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.

Portuguese version of this article: Spotlight: Expondo escândalos de pedofilia e escondendo escândalos homossexuais na Igreja Católica

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

Bible Ignorance, Clergy Corruption and the Inquisition in England before the Reformation

The 50 Most Violent Cities in the World Are Mostly Catholic

Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

The Pope and the Vatican Should Be Confronted about Traditional Catholic Stances against Israel

Luiz Mott saves Catholic Church from suffering mega pedophilia scandal

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.

Portuguese version of this article: Crise desperta chances para socialista Marina Silva na eleição presidencial de 2018

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

John Perkins and His Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

Inflamed by American Prophecy, Brazilian Evangelicals Want a Woman for Brazil Presidency

Brazilian Pentecostals: Church Growth Endangered by Socialist Embrace

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

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

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

Source: The New York Times

Divulgation: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

Why I Support Cruz over Trump, But Why Trump Would Be Better on Foreign Policy

Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies

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.

Portuguese version of this article: Israel realiza seu primeiro concurso de beleza homossexual

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

Brazilian Homosexualist Politician Jean Wyllys Is Criticized for Israel Trip

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.

Portuguese version of this article: Ex-homem mais rico do Brasil oferece moedas de ouro no valor de 700 mil reais para Iemanjá em tentativa de voltar à glória passada

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

US Government Invited Brazilian Psychic to Avert Sandy

Associated Press defends Umbanda as an “Afro-Brazilian religion under threat”

Condoleezza Rice, a famous daughter of an American Presbyterian minister, visits Brazil to strengthen Afro-Brazilian religions

The 50 Most Violent Cities in the World Are Mostly Catholic and Syncretic

To Counter Turkish Threat, Russia Sends Fighter Jets to Its Base in Armenia

By Julio Severo

Russia has moved several MiG-29 fighters and other aircraft to its military base in Armenia, after Turkish threats of a more direct military intervention in Syria. The Russian base in Armenia is located some 40 kilometers from the Turkish border.

Four Russian MiG-29 jets, a modernized MiG bomber and a transport helicopter have been dispatched to the air base near the Armenian capital Yerevan.

Relations between Turkey and Armenia have always been tense, because Turkey refuses to recognize its Ottoman Empire committed a genocide of 1,5 million Christian Armenians 100 years ago. Besides, by backing ISIS and other radical Islamic groups against the Syrian government, Turkey has posed a serious threat to the Christian minority in Syria, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world.

Armenia was the first officially Christian nation in the world. While is good that Russia, which is the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world, is supporting and protecting Armenia against Islamic Turkey, it is not good for America, which is the largest Protestant nation in the world, to be officially an ally of Turkey, because in a military conflict between Turkey and Armenia, you will probably see America siding with Muslims while Russia sides with Christians.

This situation is already happening in Syria, where Russia supports a pro-Christian government while Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. support Islamic rebels who have been torturing, raping and slaughtering Syrian Christians.

With information of Deutsche Welle.

Portuguese version of this article: Para combater ameaça turca, Rússia envia caças para sua base na Armênia

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Turkey, U.S. sign deal to train, equip Islamists against Syria

Armenian President Warns about Danger of Genocide Denial, Brazilian Congressman Marco Feliciano Denounces Genocide of Armenian Christians

Armenia, the first Christian nation in the world, and the first genocide in the 20th century

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

By Julio Severo

In his recent trip to Mexico, Pope Francis said that that it was not right the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s attitude of surrounding the United States with a wall preventing the entry of illegal immigrants.

Trump struck back by saying that the supreme leader of Catholics around the world is a shame — evidently by his leftist stances.

Francis does not want a wall surrounding the U.S. and keeping immigrants outside, but the Vatican itself is surrounded 100% by a wall preventing the entry of all illegal immigrants, especially Islamic invasions.

If Francis is worried about immigrants, why does not he take them in the Vatican? Why does not he overthrow the Vatican’s wall and make it clear that all illegal immigrants, especially Muslims, are welcome there?

The Vatican policy, as exposed by Catholic writer Cliff Kincaid, has been to facilitate invasions of immigrants in the U.S. and Europe, because the Catholic Church has financial agreements with governments to help immigrants, so that the more immigrant invasions, the more money the Catholic Church receives.

It is obvious Francis is a left-wing populist, even though he is pro-life and pro-family. It is similarly obvious that Trump is a right-wing populist, even though he has not a pro-life and pro-family history.

Trump’s fantastic promises that make him a right-wing populist:

1. He has promised to ban Muslim immigrants from the U.S. This is an excellent promise.

2. He has promised to open the U.S. for Christian immigrants persecuted by Muslims around the world. This is an excellent promise.

3. He has publicly demonstrated admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and he has promised better relations with Russia. He is the only candidate who sees Islam, not Russia, as the main threat.

In his promises, Trump is a gust of fresh air in the U.S. politics.

The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, paranoidly vociferate against Russia, putting it as the main threat in the world. Oppositely, Trump vociferates against Islamists, putting Islam as such threat and promising a better relationship and friendship with Russia.

The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, promise more measures to contain Russians. Oppositely, Trump promises more measures to contain Muslims and greater opening to Russia.

The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, do not vociferate against Islamic crimes against Christians. Trump does it.

The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, want U.S. interventions in Syria and support the best interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in Syria. Both Islamic nations have supported the best interests of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists groups that have been the main responsible for the suffering and death of Christians in Syria, which has one of oldest Christian communities in the world. Trump is the only Republican candidate who has expressed a concern for Syrian Christians above the best interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In fact, Trump is the only Republican candidate who has supported Russian interventions in Syria to fight ISIS and protect Christians.

The other Republican candidates, especially neocons, vociferate against Trump’s pro-Russia and anti-Muslim stances.

So Trump is totally different from the other Republican candidates, who are paranoid about Russia, not about Islamic threat. If Trump becomes president, anti-Russia and pro-Islam neocons will be shaken and disappointed.

Trump is Presbyterian and is not known as a spiritual man, but his promises of containing the Islamic threat have enraged the Saudi leadership, who has declared that Trump cannot become president, and make him better than most Presbyterians in the U.S.

Yet, he loses for the pope in pro-life and pro-family issues. Besides, Trump has never put into action his fantastic promises.

If by a miracle Trump is able, after elected, to become a pro-life and pro-family man that he has never been in all his existence, he will the perfect president. A friendlier relationship with Russian and a less friendly relationship with Muslim dictatorships is all the world needs, and in this Trump is completely right.

Now, it is hard to choose between a right-wing populist (today) who is pro-Russia and anti-Islam and a left-wing populist who is pro-life and pro-family and wants Muslim invasions in the U.S. and Europe, but not in the Vatican.

I support Trump’s pro-Russian and anti-Islamic populism (whose promises are theoretical).

And I support Pope Francis’ pro-life and pro-family populism.

Both need to learn political issues from one another.

About the charge from the pope that Trump is not a Christian, who can assure that the pope is a Christian?

Real Christianity is not left-wing or right-wing populism. Real Christianity is to know Christ and preach and demonstrate the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, by healing the sick, expelling demons and delivering the captives, all in the name of Jesus and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The pope and Trump do not seem to know this Christianity, which was preached and lived by Jesus and his apostles.

Only God knows if both will come to know and live such Gospel someday.

Only God knows if Trump will fulfill his pro-Russia and anti-Islam promises.

Only God knows if Trump will fulfill his promises of priorizing the entry in the U.S. of persecuted Christian immigrants.

Only God knows if Trump, who was a left-wing populist in the past, will be in the future the right-wing populist he is today.

Only God knows if Trump is going to be a hindrance or facilitator for the persistent U.S. politics of exporting and imposing the homosexual and abortion agenda around the world.

What about the pope’s involvement in the U.S. elections? I do not know what this could result. But U.S. Catholics, especially immigrants, prefer to vote for left-wing candidates, often putting socialist and populist issues above pro-life issues. Most Catholics have elected Obama, a left-wing populist who has been extremely “generous” to Catholic and Muslim immigrants.

As a right-wing populist, willing to build a wall preventing illegal and Muslim immigration, Trump is unlikely to receive support from the pope and most of his U.S. sheep.

He is also unlikely to receive support from pro-life leaders, unless he speaks up so forcefully about pro-life and pro-family issues as he has spoken up about Islamic issues.

If even the pope has chosen to be a left-wing pro-life populist, why cannot Trump choose to be a right-wing pro-life populist?

Vatican's Wall

Be it as it may, the pope has a massive wall around the Vatican for protection against illegal immigrants and Islamic invasions. Why cannot Trump build a massive wall around the U.S. for the same purpose?

Portuguese version of this article: Trump e o papa: um populista de direita (hoje) em conflito com um populista de esquerda

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Why I Support Cruz over Trump, But Why Trump Would Be Better on Foreign Policy

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

Turkey, U.S. sign deal to train, equip Islamists against Syria

Christian Persecution Follows US, UK and France in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

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

Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

Homeschooling in Brazil: Where Is it Headed?

Religious Trends and Esoteric Detours

By Julio Severo

A prominent Presbyterian blog in Brazil published, on February 5, 2016, an article about homeschooling trends in Brazil. Even though I disagree with them on conservative issues (they consider themselves conservatives, but their Mackenzie Presbyterian University, the largest Protestant university in Brazil, hires pro-abortion and Marxist professors), they were honest enough to mention me as one of the known homeschooling examples in Brazil. Another two homeschooler names mentioned, Josué Bueno and Cleber Nunes, were also reported by me back in 2008 in articles that made international headlines:

Persecution in Brazil: Challenges and sufferings in the Brazilian homeschooling movement

Brazilian Government Prosecutes Homeschooling Family, Threatens to Remove Children

Solano Portela, the author of the Presbyterian article on homeschooling, had no trouble gathering names and homeschool cases in Brazil, because they are easily found in a mere Google search, which usually delivers my name and other names as results.

Yet, according to ANED, a new Brazilian group claiming to be prominent in the homeschooling movement in Brazil, only ANED and its members deserve notability in Brazilian homeschooling. Dr. Alexandre Magno, ANED’s lawyer, said on his Facebook page earlier February:

“Brazilian homeschooling emerged from almost complete obscurity a few years ago to acquire virtually unanimous social acceptance. Largely responsible for this were Rick Dias, the president of ANED, and the couple Camila Hochmüller Abadie and Gustavo Abadie, of the website Encontrando Alegria. The contribution these three people made for the Brazilian education cannot be underestimated.”

To this overstatement, my public answer was: “Alexandre, if obscurity is to be a focus of a long and major report in Veja (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), then I do not know what obscurity is. In 2001, Rev. Rinaldo Belisario (a Baptist minister) was, together with other families, interviewed by Veja and also by several TV stations. Subject: homeschooling. This does not look like obscurity.”

Gustavo Abadie’s homeschooling experience totals only a few years, while Rev. Belisario’s homeschool experience amounts to more than 18 years. Additionally, Abadie was a Protestant minister who, along with his wife, chose to convert officially to Catholicism in 2014.

Many young Brazilian evangelicals have gone through a process of “Catholic” conversion after studying a philosophy course offered by Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, who has several published books on astrology (occultism) in Brazil. They begin the course looking for a solid anti-Marxist stance and end as “Catholics.” Abadie’s case was not different: Before their conversion, he and his wife were attending “philosophy classes” offered by Carvalho.

In October 2013, when Carvalho began to revile me because I disagreed with his pro-Inquisition herd think, Abadie criticized on his Facebook another man allegedly reviling Carvalho and immediately added that his criticism also applied to me. Abadie said:

“A man saying that he is a Christian and who not much time ago called another man of his friend, now when he calls him scoundrel and hypocrite, certainly he is not a devote Christian, but resembles the filthiest sewer rat.”

Someone then asked him if he meant Julio Severo. To this Abadie retorted on his Facebook: “Originally, this was not aimed at him, but it is equally applicable to him.” (A copy of this Facebook post has been saved for documentation.)

After his gross comment against me, he blocked me on Facebook. I had never reviled him or called him names. On the contrary, before his conversion, I had published two articles in 2012 by the then evangelical minister Gustavo Abadie critical of Marxism.

Apparently, he thought that the issue between me and Carvalho about the Inquisition qualifies me as the “filthiest sewer rat,” just because I disagreed with his “master” — adherents and followers of Carvalho usually call him “master.” A major transformation: a self-identified evangelical minister siding with a radical Catholic who, using the foulest of language, habitually defends the Inquisition and habitually reviles dissenters. Any wonder that in a very short time he was converted?

Yet, regardless of this uncivility, Alexandre Magno and his ANED insist that homeschooling in Brazil has once been “obscure,” but that a former Protestant minister and today a Catholic militant has made it well-known. If this is not a gross overstatement, then what is it? If this is not self-worship, then what is it?

A Google search for “Gustavo Abadie” delivers no more than 3,000 hits. See: http://archive.is/w9whV (In these results, the only more visible homeschooling position for him is his role as a speaker at the “Global Home Education Conference 2016,” which is a prominent event because of its main sponsor, the Home School Legal Defense Association.)

My name, which in Magno’s assessment would be “obscure,” delivers over 200,000 hits.

Abadie’s Twitter account has 114 followers (see: http://archive.is/wQNdz). Mine, which is supposedly “obscure,” has over 10,000 followers (see: https://twitter.com/juliosevero).

It is with this real obscurity that Abadie has been propelled to a prominence over homeschool pioneers in Brazil.

What would inspire Magno to misrepresent the Brazilian reality? A few days ago he said in his Facebook page:

“Once I was accused of being, as a student in the philosophical course of Olavo de Carvalho, influenced by him. I confess it was funny: what kind of philosophy professor would he be if he did not influence (more precisely, teach) his students? Then they called a course where a professor teaches and students learn a cult. In the mind of some, the contrary should be normal…”

My public answer:

Regarding cults, this would be applicable if Olavo had experience and connection with cults. Wait — he has several books on astrology (occultism). He was the person mainly responsible for the propaganda and visibility in Brazil of René Guénon, an Islamic sorcerer. After this heavy involvement with occultism, he chooses philosophy. But can you separate the occultist from the philosopher? I had an experience in 2013, where in a kind and discreet way I criticized the Inquisition AFTER people connected to Olavo began to defend this killing machine, even saying that we evangelicals are modern Cathars (if you remember History, Cathars were decimated by the Inquisition). The answer from Olavo, and his pro-Inquisition followers, was to hurl fire and excrements at me: reviling, slandering, etc. When Olavo published an offensive post against me just because I had a different view, his followers “liked” this on Facebook. I did an experiment then by asking some of the “likers” why they would like an offensive comment: some individuals came to their senses, apologized and said that they were used to “liking” Olavo’s posts just for the sake liking… This is herd mentality, typical of cults. If it were not for Olavo’s occultist past, we would think that all of this is mere coincidence. But past and present are parts of a puzzle, where all the pieces fit together. Speaking of the Inquisition, Dr. Michael Farris, the founder of Home School Legal Defense Association, has a book exposing the evils of the Inquisition. Sincerely, I would like to see Olavo and his irrational herd attacking Dr. Farris. I have published some excerpts from Farris books here: http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2016/01/bible-ignorance-clergy-corruption-and.html

Years ago, a pro-family leader met Magno, who promptly said that he and all ANED activists were students in Carvalho’s philosophy course, where dissent is not tolerated, but slander and ridicule of differing views is encouraged. 

When questioned on issues such as the Inquisition, which he publicly says is an invention of U.S. Protestants, Carvalho typically ridicules and reviles dissenters, calling them obscene names. Magno has publicly “liked” Carvalho’s Facebook offensive comments against me regarding the Inquisition. (A copy of this Facebook post has been saved for documentation.)

Submissive and non-dissenting attitudes are a hallmark of cults and cultic fanaticism and lead to conversions.

Such conversions can lead the victims to any religiously and politically-correct “paradise” chosen by the proselytizer. If by studying so-called “philosophy courses,” students or disciples can be led to Catholicism, what if the philosophy professor (or “master”) leads them to the Islamic occultist René Guénon and other sorcerers?

I can coexist with Catholics in pro-life and pro-family unions. In fact, I have coexisted with such benevolent Catholics for 30 years, and not one of them were involved in the cause of advocating or excusing the Inquisition. They were — including my good late friend Fr. Paul Marx — involved in pro-life causes. But now, there are foul-mouthed individuals who self-declare as pro-lifers, but defend the Inquisition and revile dissenters. Can a union at the expense of civility portend harmony, especially by excusing the Inquisition, which was hardly a pro-life institution? Can such a union, under the “philosophical” influence of a proselytizer, promote a healthy homeschooling movement?

To obliterate major homeschooling reports (the prominent 2001 Veja report is an example) as “obscure” because they do not fit the agenda of a group is not real homeschooling.

To propel, exalt and propagandize individuals of a group over more experienced people outside this group is not ethical, particularly because the “Global Home Education Conference 2016,” to be held in Brazil March 2016 and largely funded by the Home School Legal Defense Association, should be represented by the best and most original homeschool leaders in Brazil. But this is not happening.

To ignore and treat as “obscure” Rev. Rinaldo Belisario and his homeschool experience (he now has four adult homeschooled children) over a former evangelical minister who has minimal homeschool experience is not correct.

If you can be prominent and come out of “obscurity” only by joining a group where everyone is basically influenced by a proselyting philosophy and you can become a Catholic or esoteric or an esoteric Catholic, then this is not healthy homeschooling. This resembles a cult.

In this sense, I do not know where the Brazilian homeschool movement is headed, and I am worried about its religious trends and esoteric detours. I am also worried about how the “Global Home Education Conference 2016” could empower and propel into prominence Brazilian individuals who, to advance their “philosophical” cult, want to make real pioneering, original homeschooling experiences in Brazil as obscure as possible.

Read also “Olavo de Carvalho” in Conservapedia.

Portuguese version of this article: Homeschooling no Brasil: para onde está indo?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading on Homeschooling:

A New Reformation to Counter-Attack the Great Gates of Hell?

Americans Warned: Home-Schoolers Stripped of Rights

Triumph of the state over the family: Brazilian Congress reinforces ban on homeschooling

Persecution in Brazil: Challenges and sufferings in the Brazilian homeschooling movement

Brazilian Government Prosecutes Homeschooling Family, Threatens to Remove Children

Recommended Reading on the Inquisition:

The Horrors of the Inquisition and Its Modern Advocates

Bible Ignorance, Clergy Corruption and the Inquisition in England before the Reformation

Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies

Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de Carvalho

The Pope and the Vatican Should Be Confronted about Traditional Catholic Stances against Israel

Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

A Global Inquisition to Put Homosexuals to Death?

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

WHAT DRAWS OLAVO DE CARVALHO TO THE UNITED STATES?