Ted Cruz Launch: Good News for Evangelicals, Bad News for GOP Elites

Bryan Fischer

Commentary by Julio Severo: When there is no candidate for you to give your vote, it is sad. Yet, when there is one, it is joy. Ted Cruz launched his candidacy to the U.S. presidency in the largest evangelical university in the world, Liberty University, connected to Matt Barber, owner of the conservative website Barbwire, where I am a columnist. In fact, the article below, written by Bryan Fischer, was published by Barbwire. If Cruz actually reaches the end, this election will be thrilling. Today, I dreamed that I was in an area where there was a voting booth in the U.S. For some reason, I saw the first American voter and after he had left the voting booth, his vote was put in my hand and I saw that his vote was for Cruz. I was extremely glad in that moment. I cannot vote in the U.S., but I will pray that Cruz may win and become president, becoming this way, as Romans says, a “minister of God.” We are tired of seeing U.S. presidents and politicians, true servants of Satan, facilitating the international persecution of Christians. It is time for an evangelical as Ted Cruz to win and change the anti-Christian and pro-sodomy policies of the U.S. government. I pray also that as U.S. president he may do what no U.S. president has ever done: TO RECOGNIZE OFFICIALLY JERUSALEM AS CAPITAL OF ISRAEL! Ted Cruz has my support!  

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz sucked all the oxygen out of the room today with his official declaration of his candidacy to be America’s next president.

He stole a march on the rest of the field, who will now be scrambling to catch up. It was a brilliant piece of political strategy.

By making his first campaign appearance at Liberty University, the largest evangelical school in the world, Cruz was also sending a powerful message to the conservative Christian base: “I’m one of you.” He was telling evangelicals that they are his base. He openly embraced evangelicals in a way we have not seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

It’s impossible for a Republican to win the nomination or the presidency without the enthusiastic support of the evangelical base. You can ask Romney and McCain all about that. Cruz will generate the kind of fervor and energy among the confessing evangelicals that’s required to win. He in fact may lock up the evangelical bloc before the other conservatives are even out of the gate.

Four million conservative voters stayed home in 2012 and in so doing handed the election to Barack Obama. Cruz will draw those four million conservatives to the polls, and they will bring their friends with them. Lots of them.

Political consultants, who have made an astonishing amount of money telling Republicans how to lose one election after another, have got it all wrong on the precious “independents.” Their template is that there are Republicans on the right, Democrats on the left, with all the independents somewhere in between.

What this template completely fails to account for is the number of independents who are to the right of today’s mushy-middle GOP establishment. They are independent, not because the Republican Party is too conservative for them, but because it is not conservative enough.

To borrow from Ronald Reagan, they didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left them. Ted Cruz will bring the party back to them and he will bring them back to the party. He will win the independents who count, the ones who can put the Republicans in the win column in 2016.

It will be fascinating to watch the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth among the GOP establishment should Cruz’s candidacy take flight. We will soon find out if there is enough room for Ted Cruz in their precious “Big Tent.” Their tent may prove to be a lot smaller than they want us to believe.

The GOP elites have always taken evangelical voters for granted. They have condescendingly thrown us a bone or two in the platform, then patted us on the head and told us to go to our rooms and be seen and not heard. They have assumed we will vote GOP because we have no other place to go.

Those days will be over with a Cruz nomination. It will be the GOP establishment that will have no place to go. Evangelicals will say it’s about time the elites have to hold their noses and vote for our guy for a change.

In its profile of Ted Cruz, the New York Times said that GOP elites are “skeptical of and angry with (Ted) Cruz.” Sounds like he just might be the guy we’re looking for.

Source: Barbwire, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Gay Magazine Praises Jeb Bush

Are Conservatives and Socialists ‘Brothers’? George W. Bush Calls Bill Clinton His ‘Brother’

Beware of False Conservatives! Neocons and Their Leftist Mistreatment of Christians

Washington, D.C.: The Seat of the Immoral World Government

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda

For the U.S., Jerusalem Has No Connection with Israel

Highlights in the Brazilian week, March 15-20

Sunday (15), Brazilian society was marked by protests against Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Massive demonstrations protested against corruption and called for her impeachment.

Even though the Rousseff administration has a prominent Socialist history of pro-abortion and pro-sodomy activism since 2011, the protests focused, according to Reuters, on “a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption.”

The massive demonstrations included no protests against abortion and the homosexual agenda. Pro-abortion and pro-sodomy socialists also protested against Rousseff.

Monday (16), the Brazilian media run headlines about former Brazilian presidential candidate Levy Fidelix, condemned to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement, because he had made statements in defense of family and children against the homosexual agenda. There was no massive or even small demonstration in his support. Representative Marco Feliciano, an evangelical minister, was the only prominent Brazilian figure to support Fidelix, a Catholic.

Thursday (19), Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Cármen Lúcia rejected an appeal from prosecutors who wanted to protect children from adoption by homosexual couples in the state of Paraná.

In her ruling, Justice Lúcia argued that the concept of Family cannot be restricted because of homoerotic couples, according to Exame magazine.

In her view, the concept of Family, with norms of visibility, continuity and stability, can also be applied to same-sex individuals.

Because this is a ruling coming from the highest Brazilian court, it is a major defeat for efforts to protect children from ideological, moral, spiritual and even physical abuse.

Friday (20), Rep. Marco Feliciano decried a decision by Prosecutor Promotor Thiago, who wants shopping malls bathrooms in the Federal District, where Brasilia is located, to be available to people not according to their biological sex, but according to their “gender identity.” His decision follows a new resolution from the Human Rights National Council of the Rousseff administration.

Feliciano asked, “What will people, who use bathrooms and dressing-rooms, feel when they see there an individual from the opposite sex? Are not they going to be embarrassed? What about the risk of molestation?”

He also asked, “Where are feminists? This resolution exposes women to embarrassment and dangers. What about malicious men and boys choosing to frequent ladies’ rooms?”

Last week, Feliciano introduced two bills addressing these issues. If passed, they will suspend the federal resolution.

Source: Katehon

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

By Julio Severo

Socialist Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff faced, according to FoxNews, massive demonstrations protesting against corruption and calling for her impeachment last Sunday (March 15).

Different from FoxNews, which is a huge conservative news outlet, Cliff Kincaid announced in his small outlet that the Brazilian demonstrations were an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution.”

Kincaid said, “Such a development would be a major blow to the anti-American left in Latin America, which has been operating since 1990 under the rubric of the São Paulo Forum, a pro-communist movement started by Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva, and Fidel Castro.”

The Brazilian protests were not about Marxism. Any anti-Marxism expression was an isolated event. The protests were, according to Reuters, about “a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption.”

When Brazilians are discontent, they protest. The same demonstrators would protest Barack Obama if discontent with him.

Many Brazilians who live in the U.S. are discontent with Rousseff, but not with Obama.

Last year, Obama announced a major amnesty benefiting millions of immigrants. Many of those benefited are Brazilians, who are fleeing from the leftist hell in Brazil, but by being aided by Obama, they are also aiding to produce a leftist hell in the U.S.

A Brazilian friend helped spread Kincaid’s article about an alleged “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” in Brazil. Frequently, he attacks Rousseff, because she is a Marxist. But he praised Obama’s amnesty. I told him that conservative Americans did not like Obama’s amnesty because it is a handout. He answered that the important thing is Brazilian immigrants need it and so he praised such wonderful policy for immigrants.

In general terms, this is the profile of an “anti-Marxist” Brazilian in Kincaid’s piece.

A true anti-Marxist counter-revolution would be characterized especially by a moral fight against two fundamental banners of the U.S. and Brazilian Left: abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Yet, a fight against abortion and the tyrannical homosexual agenda had no place in what Kincaid termed “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” in Brazil.

In fact, Monday (March 16), just one day after the massive demonstrations, Catholic Levy Fidelix, a former Brazilian presidential candidate, was condemned to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement. There was no massive or even small demonstration in his support.

He was condemned because in the last Brazilian presidential election he made pro-family declarations. The other main contenders — Dilma Rousseff, Aécio Neves and Marina Silva — also lambasted him for his pro-family view.

Evangelical Marina was the candidate of the Brazilian Socialist Party, and was heavily involved in the anti-Rousseff protests. Does a socialist fighting a socialist look like an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

Because he knew I am a Brazilian, a minister with some evangelical churches in the U.S. praised Silva, saying that she is a conservative evangelical politician who absolutely fights abortion and the gay agenda. I asked him where he had read it, because in her history, Silva never undertook such fight. I emphasized that she always was leftwing. He said that he had read about her strong evangelical “conservatism” in the U.S. mainstream media.

Neves, admired by most demonstrators, had his candidacy built by Marxist strategist David Axelrod, a longtime top Obama adviser. Does a socialist helping a socialist look like an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

Even so, Kincaid said, “President Barack Obama’s fellow Marxist, Dilma Rousseff.”

It is correct to say that Obama and Rousseff are Marxist. But they are not fellows. Rousseff and her administration have had a very hard time with Obama and his administration because of NSA and its economic espionage against Brazil.

There is a big difference between pro-U.S. Marxists and anti-U.S. Marxists. Neves is in the former group; Rousseff is in the latter one. Yet, Rousseff is not totally anti-U.S. Her administration has faithfully supported every pro-sodomy measure by the U.S. in the United Nations.

Fidel Castro and Aécio Neves

There is a picture of Neves with Fidel Castro. Even so, he and Marina Silva, a radical environmentalist, were portrayed in the U.S. mainstream media as “conservative.” They were the leading political figures in the massive demonstrations.

In this point, you could think then that the massive protests were pro-U.S. and pro-Obama Marxists protesting anti-U.S. Marxists. Hardly an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”!

Basically, Brazilians protesting Rousseff because of rising prices would also protest Obama if he backtracked in his amnesty policy benefiting millions of immigrants, including Brazilians. While Obama does not backtrack in his handout, Brazilian immigrants in the U.S. will keep attacking only Rousseff.

What about if Socialist Aécio Neves and environmentalist Marina Silva agreed to denounce the São Paulo Forum to destroy Rousseff’s socialist party, the Workers’ Party? Would Marxism be politically destroyed in Brazil? No. There is a bigger threat: the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (NCBB).

Professor Hermes Rodrigues Nery, a prominent Catholic pro-life leader in Brazil, said recently that NCBB is “an extension of the São Paulo Forum.” It was a generous charge.

Actually, Marxist NCBB is credited, by many Catholic conservative and pro-life leaders, as the original creator of the Workers’ Party. And as a mother nurses her baby, NCBB nursed its red monster.

Above all, long before the São Paulo Forum’s birth, there was a NCBB guiding Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, into socialism.

Ignoring the Brazilian reality, Cliff Kincaid said, “The protests in Brazil are giving hope to those who see an opportunity to defeat Marxism in the Western hemisphere.”

If Brazil is the best example of an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” that Kincaid is able to see, then it is no wonder that Obama is at the White House.

Immediately after Rousseff’s reelection, her opponents made a petition in the White House asking help from Obama. Nowhere the petition mentioned the threat of abortion policies and the homosexual agenda. But it mentioned “São Paulo Forum” and said, “We call a White House position in relation to communist expansion in Latin America.”

Oh, my God! Does people asking help from a socialist produce an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

The most important Marxist today is at the White House. Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, quoted often by Kincaid, said recently: “Because I am just a legal resident and not an American citizen, I cannot get involved actively in the anti-Obama fight, but I believe that this fight is the ONLY thing that matters today.”

The most important fight — against Obama and his wicked policies — has been one of the main focuses of my ministry, because the Obama administration is impacting the whole world. I would not avoid this calling even if threatened of losing a chance to get a U.S. citizenship.

Of course, the other huge threat is Islam, the greatest murder machine in the history. Its main victims have been Christians.

But Kincaid (and Obama!) has been focusing his attacks and provocations on Russia. Kincaid’s radicalism does not spare even pro-family events in Russia. Last year, an international conservative pro-family congress was held at the Kremlin, attended even by an Inter-American Institute (IAI) fellow. But Kincaid preferred to join the U.S. homosexual militant and radical Marxist chorus who attacked the event and the Russian laws banning homosexual propaganda for children.

Another IAI member recommended the book “The War Against Putin: What the Government-Media Complex Isn’t Telling You About Russia” to me and made it clear that he disagreed with the radical criticism of some Americans against the Russian president.

While Kincaid and other ultranationalist Americans are heavily busy attacking Russia, Obama and neocons are trying to destroy pro-family cultures by advancing their Marxist revolution and imposing around the world their pro-sodomy, pro-Marxism, pro-abortion and pro-Islam policies.

To denounce, expose and fight Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and pro-Islam Marxist revolution — that is the ONLY thing that matters today.

Portuguese version of this article: Os protestos anti-Dilma foram uma contrarrevolução antimarxista?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Former Brazilian Presidential Candidate Levy Fidelix Condemned to Pay R$ 1 Million for Voicing “Homophobic” View

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Former Brazilian Presidential Candidate Levy Fidelix Condemned to Pay R$ 1 Million for Voicing “Homophobic” View

By Julio Severo

Former Brazilian presidential candidate Levy Fidelix was condemned by the São Paulo Supreme Court to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement.

Levy Fidelix, in a TV show, after being lambasted by Dilma Rousseff, Aécio Neves e Marina Silva

The condemnation, delivered Friday (March 14), deals with declarations that Catholic Fidelix made in an interview in a TV show September 28, 2014, where he said:

“The large intestine does not reproduce… How can I, a family man and a grandfather, be afraid of losing votes? I prefer not having such votes, but to be a moral father and a moral grandfather to teach his child, to instruct his grandchild. Let us end this. I just read that the Holy Father, the Pope, expelled a pedophile from the Vatican. He did very well. He is right! We train our children all their lives in a religious way so that they may really find a good family way.”

Fidelix also recommended psychological treatment for homosexuals and he said that homosexuals should be kept away from families and their children.

In that time, the TV show also interviewed the other presidential candidates, who did not like Fidelix’s view.

Workers’ Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, who eventually won the presidential election, said about his view: “I have already said that I am against homophobia and I think Brazil has reached such a degree of civility that we cannot live together with acts and words of discrimination leading to violence. I think that homophobia should be outlawed.” Rousseff is a leftist with Venezuelan and Cuban connections.

Brazilian Socialist Party candidate Marina Silva said that the declarations of Levy Fidelix were “homophobic and unacceptable in any circumstance.” In the TV show, she had committed herself to mobilize her party, Rede Sustentabilidade (Sustainability Network), to carry on a lawsuit against Fidelix for “homophobia.” Strangely, Silva was eventually portrayed, by a propaganda from an unknown source, as “conservative” in the U.S. media, which was silent on Fidelix and his much more conservative stances.

PSDB candidate Aécio Neves moaned about Fidelix’s declarations, saying, “We absolutely repel those declarations. And as I have already said more than once, in my view all kind of discrimination is crime. Homophobia too.”

David Axelrod, who served as a top White House adviser after helping Obama get elected, had been hired to help build Aécio Neves candidacy for the 2014 Brazilian presidential.

Axelrod was brought to Brazil with the help of former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, also known by his initials FHC — who is close to former US President Bill Clinton. FHC founded PDSB, the Brazilian Social Democrat Party, whose presidential candidate was Neves.

Longtime Obama adviser Axelrod wrote in his new biography, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” that Obama followed his advice that he should not declare his real position on gay “marriage” so he could avoid opposition from African American religious leaders and others to get elected president in 2008. He said Obama “modified his position” to say he supported civil unions — but not same-sex “marriage.”

Possibly, Axelrod taught his Brazilian candidate to lie about the same issues. Even so, both Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Aécio Neves were portrayed as “conservative” by the mainstream media in the U.S. In this point, I wonder why the U.S. media labels Brazilian leftist politicians as “conservative” if all of them opposed and attacked Fidelix and his anti-sodomy views.

Axelrod’s candidate lost, but the homosexual agenda not. To the detriment of moral issues, especially a resistance to the advance of homosexual tyranny, the focus of political battles has been economic.

Yesterday (March 15), according to Reuters, “Over one million demonstrators marched in cities and towns across Brazil on Sunday to protest a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption — and to call for the impeachment of leftist President Dilma Rousseff.”

Among those opposing Rousseff were Neves and Marina Silva.

Today (March 16), with Brazilian headlines about the Fidelix condemnation, there was no demonstration, by Neves or Silva, to defend Fidelix’s free speech.

In an ideal world, he would not have been condemned, and Rousseff, Neves and Silva would see millions of demonstrators marching against their leftist agendas.

The São Paulo Supreme Court said that Fidelix’s declarations exceeded the limits of free speech and reflected hate speech. In its ruling, the court added, “[Fidelix’s declarations] reflect a sad Brazilian reality of violence and discrimination against this population group. We, the public authority, have the fundamental responsibility to protect human dignity.”

Now, homosexual vice equals “human dignity.”

The lawsuit filed by the LGBT movement also wants Fidelix and his party to pay all expenses for the production of a TV show promoting homosexual rights. Moreover, it imposes a daily fine of R$ 500,000 for each day of judicial order breach.

During the September TV show, where Fidelix made his declarations, a member of Marina Silva’s Brazilian Socialist Party said: The worst thing is that most constituency thinks as Fidelix does.

As Fidelix, most of the Brazilian people are Catholic.

Even not taking his religion in consideration, is his view different from what most Brazilians think? No. According to a study by an institute connected to the Workers’ Party, 99% of the Brazilian people are “homophobic,” that is, they have views contrary to homosexual behavior.

Today, Fidelix has been fined R$ 1 million for voicing a view against the obvious homosexual depravity. Tomorrow, ministers and priests and their members may be the next.

If the Brazilian people do not make demonstrations for Fidelix’s free speech, Cuba, Venezuela, Axelrod, Obama and other antifamily radicals are going to keep in the Brazilian presidency individuals committed to homosexual agenda.

Portuguese version of this article: Ex-candidato presidencial Levy Fidelix é condenado a pagar 1 milhão por expressar opinião “homofóbica”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

“Homosexuality is Unnatural”: The Last Great Message of Myles Munroe on the Gay Agenda

Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are “Homophobic” and Must Be Reeducated

“Study” in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo: 99% Brazilians do not accept homosexuality

Brazil Says 99% of Citizens “Homophobic”

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

Gay “Marriage”: Obama Lied, Rick Warren Believed

Obama Strategist in the Brazilian Presidential Campaign

War between Christian Nations and Muslim Nations: A Table Talk between an American Economist and Young Muslims in Indonesia

By Julio Severo

In the early 1970s, economist John Perkins was in Indonesia and had an interesting table talk with some young Muslims, reported in his book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man [Berrett-Koehler Publishers: 2004], pp. 45-46.”

Their talk:

Muslim young woman: “Back in the fifties he [Arnold Toynbee] predicted that the real war in the next century would not be between Communists and capitalists, but between Christians and Muslims.”

Perkins: “Arnold Toynbee said that?” I was stunned.

Muslim young woman: “Yes. Read Civilization on Trial and The World and the West.”

Perkins: “But why should there be such animosity between Muslims and Christians?” I asked.

Looks were exchanged around the table. They appeared to find it hard to believe that I could ask such a foolish question.

Muslim young woman: “Because,” she said slowly, as though addressing someone slow-witted or hard of hearing, “the West—especially its leader, the U.S. —is determined to take control of all the world, to become the greatest empire in history. It has already gotten very close to succeeding. The Soviet Union currently stands in its way, but the Soviets will not endure. Toynbee could see that. They have no religion, no faith, no substance behind their ideology. History demonstrates that faith—soul, a belief in higher powers—is essential. We Muslims have it. We have it more than anyone else in the world, even more than the Christians. So we wait. We grow strong.”

Muslim young man: “We will take our time,” one of the men chimed in, “and then like a snake we will strike.”

These young Muslims could see, and Toynbee could see too, according to them, the fall of the Soviet Union. They could see far beyond too: a future battle between the Islamic world and the Christian world.

John Perkins was, according to his own book, in Indonesia in a special operation. He had been hired as an EHM (Economic Hit Man), to persuade countries to take out loans worth billions of dollars, often to pay for infrastructure projects that the EHMs themselves recommend, making these countries to incur debts they would never be able to pay off.

Yet, the biggest ever special operation, which Perkins could not envision, was Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama also lived in Indonesia, in the late 1960s, because his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, after divorcing Barack Obama Sr. (a Marxist Muslim), moved to Indonesia after marrying another Muslim: Indonesian Lolo Soetoro.

According to Wayne Madsen, not only Dunham worked to CIA, including in a cover operation in Indonesia, but her son, today’s President Obama, was a CIA creation.

If this is so, the real war predicted by Toynbee to happen in our century between Christian nations and Muslim nations will never happen.

With Obama as U.S. president, the U.S. government and military power have been surrendering themselves more and more to Muslim interests. Yet, this selling-out did not begin today. Perkins exposes not only that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had massive financial connections since the 1970s, but also that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of terrorist financing. This is, the most important Muslim ally of America is the most important financing source of Islamic terrorism around the world.

How did “Christian” America and Europe come to succumb to Islamic petrodollars?

Because of massive Saudi and other Muslim financial investments in Europe, especially from Islamic dictatorships, Europeans have been surrendering themselves to a relentless Islamic invasion, disguised as immigration.

Islamic invasion is winning: at the White House, in Europe, etc.

By the way, no war between Christian nations and Muslim nations will be necessary, because the Christian world has been religiously weak and the Muslim world has been religiously strong. Obama Hussein Obama at the White House is evidence of a debilitated Christianity and strengthened Islam.

The Islamic world, especially Saudi Arabia, would never accept a pro-Christian president with a Christian name. But America, and the Western world, has welcomed a pro-Islam president with a Muslim name. Who is losing? Who is winning?

All of them (Perkins and the young Muslims) would have been utterly stunned if told of a 21-century Western world, especially the U.S., leading an aggressive international propaganda campaign presenting Islam — the greatest murder machine in history — as a “religion of peace.”

A “peace” bought by petrodollars. Its real cost is the slow death of the Christian culture in the U.S. and Europe.

There is a real ongoing war against the Christian civilization and Christian populations, including through Islamic terrorism, but there have been no fighting back from nations with a Christian past, especially America (the largest Protestant nation in the world) and Brazil (the largest Catholic nation in the world).

Portuguese version of this article: Guerra entre nações cristãs e nações muçulmanas: Uma conversa informal entre um economista americano e jovens muçulmanos na Indonésia

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Siding with the “religion of peace”: Obama, Bush, Brzezinski…

Obama Using Marxist Experience to promote Muslim Expansion

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”?

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

Main threat to U.S., Russia: Radical Islam, not each other

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

Why do we hate Putin more than Islamic terrorists?

Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

Russia vs. the LGBT Globalists

A Climate of Hate and Fear

By Dr. Scott Lively

Whenever and wherever normal people resist the mainstreaming of homosexuality, the LGBT movement and its allies attribute that resistance to “a climate of hate and fear” orchestrated by evil “homophobes” who exploit the prejudices of the ignorant by telling lies about “gay and lesbian people” who “just want equal rights.” They predict a wave a violence against “sexual minorities” and then set out to create their own evidence in support of it, all for the purpose of manipulating public opinion and public officials into the role of “protectors of the innocent.”

Here in America the strategy was first initiated on a small scale with human rights commissions at the local level in the 1970s, then at the state level and finally nationally in conjunction with the current massive leftist campaign to create a constitutional right to “gay marriage” by judicial fiat. Homosexualist Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy famously struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor on the grounds that opposition to homosexual “marriage” was motivated by “animus” (hatred). SCOTUS will likely use the same false logic when it rules for “gay marriage” this summer (absent a miraculous intervention by God).

This dangerous LGBT strategy has now gone global and the target is the Russian Federation.

To those who don’t fully recognize the Machiavellian character of the LGBT movement, or the extent to which the American media (even to an increasing extent FOX News) has become a sort-of “Gay Pravda,” what I’m about to state may seem crazy, but bear with me.

Not that it doesn’t also serve other globalist interests, but I have come to believe that protecting and advancing the LGBT agenda is the primary reason that Barack Obama orchestrated the coup to start a civil war in Ukraine. (See this excellent article on the theme that Obama‘s foreign policy is ideologically-driven, though it doesn‘t specifically address the homosexual agenda: http://us-russia.org/2934-stratfors-george-friedman-and-realism-in-american-foreign-policy.html.)

We were reminded this week that the LGBT agenda is a “core value” of the Obama administration when he appointed the first ever U.S. global envoy for “gay rights” http://news.yahoo.com/us-names-first-envoy-gay-rights-211447354.html. He had previously tasked the State Department to make the LGBT agenda a top priority of US policy abroad. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12a/obama_memo_120611/index.html

To the Obama administration this is, literally, again literally, what is meant by “American values,” though most people don’t grasp this and still translate the phrase to something benign and wholesome such as “Mom and Apple Pie” or the like. TO BO, core values are not freedom of speech — that’s clearly trumped by “gay rights” in his world. Nor economic freedom — you can’t run a business that refuses to bake cakes, take photos, or provide flowers for “gay weddings.” Core American values to Obama are publicly celebrated sodomy and doctor-assisted transsexual self-mutilation.

In this commitment to “gay rights” BO is joined by and represents an ideological cartel of global elitists who have cooperated together to force it upon the world. More on that in a later essay.

The Russian anti-propaganda law, passed June 11, 2013, was the first truly effective international counter-measure since the "gay" agenda went global around the turn of the millennium. Typically, the “gays” characterized the law as hateful and an incitement to violence, but in doing so they revealed that propagandizing children is part of their agenda, since the law simply classifies "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships" as material that cannot be distributed among minors and commands the government to protect children from it. http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37129/13-06-27-russia-LA.pdf

Just after the passage of this law Barack Obama did an about-face on the "reset" policy (in which Russia had been recognized as an equal partner in the world community) and instead began reviving cold-war rhetoric.

During the Sochi Olympics of February 2014, BO tried to steer Russia back into line through the usual media-driven pressure tactics (which don't work on Russians who endured worse under the Soviets).http://www.scottlively.net/2014/02/22/pro-russian-press-conference/

When that didn't work BO started the civil war in Ukraine to force Russia into its current no-win scenario there. US diplomats were caught red-handed in the early stages of this regime change: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/victoria-nuland-eu_n_4740004.html.  

Nuland said “F*** the EU,” because it resisted the plan for forced Ukraine regime change as inimical to it’s business interests but (in my view) the US didn‘t care because it‘s interests were ideological and punitive.

BO knew, of course, that Ukraine to the Russians was the strategic equivalent of Cuba, or even Hawaii, to the US and they could never simply acquiesce to the transfer of their most critical warm-water port in Crimea and oil interests in the east to a hostile US-controlled regime.

The Russians were deliberately pushed into a situation where they could be portrayed as bullies — rather like the way a couple of “gay” activists set up the conservative State of Texas as aggressors. They (allegedly) orchestrated their own arrest for sodomy so they could portray themselves as victims to a Supreme Court majority (led by Kennedy again) looking for a chance to strike down the anti-sodomy laws. Thus we got the 2003 Lawrence v Texas ruling, which was used as the “moral impetus” for the first “gay marriage” law in Massachusetts in 2004.

Texas wasn’t breaking down anyone’s door to enforce its sodomy law (any more than the Russians were aggressing against Ukrainians before the US coup) but was pushed into doing so by LGBT agents provocateur. No one produces better agents provocateur than the LGBT movement, which has presumably been well represented in the US intelligence agencies since Bill Clinton lifted the ban on top-secret security clearance for “gays” in August 2,1995.

After the Ukraine coup d’etat, BO and his media stooges then joined with anti-family GOP snake-in-the-grass John McCain and his fellow neo-cons (and their media stooges) in a relentless campaign of war propaganda on the theme that Russia is intent on reconstructing the evil Soviet empire. In just over a year Obama and McCain et al, have turned Russia into a pariah state in the view of the US and EU sheeple, based on nothing but disingenuous portrayals of the Ukraine crisis and unsupported fear-mongering that Russia intends military adventures against the Baltic states.

Incidentally, John McCain’s former chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, was hired in 2013 by the ACLU “to build GOP support in the states for legislation to make gay marriage legal” http://www.politico.com/playbook/0613/playbook11032.html.

And while we’re on the subject of Republicans, don’t believe for a second that the GOP establishment is not kowtowing to “gay rights” behind the scenes just as much as the Dems do it openly. Even under ostensibly pro-family George W. Bush the State Department was pushing the homosexual agenda around the world. I personally confronted the diplomatic staff at the US embassy in Riga, Latvia in 2007 for helping to organize a “Gay Pride” parade in defiance of an overwhelming pro-family majority in that conservative nation.

Apparently deciding it’s now time to stop hiding their homophilia, Bush dynasty heir apparent Jeb just hired a top LGBT activist as his communications director http://stevedeace.com/news/bush-hires-one-of-d-c-s-30-most-influencial-homosexuals-as-communications-director/

And here’s another bombshell that missed the conservative media. The Human Rights Campaign effort to characterize American pro-family activism in foreign countries as fostering “hate and fear” (an effort which labels me Public Enemy #1) was funded by GOP mega-donors Paul Singer and Daniel Loeb http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/11/06/controversy-over-hrcs-international-push-paul-singer/

Back to Russia. Recently I was interviewed by the BBC for a documentary the producers said was about “the global culture war.” However, the interview focused heavily on my reaction to the reports of — Surprise! — an alleged increase in “anti-gay” violence in countries that have passed laws against homosexuality” particularly Russia and Uganda  These reports (which they never showed actually showed me) were allegedly prepared by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations, and Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), bastions of impartiality all. (Btw, SMUG is suing me for “Crimes Against Humanity” for preaching against homosexuality in their country). http://www.scottlively.net/2012/06/28/my-analysis-of-the-smug-lawsuit/

This brings us back full circle to the theme of this essay. I told the BBC interviewer that I did not view any of these sources as trustworthy on the issue of homosexuality and cited the Matthew Shepard and David Kato murders as evidence. Indeed, I had already accused Human Rights Watch of indulging in pro-“gay” propaganda in their first video purporting to show Russian anti-gay violence (released to coincide with the Olympics), where I exposed the LGBT movement’s fraud in their characterizations of the Shepard and Kato incidents: http://www.scottlively.net/2014/02/10/the-anti-russian-human-rights-watch-video-is-a-hoax/

So here’s the moment of truth for pro-family analysts and advocates. Do you really grasp the extent to which LGBT leaders and activists will go to serve their own interests? You’ve seen what they do at the street level, against Christian businesses, etc. What would that deviltry look like on an international level, if, say, the President of the United States were a “gay” activist?

In August of 2013 I sent a open letter to President Putin, thanking him for signing the anti-propaganda law. In it I warned him “not to assume that you have fully solved the problem by the enactment of this law. The battle to protect your society from homosexualization has only just begun, and you may be surprised to discover in the coming months and years just how aggressively many world leaders will work to try to intimidate and coerce you to capitulate to homosexualist demands.” http://www.scottlively.net/2013/08/30/an-open-letter-to-president-vladimir-putin/

Regardless of where one stands on Ukraine or Vladimir Putin, just for a moment consider where the pro-family movement would be if it hadn't been for the Ukraine coup. Russia would still be (relatively speaking) a respected member of the international community offering an alternative, genuinely pro-family model for social policy. There would likely be at least a half-dozen nations which would have adopted the anti-propaganda law for themselves (with many more considering it) and there would be a healthy international debate raging on pro-family vs LGBT visions for the future. I believe the tide would probably have begun to turn in our favor, at least on the global scene, if not yet in the US or EU.

Is it really so far-fetched to believe that morally wicked, Imperialistic, Alinsky-ite Obama (credibly alleged to be a homosexual himself) started the Ukrainian civil war to punish Russia for opposing the “core value” of America, the priority of his State Department? Or (more importantly to the “gays”) to prevent the Russians from leading a pro-family counter-revolution in the world?

Are you as a pro-family conservative really going to accept the word of Barack Obama, John McCain and the mainstream media that Russia is the bad guy in this story? If you do, you really don’t know your enemy — and I’m not talking about Putin.

Next time you hear the implication that Russia has created “a climate of hate and fear” in Ukraine, Russia or anywhere else, just remember whose go-to strategy this is for smearing its opponents and how deeply they are entrenched in the media, the White House and now the GOP establishment as well.

Source: Scott Lively, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda