Saturday, November 22, 2008

Brazilian Christian Censored and Fined for Making “Homophobic” Remarks in Book

Brazilian Christian Censored and Fined for Making “Homophobic” Remarks in Book

Judge ordered book pulled from bookstores after three hundred of a total of 600 printed had been sold

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MATO GROSSO DO SUL, BRAZIL, November 22, 2008 ( — A Brazilian Christian has been fined 2,000 reales (834 USD), and his book confiscated for publishing his belief that God condemns and punishes homosexual acts.

Naurio Martins Franca, a resident of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, is the author of “The Curse of God on the Homosexual: The Homosexual Needs to Know the Divine Curse that is Upon Him”.

The book reportedly states the Christian belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and even “demonic”, and warns those who do not repent that “he who continues being a homosexual is defying the power of God and runs a great risk.”

Franca’s ordeal began last year when a judge ordered his book to be pulled from bookstores after three hundred of a total of 600 printed had been sold. Following the confiscation, a group of homosexuals burned the book in a protest outside of the International Church of Grace, Franca’s church.

“The book is based on the Bible, on the word of God. The law regards it as homophobia, etc.,” said Franca after charges were filed. “
What can I do? The Bible is being usurped through the law of man. The Bible is the law of God,” .

The Bible repeatedly condemns sodomy, in both the Old and New Testaments, including a famous passage in Romans 1, which states that “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Although Franca’s attorney reportedly argued at trial that his client had the right to freely express his opinions and religious beliefs, the judge responded that such rights were outweighed by the “principles outlined in the Federal Constitution, which would be the equality and dignity of the human person” and “discrimination is not tolerated”, according to a paraphrase by TV Morena.

The censoring of Franca follows a string of other acts of censorship by government authorities, as well as intimidating lawsuits by private individuals, against Brazilian Christians who wish to express their religious beliefs.

In 2007 the protestant organization National Vision for a Christian Conscience (VINACC) was ordered to cease its campaign of affirming heterosexual marriage, calling it “homophobic”, despite the fact that the government has failed to pass its so-called “anti-homophobia” law in the nation’s Congress. VINACC eventually lost the case on appeal.

In March of this year, the Brazilian Department of Justice fined the Association of Public Functionaries 14,800 reais (8,559 USD) for “discrimination’ for prohibiting members from registering their gay sex partners as “spouses”. In July, a Catholic priest’s book denouncing witchcraft was ordered removed from stores by a Brazilian judge.

Other organizations and bloggers have been intimidated with lawsuits for making public objections to homosexual leader Luiz Mott's endorsement of pedophilia and pederasty (see LifeSiteNews coverage at

Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:

Brazilian Judge: Catholic Priest's Book Denouncing Witchcraft Must be Removed from Bookstores

Brazilian Government Punishes Dissenters of Pro-Homosexuality Policy

Brazilian Homosexuals File “Hate” Charges Against Brazilian Christians

Brazilian Gay Groups Launch Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition

Brazil Attacks Against Family Defenders Backed by Pro-Homosexual Regime of Nation’s President

Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin

Source: LifeSiteNews


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Obama as US president: Who wins, who loses

Obama as US president: Who wins, who loses

Julio Severo

“I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.” — Jesus Christ

Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela. Fidel Castro, of Cuba. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of Iran. Lula, of Brazil. What do they have in common? Historically, they are anti-American. They would never think of praising Jesus Christ. In spite of their anti-Americanism, they praised Barack Obama when he was elected US president.

Terrorist group Hamas, one of the major threats to Israel and which celebrated during 9/11, praised Obama win as a “historic victory for world”.[1]

It was very easy for Obama to conquer the admiration of communist dictators, because in the past he had communist ties.[2] He is also known to have a strong leftist agenda. As for the Muslim dictators, their admiration may be related to his obscure and controversial Muslim past.

It was also very easy for Obama to conquer the admiration of the media. Liberals have this advantage. Usually, the media do not patronize conservative political candidates. Bush, for example, won two elections under heavy artillery fire from the American and world press.

One of the major difficulties any non-liberal candidate faces is attacks from the press. To prevail over media resistance and hostility is perhaps one of the greatest challenges. That is a difficulty liberal Obama did not have. Since the beginning of the American electoral campaign, the press treated him in a privileged and friendly way.

So the American and world press was with him. The world — including historical US enemies — was with him. And why would not the media spare him? Obama is a radical abortion defender and he promised to dedicate his presidency to homosexual activism.[3]

Obama: the population-control agenda is back

With no delay, a delighted United Nations has contacted the elected Obama. Because of political measures of Bush, the UN was not receiving much American aid. Bush had this attitude because the UN was not willing to cease its involvement in world policies of population control including abortion.

Because Bush was uncooperative in the UN abortion agenda, the UN did not dare to have its usual population conference in 2004. Now there will be “changes” — Obama will resume Bill Clinton’s old abortion and gay goals.

Now, with Obama as US president, the UN is getting prepared to receive much American money and strengthen its usual activities of promoting reproductive rights (euphemism for abortion) and sexual and gender rights (euphemism for homosexuality and other sexual perversions).

Obama is comfortable with the UN’s activities. After all, his mother, Ann Dunham, worked for USAID and the Ford Foundation, two organizations heavily involved with population-control activities, abortion, feminism, sex education, etc.

At the inspiration of his mother, Obama acquired the vision to build a new world — or new world order — according to the USAID and Ford Foundation perspective.

However, even with the obvious support of media and US enemies, how was Obama able to win the American election? Do most Americans support abortion? Do most of them support homosexuality?

Anti-Republican revolt in the American election

Actually, on the same day that Americans voted for their president, there were polls in several states, especially to let the population decide if they wanted gay “marriage” or not. In California, where most people voted for Obama, voters also voted largely against gay “marriage”. [4]

So Obama’s ambition to promote the gay agenda and population control runs counter to the American popular will.[5] In fact, the will of the people seems to have been led to vote for him for three primary reasons:

Revolt against the Republican Party. According The American Issues Project, the Republican defeat “was not because the country wanted to move radically to the left, but because voters wanted to punish Republicans for abandoning conservative principles.”[6] Many American Christian voters generally prefer Republican candidates, expecting from them actual actions against threats to life and natural family. Yet, most Republican politicians have hidden their intentions and disappointed their constituents, not fulfilling their pro-family commitments.

Racism. Obama attended for 20 years a black evangelical church that openly preaches racism against whites. His old pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, is a professed pro-communist. Even so, most black Christians voted for Obama — not because he had values consistent with the Bible, but exclusively because of his skin color. He profited electorally from that racism that, strangely, is protected by American elites and media. [7]

Economic crisis. With their pockets hard hit, Americans became embittered toward Republicans, voting for Obama out of utter revolt. Hitler also profited from the economic crisis in his time, which helped him to reach the top leadership in Germany, which in the past century had been one of the most developed nations. Economic crises have always had the potential to raise up political “messiahs.”

When they voted for Obama in a spirit of revolt, Americans clearly demonstrated their conservatism, because they voted at the same time against homosexual “marriage.” Even so, Obama said that the Bush policies — defending natural family and sexual abstinence and against abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem-cell research — will be reversed.

Obama’s proposals also include reversing the Bush ban on funding for overseas family-planning programs that offer or promote abortions. [8]

“The most ungodly US president”

And now, what will happen to the US spiritually?

Bill Keller, the world’s leading internet evangelist, has been concerned about the American economic crisis, and with the election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of the United States. Keller declared, “the hand of God has been removed from this nation.”

Keller said that the nation has just elected a man who will insure abortion on demand in all fifty states, champion the radical homosexual agenda, and be friendly to those nations that want to see Israel destroyed. He also said,

“The destruction will come in many forms such as the introduction of laws that allow the Bible to be referred to as hate speech, as other countries have already implemented. For the first time, real and tangible persecution is going to be felt by those who refuse to compromise the truth of the Bible and preach the Gospel.” [9]

From a spiritual perspective, perhaps the most important alert came from Steve Foss, who warned before the election,

In January of 2000 God gave me an incredible insight into what was about to happen in the coming elections in America over the next decade.

God then said to me, “At the end of President Bush’s second term there would be an economic collapse.” As everyone in the world knows, we have just faced the greatest economic threat since 1929 and the Great Depression.

God spoke to me that after George W. Bush, America would elect its most ungodly president ever.

Now in 2006 I began to ask the Lord, “Is that guaranteed to happen in 2008?” He spoke to me very clearly and gave me the key words to what I believe holds this election in the balance right now. He gave me these key words that can forever change what is about to happen in America.

He said, “It depends on the Christians.”

I had a vision earlier this year. I saw Barack Obama in this vision. He was speaking to a large crowd and being broadcast on television. He was speaking incredible words of unity, peace, and bringing all sides together; the words were elegant, the words were comforting, and the words were inspiring.

But while he was speaking I saw all a powerful spirit of violence coming out of his spirit feeding into the spirits of those that were hearing him. That spirit of violence was directed at anybody who opposed what he was saying. Those who heard his words and received it had the spirit of violence being implanted inside of them. It was a rage like I have not seen before.

It was the rage that would be unleashed against those who oppose and stand in the way of Barack Obama’s agenda.

I have talked to many Christians, including pastors, not only here in the United States but around the world, who strongly support Barack Obama. Many of them are angry with the Republicans, and understandably so. Others are inspired by the thought of electing America’s first African American president, while others believe Barack Obama to be a Christian who is very concerned with the poor and needy.

God said that the 2008 election is in the hands of the Christians. Just like when God spoke to Jonah about the judgment coming to Nineveh, when the Ninevites repented God withheld judgment; the same can happen in this election. Even though God spoke that America would elect its most ungodly president, He has given us the ability to stay this judgment.

This nation lies in the hands of the Christians.

We must spend time in deep intercessory prayer and cry out for God’s mercy upon America. For all our friends who are not in the United States, if Christianity comes under the assaults that it would under a government controlled by Barack Obama and the Liberal Democrats, it will have horrible negative effects on the Gospel throughout the world.

That warning by Steve Foss was posted in the website The Jerusalem Connection.[10]

What is up with Christian voters in the US and Brazil?

Many Christian Americans decided the fate of the US in the recent election. The most evil president was chosen. The US, which was Israel’s only ally, now under Obama experiences a rapprochement with the enemies of Israel, confirming the Bible prophecies that in the last days all nations would be enemies of Israel.

As a Brazilian, I need to be concerned about the fate of the US. After all, I have had the experience of living under the Lula administration, which has been fighting, domestically and internationally, to promote abortion and homosexuality, putting Christians in Brazil at serious risk with the approval of draconian anti-homophobia laws.

When Lula tried to introduce his pioneering resolution in the UN classifying homosexuality as an inalienable human right in 2003, the US was one of the nations opposed. Now, the US and Brazil are in the same moral boat. Now, in his national and international ambitions Lula will receive support from the White House, including the pioneering Brazilian anti-”homophobia” proposal that is before the Organization of the American States. Now, Christians in Brazil will be under greater domestic threats, with international pressures backed by a pro-abortion US administration.

Last November 7, the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites, and Transsexuals (ABGLT) sent an official letter to Obama saluting him and highlighting that his election “represents a victory for democracy and diversity”. [11] The letter also requested his attention to the homosexual issues throughout the world. ABGLT, which has filed charges against me and other Christians, has recently been awarded by the Lula administration and was helped by the Brazilian government to an official place in the UN system. [12]

Politically-correct measures and innovations from the US have always been echoed in Brazil. Brazil, which was already reeling under the Lula effects, will now have to feel the Obama burden too. Gay militants are feeling so empowered by the Obama victory that they are threatening violence against Christians. [13]

However, Brazil cannot complain about the cruel destiny many American Christians chose for the US. Many Brazilian Christians also chose Lula. The devil has misled and exploited Christians to raise up his servants into positions of authority to release his destructive agenda in society.

No repentance among Christians, no conversion of national leaders

Americans are today hostages of politically-correct manipulations imposed by the media. Under media pressure, you have to vote for a black candidate, to prove you are not racist. If you oppose a black politician’s agenda, you run the risk of being labeled a racist. In the case of Obama, who has promised to revive and strengthen the abortion and gay agenda of the Clinton years, all criticism will be liable to charges of racism. Obama, who is reemploying the radical officials of the former Clinton administration, has, in a much more amplified way, the ideological soul of his Democrat predecessor, but the necessary black skin to use racial appeals against many political opponents.

The advantage of being black and much more liberal than Clinton ensures him the solid protection against critics from the liberal press. Brazilians know this story very well. Though saturated with political, financial and criminal scandals, the Lula administration has never collapsed. In his rustic leftism, Lula is bolstered so as not to fall.

It is up to Christians in the US to pray for Barack Obama’s conversion. Yet, despite many prayers, Clinton completed two terms in much ungodliness — and he has never undergone any conversion. In spite of many prayers, Lula is in his second term unleashing much ungodliness in Brazilian society — and there has been no sign of his conversion. How will there be answers to prayers when many Christians, sated and happy, wittingly choose pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality Obamas and Lulas?

I did not confer spiritual authority to Lula through my vote. But many Christians did it. Today my mission is to call them to repentance. So it is important to pray for Christians in the US and Brazil, so that they may repent and put God’s will above their own.

New fad: leftist Messianism

Lula, with his rustic leftist Messianism, holds the Brazilian presidency today, plunging Brazil into moral absurdities. Obama, with his sophisticated leftist Messianism, threatens to plunge not only the US, but the entire world into the same absurdities.

Obama representatives lost no time getting in touch with the Syrian government, promising to end the isolation of that nation. [14] That isolation was imposed by the US years ago because of the Syrian involvement in terrorism against Israel.

Yet, to the extent they rely on the liberal press, people will not see the peril of those absurdities. People will see only the “messiahs” and the attractiveness of their promises. In his first speech after the election, Obama declared his commitment to promote “peace and security” in the world. [15]

To the applauses of the enemies of Israel, he also declared his total commitment to “peace and security” for Israel and for “Palestine”. [16]

Even though the Bible has strong warnings against false messiahs — men promising miraculous answers to the people — the world is delighted. But how far can they go? “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape.” (1 Thessalonians 5:3 NKJV)

Source: Laigle’s Forum

To read other articles by Julio Severo, visit his English blog: Last Days Watchman

Portuguese version of this article:

Obama como presidente dos EUA: Quem ganha, quem perde


















Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Four-year girl who lived with a gay “couple” is raped

Four-year girl who lived with a gay “couple” is raped

Julio Severo

Hairdresser Orani Fogari Redondo, 28, was jailed October 31, 2008, in Araraquara, SP, Brazil, suspected of raping a 4-year girl. The child lived with him and her uncle, a 54-year homosexual male.

Redondo and the girl’s uncle had lived together for almost 10 years and, one and half year ago, her uncle received the definitive custody over the girl because her parents had been jailed, condemned for drug traffic.

An anonymous tip led police to the hairdresser. In his defense, the uncle, who is a retired nurse, said that he left his niece with his partner to go to the physician and when he came back he saw blood running on her legs.

According to the TV Record news of November 1, 2008, the girl needed to have a surgery because the aggression was so severe. She will continue under medical attention.

Pressured by police, the uncle confessed that it was not the first time that his partner had abused the little girl. In interview, police said that the young man has a criminal record of sexual abuse of children.

Because the uncle is a HIV carrier, the suspicion exists now that his young lover may also be infected, which increases the probability that the girl may have been contaminated.

Because her uncle requested, the press hid his name. In fact, it hid much more — in none of the news on the case the word “homosexual” or “homosexuality” was used in reference to the uncle and his relationship with a younger man. A politically-correct, anti-discrimination “moral” code pressures the Brazilian media not to show homosexuality in unfavorable news, but giving to it totally inverse treatment when the news are favorable.

The goal seems to be to bother the least possible homosexuals and their behavior, and this may be the reason why no state social assistant — who are well-known meddlers — got interested in “meddling” in the dirty record of the uncle’s lover during the process of transference of the custody over the little girl. But it is at the cost of the health and life of the innocents that homosexuality receives such covering.

The questions that do not want to be silent are:

Which was the state agency that delivered the custody of the little girl over to a homosexual living with another man?

If the rapist had already a criminal record of sexual crimes against children, why was he free?

The case smells a terrible scandal of state recklessness…


Monday, November 03, 2008

Miracles of the Obamic faith

Miracles of the Obamic faith

Olavo de Carvalho

Midia Sem Mascara (São Paulo, Brazil), Oct. 31st., 2008-11-02

[Footnoted version]

NB – Last Saturday, my son Pedro and a friend of his were verbally offended and threatened of physycal aggression by a group of more than twenty Obamaniacs in downtown Richmond, VA, for the simple reason that my son’s friend dressed a McCain-Palin T-shirt. They got to escape in my son’s car but were persecuted for several blocks by the group of fanatics. This is change we can trust in.

Nothing like this has ever been seen before in human history.

At war against revolutionary Islam, the almost victorious country is getting ready to appoint as its commander-in-chief a politician enthusiastically supported by Al-Qaeda, (1) Hamas, (2) the Palestine Liberation Organization, (3) Iranian president Ahmadinejad, (4) Muhamar Khadafi, (5) Fidel Castro, (6) Hugo Chavez, (7) and by all anti-American, pro-communist and pro-terrorist forces of the world, without any visible exception.

It is exactly as if, at the height of the Vietnam war, one elected a Ho-Chi-Minh sweetheart to the White House.

Yet, if you dare to suggest, even mildly, that so many enemies of the U.S. are in favor of Obama because he must be at least a tiny bit in favor of them, half of the American voters will say you are a hopeless racist and a good portion of the other half will call you deranged, paranoid, a conspiracy theorist.

It is forbidden to apply to Obama the old common sense rule: "The friend of my enemy is my enemy." In order to prove their sanity, Americans must piously believe that Obama will not do anything, absolutely nothing in favor of communists and islamofascists who love him, but will do everything to defend the nation that he called "Nazi" (8) and the Constitution, which, according to him, is the cause of terrible evils. (9)

If you think that the wager on the Obamic faith is too high and that it would be more prudent to take a closer look into his life, you should realize that this has become practically impossible. He has blocked access, in the U.S. and in Kenya, to all his documents, (10) even the ones dealing with his public life, from his birth certificate to the list of small donors to his campaign, including his student records at Harvard and Columbia, which are at the same time invoked as definitive evidence of his towering intellectual gifts, denied only, it is clear, by stubborn racists. The media considers it an insult and a sickly presumption any attempt to examine these papers, and three courts, from Pennsylvania, (11) Washington (12) and Ohio, (13) have already ruled that the common citizen has no right to question even the nationality of Barack Hussein Obama. One must trust his word or take leave from decent society.

But his words do not elucidate anything. He has already made up so many phony stories about his life (that he was a member of the Senate Baking Committee, that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, that his father was a goat shepherd), he has already omitted so much essential data, (that he was a member of a socialist party, that the genocidal Raila Odinga is his cousin, that he campaigned for Odinga in Kenya, (14) that his brother is starving in a slum in Mombasa, that his aunt is an illegal alien in the U.S.), and he has concealed is such a way his connections with ACORN (15) and with terrorist William Ayers, (16) Islamic agitator Louis Farrakhan, (17) and the crook Tony Rezko, (18) etc. – that to try to uncover his true biography is almost an impossible mission. His own book of memories, which won him literary fame, is of dubious authorship. Computerized exams for authorship investigation concluded that the book was not written by Obama, but by William Ayers. (19)

As a last resort, one can try to find something about Obama through witnesses. It is interesting what they tell. The grandmother says that he was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii, as he claims. (20) His Kenyan brothers say that he is a Muslim and not a Christian as he claims. His sister says that he was born in one hospital, while he claims to have been born in another one. The sponsor of his studies in Harvard says that the money was provided by a well-known pro-terrorism agitator. Old friends say that he was always by Frank Marshall Davis when Davis was selling cocaine. (21) Up to now, the only witness to be seriously disproved was a nutcase from Minnesota who said he had sexual relations with then Senator Barack Obama – which, if true, would not raise a shred of the risk to national security contained in the other depositions.

At this point, you may ask: "But why will voters trust in the word of someone who has no word, whose birthplace is not known for sure, who hides two-thirds of his life and lies about the other third, who is loved by all who hate the U.S. and clumsily conceals his affections for their friends?" In Brazil you can ask that, but if you are in the U.S. ask in a soft voice. If you dare to display your suspicions in a very audible way, the government will investigate your records, in search of heinous crimes such as tax dues and unpaid traffic tickets, as it did with Joe, the Plumber. (22) Or it will send to jail, as it did with Brent Garner, from Lawrence, Kansas. (23) You also run the risk of having your garage vandalized (24) or of being beaten, as happened with some Republican activists. (25)

The answer to the question on the motives of such a purposeless confidence comprises four elements:

1. The big media, almost entirely owned by Obama's supporters and sponsors, does not publish anything grievous that is known about him, but makes an awful uproar about the slightest insignificance that may hurt the image of his adversaries. (26) The double standard, which began in newspapers and TV, ended up impregnating itself on the whole society as a normal habit. Example I: A hanged dummy of Sarah Palin was greeted by the police itself as an innocent and good-humored prank. In the following day, two kids manufactured a dummy of a hanged Obama – and they were arrested. (27) Example II: The young Republican activist Ashley Todd, after having claimed to be robbed, spanked and cut with a razor with a latter "B" on her right cheek as soon as her attacker noticed her McCain campaign button, suffered a barrage of insults form the media and very quickly changed her mind and swore that she had made up the whole story. Ashley did not explain if she had only been robbed and spanked, and made herself the cut in her face, or if there was only spanking, with no robbery or cuts, or if there was nothing at all and she hit herself until she got a black eye and, not happy about it, proceeded to carve a "B"on her own face. Even though her brief and inconsistent recantation sounded much more unbelievable than the original story, it was promptly accepted as final truth by the whole media. No more questions were asked, and it was thus proved that Republicans are mean enough to disfigure their own face only to lay the blame in a black man and, indirectly, in the most holy Barack Obama. (28) Example III: Signs of violence against the Obama campaign were missing, but were soon delivered. Two young skinheads who entertained thoughts of shooting Obama, without taking any action to that purpose, were denounced by their own mother. Even though it is virtually impossible to find a single skinhead in Evangelical assemblies, Catholic masses, Republican conventions, or in Hudson Institute or Heritage Foundation, this is the fact: if you wish to be considered Homo sapiens instead of a Pithecanthropus erectus, you must swear that the plan of those two idiots brings the ultimate proof that the American conservative movement is racist, Nazist, and murderous by nature. (29)

2. American society believes in the big media because it is not capable of imagining a general and systematic scam like the one that took place in Brazil when all newspapers and TV stations concealed on purpose, for sixteen years, the existence of the Sao Paulo Forum, the largest organization of political delinquency that ever existed in Latin America. As in the title of the of Sinclair Lewis famous novel, everybody believes that It can’t happen here. Well, it happened.

3. Whatever one says against Obama meets an automatic reply: It is racism. Racial blackmailing is so violent, generalized and systematic that the simple fact of saying that there is racial blackmailing proves that you are a racist. Therefore, the monopoly of verbal violence remains with the Democrats, while Obama's critics protect themselves behind self-limiting roundabouts.

4. What Obama says does not make sense. His speeches, when not totally devoid of content, unceremoniously contradict themselves – ant that is exactly why they work so well. Their content has no importance at all. It is just a filler for the active substance, which is constituted of magic appeals and hypnotic messages, in such a way that after a few minutes everyone's intelligence is numbed to the point of accepting, without the least critical reaction, statements such as: "You will se a light shining from above. You will experience an epiphany and an inner voice will tell you: I must vote for Barack Obama". If he proclaimed this by spontaneous faith, he would be called a madman. But as he says it in the best style of Ericksonian neuro-linguistic programming, people will vote for him for president of the most powerful nation in the world.

The combined effects of these four factors are almost miracles of faith, of an atrocious surrealistic character: polls show that three in four Americans who live in Israel prefer John McCain, but three in every four Jews who live in the U.S., away from Palestinian bombs and close to a TV tuned to CNN, prefer Obama. (30)



1. e





6. e
























30. e

Saturday, November 01, 2008

The candidate of fear

The candidate of fear

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio (São Paulo, Brazil), October 24th, 2008

Called “the Messiah” by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and “My Jesus” by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, “Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.” What if he did not let us know?

Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have “crossed the line” and that you are virtually guilty of a “hate crime.” Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a “new beginning,” and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given-oh, no!-the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama “guilt by association”- an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial “overtones.”

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of “ideas,” emphasizing that his opponent is “a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.”

This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired. An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe The Plumber-the nickname by which he has become known nationwide-draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, “When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive 63 million dollars in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case. In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted “Kill him” after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times-nominally Republican-which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere “internet rumors” and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.

The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode-but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject.

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the elections, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As for Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters, is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public-or even to become aware of it in a low voice-it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.

Olavo de Carvalho, 61, taught Political Philosophy at the Catholic University of Parana (Brazil) from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of twelve books. He now lives in the United States as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. Website:

Source: Laigle’s Forum