to keep sharp objects (but not guns!) away from him lest he harm himself or family. They apparently believed Nicolas Cruz could be contained by talking to one of their number (i.e., ‘therapy’). But the treatment outcomes for drug or alcohol addiction are as dismal with or without a mental health expert on the team. And rare is the priest who has not re-offended after ‘treatment’ by these selfsame experts.

Likewise, their client-centered, rather than society-protecting perspective, has little place in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has an obligation to protect boys (pre-teens, teenagers, etc.) from assault. Eliminating homosexuals from positions of authority is the best way to achieve this, not by adopting psychiatric argot in a bid to appear ‘sophisticated.’

References:

[1] Cascioli, R. (2018) “In the Church, The Problem is not Pedophilia but Homosexuality,” February 8, 2018, https://onepeterfive.com/church-problem-not-pedophilia-homosexuality/

[2] Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978) Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster.

[3] Gebhard, P.H. & Johnson, A.B. (1979) The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the institute for sex research. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.

[4] “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government,” S Rep No 81-241, 81st Congress, 2d Session (1950) at 4.

[5] Graham, R., et al. (2011) The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. National Academy Press. Section 2, p. 9.

Portuguese version of this article: Pedofilia por qualquer outro nome é ainda homossexualidade

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church

Demon-Expelling: Truths and Confusions

By Julio Severo

Demon-expelling, with healings, is a prominent part of the Gospels, because the ministry of Jesus Christ gave, in the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, a prominent part for people’s deliverance.

However, the prominence of demon- expelling today, called “exorcism” in popular movies, especially horror movies, is confined to the Catholic Church, as if only priests could deal with demonic problems, treated as “paranormal phenomena.”

Priests in and out of movies face numerous difficulties when called upon to help people affected by such “phenomena.” But the incredible thing is that Hollywood insists on presenting such priests as the only reliable experts to deal with the “paranormal” — which is demonism. Joseph Farah, the WND (WorldNetDaily) chief, was the first to notice the religious exclusivity Hollywood gives priests on demonic possession.

Hollywood omits the very successful activity of evangelical churches that help people oppressed or even possessed by demons. And it does not touch the many demonstrations of Jesus casting out devils.

The Bible leaves no doubt that Jesus took demonic possession very seriously and he acted seriously casting out devils — and gave his followers the same power and authority to act. The Bible says:

“As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, ‘Never was anything like this seen in Israel.’” (Matthew 9:32-33 ESV)

“Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw.” (Matthew 12:22 ESV)

“And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and, kneeling before him, said, ‘Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him.’ And Jesus answered, ‘O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.’ And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.” (Matthew 17:14-18 ESV)

“And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.’” (Mark 1:23-24 ESV)

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons…” (Mark 16:16-17 ESV)

Demonic oppression or possession is a serious problem, which with the emergence of psychologists, psychiatrists and other ostensible “mental health specialists” has been significantly misdiagnosed, so that symptoms are often treated as the very causes of ills that are in the depths of the spiritual world — a world that the so-called experts do not see or understand.

Hollywood, which is the largest propaganda machine in history, brings much more confusion by presenting only two versions of demonic possession:

* The version of exorcist priests, where they are the only spiritual and religious solution for spiritually disturbed people.

* The version of so-called “mental health specialists,” where psychologists and psychiatrists are the only “medical” solution for psychologically disturbed people.

It is strange that Hollywood chooses to exalt Catholic priests as the only reliable reference in spiritual deliverance when in the vast majority of other cases Hollywood prefers to portray priests as pedophiles and perverts.

I have not yet seen a movie showing a priest exercising the authority of Jesus’ name to cast out devils. The few cases I have seen of priests doing this, outside of movies, were of priests involved in the charismatic Catholic renewal — a movement begun in the U.S. under the influence of an Assemblies of God minister called David Wilkerson.

Why does not Hollywood highlight charismatic priests?

Although many Pentecostal and charismatic churches cast out demons, one of the most balanced examples provided today in this area comes from charismatic Lutheran and Calvinist churches. John Wimber, who was a Calvinist, even wrote a healing handbook, entitled “Power Healing,” which included instructions on casting out demons.

Before I had this handbook, I would sweat blood to cast out devils. Afterwards, it seemed that demons were under my control, because it became so easy to deal with them by just using the name of Jesus. Quite different from Hollywood priests who seem almost equal to paranormal phenomena. Quite also different from radical and uncontrolled charismatic churches. Quite also different from psychologists, psychiatrists and other so-called “mental health specialists” who complicate cases that are already complicated.

Jesus’s focus was to deliver people from demonic oppression and possession.

Hollywood’s focus is to divert people from Jesus’s original focus.

The focus of psychologists, psychiatrists and other so-called “mental health specialists” is to divert people from Jesus’s original focus.

Your focus today should be to rescue Jesus’s focus.

Forget everything Hollywood teaches you as if only priests or psychologists could deal with demons.

If Jesus gave so much focus to delivering people from demonic oppression and possession within the proclamation of the Gospel, you should restore that focus to your proclamation of the Gospel.

Portuguese version of this article: Expulsão de demônios: verdades e confusões

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Spiritual Gun Control Is Not God’s Idea

Julio Severo seeks to move Christians to daily prayer with ‘Prophetic Prayers’

Trump Celebrates Easter, Passover… and Easter Bunny!

By Julio Severo

Evangelical Christians, who were vital for Trump’s election, rejoiced at his Easter and Passover speech, in which he said,

“For Christians, we remember the suffering and death of God’s only Son and his glorious resurrection on the third day. On Easter Sunday, we proclaim with glorious joy that Christ is risen… In America, we look to the light of God to guide our steps. We trust in the power of the Almighty for wisdom and strength. And we praise our heavenly Father for the blessings of freedom and the gift of eternal life.”

After years of paganism and anti-Christian attitudes in the U.S. government under Obama, it was fresh air to hear Christian words from President Trump.

Yet, at the same time Trump celebrated Easter and Passover, he also celebrated the Easter Bunny at the White House.

According to CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), of Pat Robertson, who has already interviewed Trump at least a couple of times,

The Easter Bunny is not a modern invention. The symbol originated with the pagan festival of Eastre. The goddess Eastre was worshipped by the Anglo-Saxons through her earthly symbol, the rabbit.

The Germans brought the symbol of the Easter rabbit to America. It was widely ignored by other Christians until shortly after the Civil War. In fact, Easter itself was not widely celebrated in America until after that time.

As with the Easter Bunny and the holiday itself, the Easter Egg predates the Christian holiday of Easter. The exchange of eggs in the springtime is a custom that was centuries old when Easter was first celebrated by Christians.

I assume that a true Christian does not engage in any pagan festivals and does not mix the true God with elements of false gods. God’s Word says:

“Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness? Can Christ agree with the devil? Can a believer share life with an unbeliever? Can God’s temple contain false gods?…” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16 GWV)

Some could argue that at least Trump did not celebrate only the Easter Bunny, but included Easter and Passover, differently from what he did last October 31, which marked the 500th year of the Protestant Reformation. Because the United States is the largest Protestant nation in the world and Trump’s election was made possible because of Protestants, it would have been more than natural for him remember the Reformation.

Yet, he did no mention of the Reformation. He preferred to celebrate Halloween.

Last Christmas, he celebrated Jesus, and included a celebration of Kwanzaa, a Marxist holiday.

So what is the point of his beautiful Christian speeches if he equally praises Halloween, the Easter Bunny and Kwanzaa?

Jesus said,

“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Matthew 15:8 GWV)

Portuguese version of this article: Trump celebra a Páscoa cristã e judaica… e o Coelhinho da Páscoa!

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Trump, the Reformation and Halloween

Trump Wishes Happy… Kwanzaa, for the Sake of Politically Correct

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

An Open Letter to President Donald Trump