Former Brazilian Presidential Candidate Fined in US$8,000 for “Homophobic” Comments

By Julio Severo

The Justice Department of the São Paulo State has maintained, February 21, its decision to fine the former Brazilian presidential candidate Levy Fidelix (PRTB) in about US$8,000. The fine was originally imposed by the Special Commission on Homophobic Discrimination over comments Fidelix made in a presidential debate broadcast on TV in 2014.

Levy Fidelix

In that occasion, 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’s condemnation is definitive. The prosecution against him had been dragging itself since 2014. In spite that Fidelix, who is a devout Catholic, used every legal recourse to defend himself, he lost his case. According to the Justice Department of the São Paulo State, the Special Commission on Homophobic Discrimination understood that “Fidelix exceeded the limits of free speech, going on to incite a hate speech against the LGBT population, encouraging aggression, violence and segregation for this social group, including spreading the false sense of political legitimation of discriminatory behaviors.”

Yet, this is not the only legal assault on Fidelix. Dragging itself since 2014 is also a condemnation by the São Paulo Supreme Court to force him to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement. He has been fighting the condemnation for three years.

He will have to pay US$8,000 for his recent legal defeat and, if eventually he loses the second legal case, he will have to pay more US$300,000.

In the time of the debate in 2014, all the three other candidates condemned Fidelix.

Workers’ Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, who won the presidential election, but eventually was impeached, 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 was 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” evangelical and even Pentecostal 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.”

Three years after the debate, and with the fall of the Rousseff administration last year and the consequent defeat of left-wing parties, there was the hope that Fidelix would not be punished over his Catholic views on homosexuality, especially with the extraordinary growth of conservative evangelical movements that are pushing the Brazilian politics to the Right.

Yet, the legal system in Brazil seems to have absorbed years and years of pro-homosexuality cultural socialism. The legal and social forces at the service of the gay agenda want now to make Fidelix into a “criminal” example to discourage any Brazilian conservatives from expressing their views on homosexuality.

With information from O Globo.

Portuguese version of this article: Ex-candidato presidencial Levy Fidelix é condenado a pagar R$ 25 mil por comentários “homofóbicos”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

“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”

Brazilian Carnival in Rio, a City Ruled by a Neo-Pentecostal Mayor

By Julio Severo

While campaigning last year to become mayor, Marcelo Crivella, a retired neo-Pentecostal bishop, insisted his religion would not get in the way of governing Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s most famous city.

Marcelo Crivella

The former gospel singer and missionary, a high-profile member of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), captured 59 percent of the vote and took office Jan. 1. But less than two months into his four-year term, Crivella’s promises are about to be tested by Carnival, Rio’s annual weeklong party often marked by heavy drinking and drug use, wild sex, crimes and round-the-clock dancing.

Given Rio’s current economic crisis, it makes no difference if Crivella is neo-Pentecostal, Catholic or an atheist. It is irrational and immoral to invest in Carnival when Rio is unable to pay wages to its public servants.

Traditionally, Brazilian evangelicals, especially Pentecostals, do not take part in Carnival. Yet, UCKG has been an exception in many issues, especially abortion, where its founder, Edir Macedo, has made several pro-abortion statements. Crivella has kept a homosexualist department in his administration headed by Nélio Georgini, a Presbyterian homosexual appointed by him.

When he was running last year, Crivella promised he would not try to alter major city events, such as Carnival or the annual gay parade. This is a sharp contrast with Dr. Geremias Fontes, who was the governor of Rio (1967-1971). The Fontes administration defunded Carnival from tax-money, even though it did not bar private groups from funding it.

Fontes was a Presbyterian who later was baptized in the Holy Spirit and eventually became a minister of an independent charismatic fellowship with a special ministry to help youth involved in drug addiction, one of the many problems plaguing Rio.

Young men and women, with Carnival lifestyles (heavy drinking and drug use, wild sex), came to his fellowship and were delivered, healed, saved and transformed by Jesus Christ.

Even though Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world, evangelicals, especially Pentecostals and charismatics, have enjoyed an extraordinary growth for their churches and a growing role in politics.

Twenty-two percent of Brazilians currently identify as evangelical Christians. In 1970 only 5 percent had such identification.

The Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus, representing about a fifth of seats in the Brazilian Congress, has emerged as a political conservative force that was influential in socialist President Dilma Rousseff’s removal last year and pushes for pro-life and pro-family laws.

Crivella is totally supportive of Israel. His first trip, after his election, was to Israel, to thank God. Even though he is not as conservative as Geremias Fontes or other charismatics, in comparison to pro-abortion, homosexualist congressman Jean Wyllys, who represents Rio, he is very conservative.

With information from the Associated Press.

Portuguese version of this article: Carnaval no Rio, uma cidade governada por um prefeito neopentecostal

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Rio’s evangelical new mayor to celebrate victory in Israel

Victory of Marcelo Crivella for Rio Mayor Astonishes Conservatives in Brazil

Financial Times: Brazil’s Evangelicals Push Politics to the Right

The lesson for U.S. in fall of Brazil regime

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

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

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”

Ion Mihai Pacepa and Disinformation

Bishop Edir Macedo and Homosexuality

Brazilian Pentecostals: Church Growth Endangered by Socialist Embrace

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

The Perfect Revival?

Pedophilia Advocacy Knocks Down Prominent “Conservative” Gay

By Julio Severo

Gay nationalist “conservative” Milo Yiannopoulos had been invited as the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the most important conservative event in the United States, but he was quickly disinvited after videos surfaced of him defending sex between men and boys.

The videos were posted on Twitter by a group called the Reagan Battalion, which “bills itself as a conservative news source,” USA Today reports.

“We are talking about 13-25, 13-28, these things do happen perfectly consensually,” Yiannopoulos said in one of the videos. 

The first video, which the Reagan Battalion shared over the weekend, is from a 2016 interview on a podcast called The Drunken Peasants. In it Yiannopoulos denounced the “arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent” and said, “People are messy and complex, and actually in the homosexual world particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, those coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men have helped those young boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, a rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.”

He also said such relationships do not constitute pedophilia. “Pedophilia is not an attraction to somebody who is 13 years old who is sexually mature,” he said. “Pedophilia is an attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

After discussing his sexual relationship with “Father Michael,” which he allegedly had as a teenager at age 14, the interviewer, Joe Rogan, said, “It sounds like molestation to me… It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me.”

Yet, Yiannopoulos did not condemn the experience. He said, “It wasn’t molestation.”

“That’s absolutely molestation,” Rogan shot back.

Even though Yiannopoulos was clearly a sexual abuse victim himself in the clutches of a Catholic priest, he replied, “I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

“Spotlight” seems to fit Yiannopoulos’s case, but he does not seem to have disliked his abuse.

Yiannopoulos, who is an editor at the conservative Breitbart, became a hero in some nationalistic right-wing circles over fiery rhetoric and disdain for political correctness, especially on college campuses. Earlier this month his speech at the University of California Berkeley was canceled after protests of his appearance turned violent. Even Trump got involved by threatening to pull funds from the school.

Many conservatives had criticized CPAC for choosing Yiannopoulos as its keynote speaker because they do not see him as a traditional conservative. Instead, Yiannopoulos is seen as the figurehead of the alt-Right movement, a movement that prides itself in nationalism, which many accuse of racism and anti-Semitism.

Yet, the pro-pedophilia videos abruptly destroyed his keynote opportunity.

“Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference,” ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp said in a statement Monday.

Dr. Michael Brown said,

“First, it was an error for CPAC to invite Milo to keynote, despite his rhetorical brilliance and his ability to dismantle and expose today’s ridiculous PC extremes. It’s one thing for Milo to speak on college campuses and other settings, where he can also be himself, including using his full range of profanity, vulgarity, and gay flaunting. It’s another thing for CPAC to celebrate an out and proud homosexual as one of its champions (after all, that’s part of being a keynote speaker at a conference of this kind; you are invited because of your leadership and your voice)… while CPAC is a political organization rather than a religious one, if it fails to hold the line on gay activism, it will cease to be truly conservative.”

Brown also said,

“Milo drew attention to the fact that many older gay men are involved with much younger gay men (commonly called “boys,” according to Milo), a practice defended in 2013 by the influential gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who noted that, ‘Historically, gay men have engaged in intergenerational sexual encounters, brief romances and long-term relationships — among consenting adults — probably much more than straight people have.’”

“It is no secret that gay activists have often been at the forefront of pushing for the lowering of the age of consent. It is also no secret that gay literature through the centuries has celebrated the ‘love’ of grown men and boys, and in these cases, there is no doubt that they were minors rather than young men.”

The attempt to associate homosexuality with conservatism will produce an automatic divorce from the most important ally of conservatism: Christian values.

Conservatism can survive without homosexuality, but it cannot survive without Christian values.

Earlier this month, Rev. Scott Lively prophetically warned about “conservatives being enticed to embrace attention-hog Milo Yiannopoulos as a hero of conservatism: run away!”

He also warned that the union of nationalism and homosexuality has a dark precedent: Nazism.

The new union of nationalism and homosexuality will not destroy the homosexualist movement. It will bring the homosexuality movement into the conservative movement, giving gay militants the supreme privilege to advance their ideology through the Left and the Right at the same time. It will destroy the traditional union between the conservative movement and Bible-believing Christians in the United States.

The Bible never condemns the homosexualist movement. It attacks only the homosexual behavior, because thence flows every evil, including the homosexualist movement.

If the conservative movement rejects the Bible, it cannot be surprised when a “conservative” gay leader is caught condoning sex between men and boys.

Interestingly, when Lively’s article on Yiannopoulos was made available in Brazil, some Catholic nationalists attacked it because, in their view, there is no problem for a conservative leader to be an open gay. Yet, a pedophilic Catholic priest somehow “produced” the “conservative” gay Yiannopoulos.

And Breitbart and CPAC worked to present him, to the U.S. and the world, as a model of conservatism. CPAC is politically so important that even President Trump is scheduled to speak at its event.

Breitbart, CPAC and other conservative groups need more Bible-based Christianity and no “conservative” homosexuality. There is no need to put homosexuals, who defy God by their immoral lifestyles, in conservative leadership roles, but there is a need to give prominence to the Bible and its values in the conservative movement.

Without the Bible, the conservative movement has only useless posts and prominence to offer to Yiannopoulos and other homosexuals, whose vices and problems eventually destroy conservatism.

With the Bible, the conservative movement can offer Jesus to Yiannopoulos and other homosexuals.

Conservatism without Jesus is useless and does not save, deliver and heal homosexuals and other broken people.

With information from The Blaze, USAToday, The Washington Times, The Daily Beast and The Advocate.

Portuguese version of this article: Defesa da pedofilia derruba proeminente gay “conservador”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church

Trump Continues Obama’s Homosexual Imperialism and Frustrates Christian Conservatives

Trump Continues Obama’s Homosexual Imperialism and Frustrates Christian Conservatives

By Julio Severo

The most powerful symbol of the former Obama administration’s homosexual imperialism was the post of the Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons.

Randy Berry in the Gay Parade in São Paulo, Brazil, 2015

This U.S. Department of State post, which was a global breakthrough, was pioneered by Obama to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad as the official U.S. foreign policy.

In a stunning measure last week, the administration of President Donald Trump has decided to keep this top homosexualist post at the State Department even after evangelical leaders had specifically asked for its immediate demise. Conservative groups blasted Trump’s decision.

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for the Truth about Homosexuality, said,

“The reinstatement of Randy Berry as Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons is another defeat for pro-family advocates who were counting on Trump to remove homosexual activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy.”

He added,

“Berry is a career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic. He was given the ‘LGBT Envoy’ position in 2015, to the applause of LGBT activists. Berry is also a homosexual and ‘gay’ activist himself dedicated to seeing other nations adopt an immoral, modern Western legal system that grants ‘rights,’ including marriage, based homosexuality and gender deviance.”

Berry, the top homosexual activist in the Obama administration, has traveled to more than 40 countries in his post at the State Department. In a trip to Brazil in 2015, he explained his purpose: to create a coalition of nations to advocate the homosexual agenda.

Less than a month in office, Donald Trump is facing criticism from the evangelical conservatives who helped put him in the U.S. presidency — but not to continue Obama’s homosexual imperialism. In fact, they chose him to stop such imperialism.

The Family Research Council (FRC) had pushed repeatedly to remove LGBT activists from the State Department, calling their ideas anti-family and anti-life. Tony Perkins, the FRC head, called Trump's choice “disappointing.”

According to Perkins, “Keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department.” It signals to the world that under the Trump administration, there will be no pause in the homosexual imperialism led by the U.S. government.

Trump’s decision to continue Obama’s pro-LGBTQ foreign policy promoting unnatural behaviors and sexual sin as “human rights” is, according to LaBarbera, “Another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies.”

Media reports suggest Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, are behind these strange Trump’s decisions, including by urging the president not to sign a major religious freedom executive order, which was a Trump promise to evangelical voters and which would have protected Christians from homosexual tyranny. U.S. Christians have been indicted for “discrimination” when they refuse their services to homosexuals celebrating their fake marriages.

Kushner, who is a liberal Jew who has a track record of supporting the gay agenda, worked, with his wife, also to torpedo a draft executive order that would have overturned Obama’s regulations strengthening LGBT rights for federal contracting jobs. Ivanka has also a track record of supporting the gay agenda.

If it’s true that Trump’s daughter and son-in-law encouraged the president to keep Obama’s homosexual imperialism, they trampled on Trump’s evangelical voters. Trump’s victory was thanks to evangelicals, not to homosexual militants.

Yet, Trump has also his own track record of supporting the gay agenda. According to LifeSiteNews, “Donald Trump donated $30,000 to homosexual activists, including a $20,000 grant to an organization that promoted ‘fisting’ to middle school students, recommended books excusing homosexual pedophilia, and proclaimed its mission is ‘promoting homosexuality’ in the public schools to children as early as kindergarten.” Besides, in his campaign in February 2016, Trump promised “forward motion” on gay issues. He is fulfilling his promise.

And the State Department has also its own track record of supporting the gay agenda. It has been training and funding the homosexualist movement around the world. In partnership with USAID, it has brought together government officials, private funders, business leaders, scholars and homosexual activists from more than 30 countries to increase coordination, cooperation and resources dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda around the world, and to ensure full inclusion of homosexual activists in political power structures.

The U.S. effort to pervert other nations is not new and it has been successful in other times. Over 40 years ago, USAID, CIA and the State Department had NSSM 200, a secret U.S. government scheme, to integrate population control services (disguised as “family planning”) in the health services. Today, all health-care services, even in very poor nations, have “family planning,” but they are unable to question its moral validity and source.

If the U.S. was successful in integrating population control as the new “normalcy” in other nations, why would not the U.S. government, under Obama and now under Trump, be successful in integrating homosexual “marriage” and the full spectrum of the gay agenda as the new “normalcy” in other nations?

According to the homosexual magazine “The Advocate,” the idea of appointing a special envoy for LGBT issues was championed by several left-wing groups, including the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest homosexualist group in the U.S., whose co-founder, Terrance Patrick Bean, was arrested for homosexual assault in 2014.

According to its own website, AJWS is the fourth largest funder of the gay agenda worldwide. Since 2005, AJWS has invested nearly $9.5 million in global LGBT rights. In 2014, AJWS provided $2.97 million to 47 organizations promoting the gay agenda in 14 countries. Besides, AJWS works to promote legal abortion around the world.

Last week Trump said that he “inherited a mess” from Obama. Even so, he wants to keep Obama’s homosexual messes for the U.S. and the world.

If both Obama and Trump are so worried about homosexual issues, why did not they send Berry, who speaks Arabic, to Saudi Arabia to lecture and condemn them for murdering homosexuals? Why did not Obama and Trump impose heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia for murdering homosexuals?

Instead, both Obama and Trump have been submissive to the Saudis. Former Obama CIA director John Brennan was converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia. With Trump there is very little difference. Just one week after the new CIA director’s appointment, Trump sent him to reward Saudi Arabia for “fighting Islamic terror,” when Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of the global Islamic terrorism.

In this same insane logic, which follows Obama’s messy reasoning, Trump should send Berry to reward Saudi Arabia for “fighting killers of homosexuals,” when Saudi Arabia actually kill homosexuals.

Meanwhile, Rev. Scott Lively, who has never murdered homosexuals, but has helped them, is being prosecuted for “Crimes against Humankind” for just speaking biblically against sodomy.

Randy Berry and Trump are silent about Saudi acts against homosexuals and about homosexualist acts against Rev. Lively, including his efforts to help homosexuals find freedom in Christ.

LaBarbera said,

“Berry is a committed pro-LGBTQ activist who is dedicated to seeing other nations adopt the postmodern Western legal system that grants ‘rights,’ including ‘marriage,’ based on homosexuality and extreme gender deviance… In many nations today, sodomy is illegal, as it was almost universally in the Americas… For centuries, homosexuality has been considered immoral under Western jurisprudence, rooted in Judeo-Christian scripture and teaching.”

Yet, Trump said in an interview that legalized homosexual “marriage” is “settled” law. This “settled” mess, established by Obama, is a very bad U.S. example for the world. Why keep Obama’s homosexual “marriage” as a “settled” evil for the world to emulate?

Why does Trump seems to have no strength to reject Obama’s messes?

Why keep the post of Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons at the State Department?

Why keep the mess of Obama’s homosexual imperialism infecting the U.S. and the world?

The U.S. exportation of the homosexual agenda has brought no benefit to the world.

By keeping the U.S. State Department at the service of Obama’s homosexual imperialism, Trump has invited partnership with George Soros-funded organizations and other similar left-wing groups, which support the homosexual agenda, to undermine traditional Christian values around the world and he has virtually disinvited Russia from this New Global Homosexual Messy Order established by Obama, who used the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by him and his neocons, as an immoral excuse to impose sanctions against Russia over a Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children.

In a 2015 interview with a Brazilian magazine, Randy Berry was asked about the U.S.  presidential elections in the U.S.: “If a GOP candidate wins, will your post be threatened?” Berry answered: No.

Actually, Trump won and Berry is facing no problem to keep his homosexualist post. Is he a prophet? Of course, he is not.

Yet, how could he be so sure about a Republican president not threatening his post? Are not Republicans against Obama’s homosexualist messes? If the deep state is committed to the homosexual imperialism, then it makes no difference if Obama, Bush or Trump is in office: Deep state’s will will be done.

He also said that his post as a homosexual Special Envoy of the State Department was evidence that “For Obama, gay rights are priority.” By keeping him and his post, Trump has kept Obama’s priority.

What good will be for the United States to have a pro-life president who upholds homosexualist laws and leads the world into a massive homosexual chaos through the bad example of their empire?

If Trump succeeds in the fight against abortion, but fails against the gay agenda, the defeat will be devastating for family and society. It took only sodomy, not abortion, for a whole society, Sodom and Gomorrah, to be destroyed. It will take no less for America to be destroyed.

Trump’s stance on the gay agenda is not good for America now and her future. And it is not good for the world, because America is an empire that guides the world as a model for better or worse.

The only hope for Trump to stop following Obama and his socialism is to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

With information from Americans for Truth, Foreign Policy, LifeSiteNews, Religion News, American Conservative, CBN, Washington Blade and WND.

Portuguese version of this article: Trump continua o imperialismo homossexual de Obama e frustra conservadores cristãos

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Trump Administration Shows Progressive Response to the Gay Agenda

Trump and Obama: What Has Changed Between Them on Homosexuality and Saudi Arabia?

CIA Rewards Saudi Arabia for Fighting Islamic Terror

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Global Homosexual Envoy Talks about Republicans, Russia and Saudi Arabia

U.S. Homosexual Envoy Wants Brazil in New International Pro-Sodomy Coalition to Deflect Accusations of US “Cultural Imperialism”

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda

CIA Rewards Saudi Arabia for Fighting Islamic Terror

By Julio Severo

CIA under President Donald Trump has made what was possible only under Obama or a fake news: Mike Pompeo, the man Trump appointed as the new U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, visited Saudi Arabia last week to hand over to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif bin Abdulaziz, Deputy Premier and Minister of Interior in Saudi Arabia, the George Tenet Medal for counter-terrorism work and for “his unbound contribution to realize world security and peace.”

In a press statement to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA), which belongs to the Saudi government, Abdulaziz expressed his appreciation for CIA for bestowing the award and he said that the medal is a fruit of endeavors and of Saudi leaders to combat terrorism.

Commenting on the Saudi role in combating terrorism, he said that Saudi Arabia totally rejects terrorism, condemning it in all forms and manifestations, and saying that there is no connection between Islam and terror. He added that Saudi Arabia will continue to combat terrorism and extremism.

Replying a question on the relation between Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration, Abdulaziz said that the U.S.-Saudi relations are historically and strategically based and that no attempt will succeed in separating Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Pompeo, the official Trump representative who rewarded Saudi Arabia, made no objection.

All this information came from the official news agency of the Saudi government.

Yet, no mainstream U.S. media has reported it until now. My first thought was: Why are not the U.S. big media reporting it? Do not they want to bother their new boss? Even the powerful left-wing media is silent.

If Trump wants to be taken seriously in his war against Islamic terror, why is not he taking seriously the Saudi role in the Islamic terrorism? Why did he send the CIA director to reward Saudi Arabia just one week after Pompeo’s appointment? Why so much hurry to honor the Saudis?

After all, is America First or Saudi Arabia First?

An award to Saudi Arabia for fighting terrorism is akin to an award to Hitler for fighting Nazism or to an award to Stalin for fighting the Soviet communism.

How does the Trump administration expect to fight Islamic terrorism by rewarding its main sponsor? Not only the main sponsor of Islamic terror against the world, but also against the United States.

A 2016 Fox News headline said, “Declassified memo shows multiple Saudi connections to 9/11 plotters.” Most Islamic terrorists involved in the 9/11 were Saudi.

A 2016 Foreign Policy report remarked about “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists inside the Saudi Government.”

Of the 19  Islamic terrorists in the 9/11 attack, 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia, according to the CIA. In 2015, one of the 9/11 terrorists, Zacarias Moussaoui, claimed several members of the Saudi royal family had been listed as al-Qaeda donors in the database he worked on under orders of Osama bin Laden, CNN reports.

The Christian Broadcasting Network had this 2015 headline, “Saudi Arabia’s Role in Spreading Islamic Terrorism.”

Because the United States was also a victim of Saudi terrorists, it is impossible to understand why Trump sent the CIA director to reward an alleged Saudi work to “fight terrorism and promote world peace and security.”

Trump is making headlines for his ban on Islamic immigration and the conservative public understands that this is a serious effort to fight terrorism. But could it be just a big show? After all, Saudi Arabia, which bans the Bible and has no Christian community, is not in Trump’s blacklist. The Muslim nations in his blacklist are actually enemies of Saudi Arabia. Syria, which has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, is in Trump’s blacklist.

In a 2014 article titled “Saudi royal family will not allow Obama to save Christians in Iraq,” Religious Freedom Coalition director William J. Murray said,

“The United States has been the ‘puppet’ military of the Saudi royal family, attacking and isolating Shia nations such as Syria. The Shia majority state of Syria, which protects religious minorities, is a target of the United States only because the Saudi royals are giving the orders, not the American people.”

According to Murray, under Obama, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia trained ISIS terrorists to attack Syria. And now with the CIA medal, Trump is rewarding both Obama and the Saudis for their dirty work.

According to John Perkins, in his 2004 book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” Saudi Arabia has a very special relationship with the U.S. since mid-1970s. He says,

“The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America’s longtime ally and the world’s largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, ‘the epicenter’ of terrorist financing… Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries…”

So even Americans know about the indisputable Saudi role in the international Islamic terrorism.

By sending his CIA director to reward Saudi Arabia for “fighting terrorism and promoting world peace and security,” Trump dashed the conservative hopes of a real fight against Islamic terror.

With information from the Saudi Press Agency, Religious Freedom Coalition and RT.

Portuguese version of this article: CIA premia Arábia Saudita por combater o terrorismo islâmico

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Trump and Obama: What Has Changed Between Them on Homosexuality and Saudi Arabia?

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Why Throw U.S. Evangelicals into the Soros-Provoked Conflict in Ukraine?

By Julio Severo

“Ukrainians are again facing aggression from Russia, initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Christian blogger Warren Throckmorton asks whether U.S. evangelicals will step in to help,” said ChristianHeadlines.com editor Veronica Neffinger in her article “Putin is Again Bombing Ukraine: Will Evangelicals Call on Trump to Take Action?”

She added,

In a post titled “Do Evangelical Leaders Still Care about Ukraine?” Throckmorton recalls a short time ago when evangelicals spoke out about Putin’s actions toward Ukraine and called out President Obama for seemingly being unwilling to confront Putin’s aggression toward Russia’s neighbor.

However, now evangelicals seem to be remaining silent while President Trump also allows Putin to bomb Eastern Ukraine.

Trump has been accused for some time of being too friendly with Russia, although he alleges that having a diplomatic relationship with Putin is an asset for the U.S.

Even though Neffinger presents Obama as somehow indifferent to an alleged Russian aggression, Obama imposed several heavy sanctions against Russia. What did Neffinger want else? Direct U.S. military intervention?

It is a wonder that Neffinger used Throckmorton as a reliable source. According to a 2010 LifeSiteNews report, he made “waves by endorsing same-sex civil union legislation, and claiming that homosexuals can live ‘normal, natural and healthy’ lives.”

Throckmorton had no solid stance to wage the culture war against the homosexual agenda, and now does he want U.S. evangelicals involved in the Ukrainian conflict?

Throckmorton fits very well in the profile of Christian warmonger, as described by Rev. Chuck Baldwin in his insightful piece titled “Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians.” But it is a pity that he is not a “warmonger” against the gay agenda.

Before the U.S. invasion in Iraq, we conservatives were told that the invasion was necessary to help Israel and Christians. I read (and I spread) pieces by prominent U.S. evangelicals and their views supporting the invasion. But the aftermath was destruction, especially for Christians. Iraqi Christians, who numbered over 2 million, are now less than 400,000.

I support Trump’s ban on the Islamic immigration. But if the U.S. does not want to be invaded, it should not invade other nations. Iraq was invaded and its Christian population was ravaged. During his campaign, Trump denounced Bush and his invasion of Iraq.

Why should now Trump give in to neocons and accept their wish of war against Russia in Ukraine? Ukraine, which suffered a coup orchestrated by Obama, his State Department and Soros and other neocons, is very far away from the U.S.

Ukraine is more than another Iraq. It is a showcase of neocon ambitions. While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros were calling the Ukrainian revolution a people’s revolution, in a WND report Michael Savage said,

“The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the so-called bad guys, and Ukrainian rebels, the so-called good guys who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people. Don’t believe a word of it. The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As Dr. Stephen F. Cohen has pointed out, Western nations, with the U.S. leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states — Ukraine looks like the next target — and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The U.S. — along with other Western nations — through our incursions into the politics, economics and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that is now unfolding in Ukraine. Cohen is right.”

Savage pointed that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.

Therefore, the aggression did not come from Putin, as charged by Neffinger. It came directly from neocons.

While in his campaign President Donald Trump praised Russia and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, neocons have openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.

WorldNetDaily has confirmed that “Soros heavily invested in Ukraine crisis.”

“Soros has provided more than $100 million to support Ukrainian groups,” according to WorldNetDaily. The Ukrainian revolution was more than a people’s revolution. It was Soros’s revolution, and his special trophy. It is his revolutionary crown.

Yet, Soros has not funded only left-wing groups to support his Ukrainian revolution. Prominent Republicans who attacked Trump for his pro-Russian stance in their campaigns were also funded by Soros, according to Breitbart:

According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, and available at OpenSecrets.org, Soros Fund Management employees donated nearly $40,000 to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

What is the stance of these supposedly conservative Republicans on Ukraine? On July 10, 2016 Paul Ryan said, “The United States stands with Ukraine… and confront Russian aggression.”

A September 8, 2016 Los Angeles Times headline said, “Paul Ryan disagrees with Trump, calls Putin an ‘adversary.’”

On Marco Rubio, a October 2, 2015 DailyMail headline said, “Rubio pledges new sanctions against ‘gangster and thug’ Putin and ‘lethal military assistance’ to Ukraine if he’s elected president.”

On John McCain and Lindsey Graham, NewsMax had this February 10, 2017 headline, “McCain, Lindsey Graham Visit Military Outpost in Ukraine.”

Reuters had this January 1, 2017 headline, “Senator McCain says U.S. ‘must stand up to Vladimir Putin.’”

The USA Today had this December 31, 2016 headline, “McCain visits frontline Ukraine troops in anti-Putin gesture.”

On John Kasich, the DailySignal had this August 12, 2015 headline, “John Kasich: The US Should Be Providing Aid to Ukraine.”

On Jeb Bush, when asked “Should the U.S. provide military assistance to defend Ukraine from Russia?” he answered: “Yes, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine threatens the balance of power in the region.” 

All those Republicans support the neocon war Soros created in Ukraine. All of them want war against Putin. All of them were funded by Soros, whose left-wing organizations were expelled from Russia by Putin.

All of them criticized Trump for his non-involvement, at least in his campaign, in the crisis Soros created in Ukraine.

In her piece inciting U.S. evangelicals to get involved in the Ukrainian crisis, Veronica Neffinger talks about “Putin bombing Ukraine” and about “confronting Putin’s aggression.”

Yet, Putin did not create the crisis. He is only answering Soros’s aggression. A May 27, 2014 Infowars headline said, “Soros Admits Responsibility for Coup and Mass Murder in Ukraine.”

On the Neffinger article, Rev. Scott Lively said in answer to a Julio Severo’ question, “I think the Ukraine mess is the predictable result of Obama’s determination to restart the Cold War due to Russia’s hostility to the LGBT agenda, by staging the coup to force regime change in pro-Russia Ukraine. The civil war still raging will need to be resolved by Trump and Putin, probably by splitting the country.”    

Readers of the Neffinger article said,

Betty Gray: “Obama and Soros overthrew the elected leader of the Ukraine to put in their man. I say the Ukraine is next to Putin, it is his business; especially for the regions who want to leave.”

John Xanthopoulos (Professor at University of Montana Western): “Utter nonsense! Russia is not bombing Ukraine! Can the Evangelicals find something productive to do and mind their own business!”

Deanna Miling Swarvar (Ferris State University): “We should no way get ourselves involved in another conflict especially with Russia. Its time we tend to our own issues and let other countries take care of their own problems.”

In a 2014 piece in the American Thinker, my Jewish friend Don Feder, who is an American author, said,

Putin is a power player who cares more about Russia’s national interests, and Russian minorities in his near abroad, than in that mythical force known as world opinion. Would that America had a president who cared more about our interests than in promoting globalism and the left’s social agenda.

The Crimea’s population is 60% ethnic Russian. For most of the past 800 years, the Ukraine has been Russian.

An independent Ukraine disappeared in the 12th century. It reappeared briefly after the Bolshevik Revolution, only to be crushed by the Red Army and not emerge again until the fall of the Soviet Union. All of this fuss about the “territorial integrity” of a state born yesterday.

The Russian-backed government in Kiev came to power democratically, but was ousted by the [Soros coup]. We’re told that the interim government is pro-Western and pro-EU.

When Reagan was president, the expression pro-Western meant something. It meant pro-representative government, pro-human rights and pro-Western (Judeo-Christian) values.

Today, it means a willingness to accept same-sex “marriage,” abortion on demand, an anti-religion ethos – the agenda of the EU’s cultural commissars — and the economic dictates of the Brussels bureaucracy.

Putin doesn’t want to see the EU — and, possibly, NATO — on his doorstep. Do you blame him? If someone overthrew a democratically elected, pro-American government in Ottawa and replaced it with an interim regime hostile to our interests, that contained neo-Nazi elements and which immediately moved against English-speaking Canadians, it would irritate us too…

But don’t I care about a possible Russian annexation of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine (with its Russian-oriented, Orthodox population), conservatives who are still fighting the Cold War ask me? Not really.

Obama and neocons initiated the Ukrainian crisis through Democratic and Republican puppets funded by Soros to provoke Russia and Putin.

And now does Neffinger want evangelicals to confront Russia and Putin by using as reference Warren Throckmorton, a Christian psychologist confused about sodomy, an evangelical who does not fight the gay agenda, but wants to incite evangelicals in neocon wars?

As pointed by Chuck Baldwin, neocon wars loved by U.S. evangelicals kill Christians in other nations.

Then Neffinger cited Paul Kengor, who said, “The ‘Putin-likes-me’ attitude of Trump is a fatal conceit… It is also the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan’s statements and attitude toward the Russians.”

A fiery anticommunist activist would never want to talk with red leaders. He would repay hatred with hatred, as Hitler did. But Reagan really sat with them. In fact, he took Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, to his ranch, to feel his family life and his warm reception.

Reagan worked to quench the Soviet hatred with Christian conservative consideration.

Margaret Thatcher said, “Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.” His shot was his ranch!

Reagan took Gorbachev to his ranch because he wanted to cultivate friendship, not hatred. The Soviet Union knew how to cultivate hatred. Reagan knew how to cultivate friendship.

There is no Soviet Union today, and no Reagan. But there is so a heavy hostile neocon climate that if Trump continues trying to cultivate friendship with Putin or take him to his ranch, Soros-funded Republicans and Throckmorton-incited evangelicals will charge Trump of cowardly appeasement.

Yet, today’s reality is not what Kengor seems to have tried to portray: U.S. Christian capitalism vs. Soviet atheistic communism. The conflict today is the U.S. and especially its evangelicals giving in to neocons and their wars.

In Russia today, there is no atheistic communism controlling its society, according to William Murray in an interview to Julio Severo. Putin is only defending his own country and Russian-speaking Orthodox Christians in Eastern Ukraine. He is only reacting to a coup by Soros and neocons.

The conflict is neocons vs. Putin or Putin vs. neocons. Which side will Trump choose? Which side will U.S. evangelicals choose?

Ukraine and its crisis are not a problem for the U.S. and its disastrous foreign policy, which caused the crisis.

Now, the least the U.S. can do is to let Putin try to clean the mess Obama, neocons and Soros did in Ukraine against Russia.

Evangelicals should not get involved in neocon wars. But they can pray that God’s will may prevail over Soros and neocons. 

They can also encourage Trump to fulfill his campaign discourse, which was essentially against neocons. Only with God’s help Trump can resist neocons.

And with God’s help, evangelicals should expose neocons and other evangelicals who help them.

Portuguese version of this article: Por que atirar os evangélicos dos EUA no conflito provocado por Soros na Ucrânia?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Pro-Family Warmongers, Pro-Sodomy Neocons and Pro-Sodomy Non-Neocons: What Is Worse for Christians?

Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

Left-Wing Billionaire George Soros and His Plan of Global Chaos

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

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