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

By Julio Severo

I was watching Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, on the left-wing CNN (https://youtu.be/_2-ycehCnuM) wisely answering questions as the host pressed him to condemn Russian intervention in Syria. For her, this intervention was responsible for massacres, but she never mentioned that Russia was fighting Muslim rebels funded, trained and armed by the Obama administration. She never mentioned that before the Russian intervention, these rebels were torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians. She never mentioned that the real objective of the Obama intervention in Syria, especially through the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, was never to fight ISIS, but help rebels to overthrow the Syrian President Assad, who is supported by Russia.

Despite the psychological pressure, Graham did not condemn Russia.

The fact is, with Hillary, the U.S. State Department was a war machine making wars against Christians in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. There is evidence that the State Secretary Clinton created and armed ISIS, which slaughtered thousands of Christians. The U.S. created a terrible mess in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan and in Syria.

Also, while Muslims have represented a clear majority of immigrants being welcome and relocated in the U.S. by the State Department, Christians victims account for less than 5 per cent.

Other war fomented by the Obama State Department was the culture war on behalf of the homosexual agenda. It funded and trained homosexual activists around the world. It actively and peremptorily promoted their interests, including by naming the first global envoy for the homosexual agenda.

Hillary was a pro-sodomy neocon at the State Department.

What to expect from a Trump State Secretary? Firstly, consistency with his discourse in the campaign confronting neocons, known for their partnerships with Islamic terror against Russia, and for their openness to Islamic, not Christian, immigrants.

When Trump was considering Mitt Romney for State Secretary, it was hard not to think that the spirit of Hillary would not be continuing her mission through him, because under former Governor Romney Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize homosexual “marriage.” Besides, he wanted to confront Russia in Syria and Ukraine, just as Obama was doing and just as Hillary wanted to do in her dream of a presidency.

Then Trump chose Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, for State Secretary. Tillerson has a history of good relations with Putin and Russia, but not with ISIS. And he does not seem to want wars, but good relations. This is very good sign.

Different from Hillary, who was killing Christians in Syria through Muslim rebels and ISIS and in Iraq through ISIS, Tillerson seems to understand that there is no point in supporting such unfair war and chastise Russia for its pro-Christian involvement.

Different from Hillary and Obama, hopefully Tillerson may understand that persecuted Christians, not Muslims, should be given priority for immigration.

Yet, there is a concern. Tillerson was a board member of Boy Scouts and approved its infamous decision to allow gay scout leaders. This equals him to Hillary.

However, what if Trump chose Ted Cruz? Cruz’s pro-family and pro-Israel stances are excellent. In foreign policy, he would not use the State Department to promote the homosexual agenda. But regarding Russia, he and neocons like Marco Rubio equal to Hillary: Cruz wanted a confrontation with Russia in Syria and Ukraine over Crimea, a region traditionally Russian for hundreds of years and which Russia has repossessed in 2014. His policy would be a continuation of the Hillary policy.

So, all the choices are hard. Yet, while Hillary and the Obama administration mocked and antagonized the Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and eventually imposed sanctions against Russia by using as an excuse the Crimea repossession, Tillerson has spoken out against such sanctions.

If he were so fixated on the gay agenda as Obama and Hillary are, he would probably speak out on behalf of such sanctions.

How to assess the differences? Christians like Ted Cruz are very good in defending life and family. They deserve to be commended for their pro-family efforts. But their neocon efforts to fight Russia while Russia fights ISIS and helps Christians in the Middle East put them on par with Hillary, whose anti-Russian policies were anti-Christian and pro-ISIS and pro-Islamic rebels.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others are pro-family warmongers. Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria and other nations would barely have some hope of being helped by their policies, and their pro-family views would be helpful only to pro-family Christians outside of zones of Islamic wars.

Romney would be a continuation of Hillary, with no benefit to pro-family Christians in the U.S. and Christians persecuted by Muslims in other nations.

Tillerson does not seem to be a warmonger. He has no history of wars, but of friendships and deals. This is real change, because the State Department has had too many warmongers for too long.

Tillerson would be perfect if he were a pro-family Christian against the gay agenda — as Ted Cruz would prefect if he were not warmonger and confrontational in a time Russia is looking for peace and partnership against the Islamic terror. Russia has the exact wish Trump showed in his campaign.

In fact, Trump said last week that only stupid people fools would see good ties with Russia as bad. This is in consistency with his campaign and with the history of Tillerson.

If Tillerson were a homosexualist militant, there would be a confrontation between him and Putin, because while he approved gay scout masters to teach homosexual propaganda to children, Putin has approved a ban against such propaganda.

As Trump, Tillerson is open to the gay agenda, but both, different from Hillary and Obama, are open to dialogue.

Yet, when assessing between pro-family warmongers, pro-sodomy neocons and pro-sodomy non-neocons, what is important? The lives of Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria are as important as the lives of unborn babies defended by good pro-family Christians.

Any State Secretary willing to support the Russian efforts, or at least not interfere negatively as Obama and Hillary did, in Syria is helping save lives, especially Christians victimized by ISIS. In this respect, Tillerson seems to be the only hope for the State Department to stop its pro-Islamic meddling against Christians in Syria.

I hope to be right: Tillerson does not seem a neocon.

Portuguese version of this article: Belicistas pró-família, neocons pró-sodomia e não-neocons pró-sodomia: o que é pior para os cristãos?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Christians Are the Most Persecuted Religious Group in the World

Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

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”?

Immigration: A Weapon of Mass Cultural Destruction in Liberal Hands

Obama Abuses Russia, Which Does Not Repay in Kind

Trump Picks Exxon Mobil’s Tillerson as Secretary of State and Faces Fierce Opposition from Neocons from Left and Right

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

Shifting U.S. policy to right, Trump chooses a pro-lifer and an anti-Islam, pro-Russian adviser

Obama Using Marxist Experience to promote Muslim Expansion

Ben Barrack

Commentary by Julio Severo: The source for today’s article is the personal website of Walid Shoeat, whom I knew firstly through WorldNetDaily, in the article “Evangelicals for Hamas!” Later, when I wrote my article about the Palestinian Liberation Theology, Shoebat himself provided me with essential information. My article is this: “Palestinian Messengers: How Christ and Christians Are Used for the Palestinian Cause.” With this introduction, I can only say that the following text, drawn from the Shoebat website, is extremely relevant and should be spread to all who want to understand the roots of the modern Islamic terror:

There are several debates when it comes to Barack Obama. One has to do with whether he is more Marxist or more Muslim. The answer may involve his usage of one to promote the elevation of the other. Perhaps there is no clear-cut answer but Obama’s continued reliance on Zbigniew Brzezinski as one of his most trusted foreign policy adivsers may help indicate which ideology he ultimately reveres most.

When it came to the U.S. support of the Mujahideen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan often gets the lion’s share of credit/blame but it was Brzezinski who – in the later years of the Carter administration – advocated for and helped implement that very strategy as Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland and watched the Russians and Nazis invade his home country from where his father was stationed in Canada. This is believed to have contributed very strongly to his hawkish stance when it came to the 20th Century Soviets. While he was National Security Advisor for Carter’s entire term, it was Brzezinski who advocated aggressive, covert action be taken against the Soviets by supporting the Mujahideen (Taliban) with weapons.

In 1998, Brzezinski gave an interview to Le Nouvel Observateur, a French Weekly Magazine and was surprisingly candid:

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

In a video (http://youtu.be/pErfG5ki8D8) from 1979 that purports to show Brzezinski speaking with Mujahideen fighters, he can be heard telling them that God is with them:

Brzezinski clearly miscalculated and underestimated the reach and aspirations of Islam in 1979 and in 1998. Does he still?

Though Brzezinski rightly expressed concerns that the ‘Arab Spring’ could turn into the ‘Arab Winter’, he essentially advocated a repeat of his 1979 Afghanistan strategy in Libya, saying about the prospect of removing Muammar Gadhafi:

“I concluded that, if we didn’t act it would be worse.”

How’s that working out? After Gadhafi was overthrown, four Americans were murdered in Benghazi and the U.S. abandoned its embassy in Tripoli. Those of us with much less worldly experience knew it was a bad idea. How and why would Brzezinski get it so wrong?

Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Senator John McCain – who referred to the Mujahideen in Libya as his “heroes” – expressed tremendous excitement in 2011 at the prospect of the Arab Spring expanding into Russia and China. Check out what he said at the 2011 U.S.-Islamic World Forum: http://youtu.be/rFbxWHs8vYM

Brzezinski has a history of supporting Islamic fundamentalists over Russia. His reason for doing so in 1979 – based on his 1998 interview – is that the Soviet empire was a greater threat than “some stirred-up Moslems”. Indications are that he may still hold this view. Forget whether his position is right or wrong and consider what it says about Obama’s position – Muslim over Russian.

In 1997, Brzezinski wrote a book entitled, the Grand Chessboard. An excerpt from the description reads as follows:

Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America’s supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.

Over the years, Brzezinski sided with the Muslim Chechens against the Russians and pressed the Clinton administration to be more aggressive in helping the Muslims in Bosnia.

Much has changed since 1997 but Brzezinski’s anti-Russian streak is still firmly in place. When Russia invaded Crimea, Brzezinski was extremely critical of the move, writing in an op-ed:

Putin’s thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea offer some hints regarding his planning. He knew in advance that his thinly camouflaged invasion would meet with popular support from the Russian majority in Crimea. He was not sure how the thin and light Ukrainian military units stationed there would react, so he went in masked like a Mafia gangster.

Brzezinski doesn’t seem to talk like that about Turkey or Erdogan.

In 1998, Brzezinski wrote, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire” while arguing for expanding NATO to include Ukraine. As Shoebat.com has reported, one of the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Crimea has been a deadline being set by Putin for all Islamic texts to be turned over.

There is clearly a fixation on the part of Brzezinski that controlling Eurasia is key to U.S. dominance. However, what he’s clearly been missing is that Turkey is the country that has been seeking Eurasian dominance while NATO countries continue to view it as an ally.

Whether you agree with Brzezinski’s positions or not misses the point. The point is that the incredibly Muslim-friendly Obama seems to.

How does all this square with Frank Marshall Davis, a confirmed member of the Soviet Russian Communist Party USA (CPUSA) being a childhood mentor of Obama for so many years? Vernon Jarrett, the father-in-law of Obama’s closest and most trusted advisor Valerie Jarrett was a close colleague of Davis when the two lived in Chicago years before Obama’s birth. Obama himself boasted about hanging out with Marxists while at Occidental Community College, reportedly based on the mentoring of Davis.

Brzezinski – who would likely despise Davis – continues to be a major influence on Barack Obama.

So does Davis, but not in the way many might think. Obama’s reliance on Brzezinski would seem to indicate the President is relying on the tactics of his childhood mentor to achieve different ends, in part by relying on a resource who likely has sheer animus for that mentor.

Source: Shoebat, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Raymond Ibrahim

Prominent indicators confirm that the U.S. is the chief facilitator of the persecution of Christians around the world today.

Senator John McCain and Syrian “rebels”

According to the recently released 2014 World Watch List, which ranks the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, Syria is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Iraq is fourth, Afghanistan fifth, and Libya 13th. All four countries receive the strongest designation, “extreme persecution” (other designations are “severe,” “moderate,” and “sparse” persecution).

Aside from being so closely and harshly ranked, these four nations have something else in common: heavy U.S. involvement. Three—Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—were “liberated” thanks to U.S. forces, while in the fourth, Syria, the U.S. is actively sponsoring “freedom fighters” against the regime, many of whom would be better labeled “terrorists.”

The Syrian situation alone indicts U.S. foreign policy. According to Reuters:

Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 “martyr” killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said. “This is a very minimal count based on what has been reported in the media and we can confirm,” said Frans Veerman, head of research for Open Doors. Estimates by other Christian groups put the annual figure as high as 8,000.

While most Americans are shielded from the true nature of the war by the U.S. media’s reluctance to report on it, Arabic media, websites, and activists daily report and document atrocity after atrocity—beheadings and bombed churches, Christians slaughtered for refusing to convert to Islam, and countless abducted for ransom or rape—at the hands of those whom the U.S. supports.

It’s enough to point out that “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” to quote a top religious leader, was left wholly unreported by any major U.S. news network.

At any rate, the statistics speak for themselves: Syria, which used to be religiously tolerant, is now, in the context of the United States’ trying to bring “democracy” to it, the third worst country in the world in terms of “extreme persecution” of Christians.

The Blaze reports that Dr. David Curry, president of Open Doors,

charged that the Obama administration has essentially declined to make the protection of religious minorities a priority . . . “There are many instances where the vacuum of leadership and spokesmanship has created a real problem,” said the human rights leader. “I would say that every significant data point on this year’s ‘2014 Watch List’ is worse—and I think a factor in it is a lack of leadership from Western governments including . . . the U.S. in terms of religious freedom.”

But it’s worse than that. Far from taking any action or providing leadership—or simply ceasing to support the terrorists responsible—the Obama administration recently tried to go to war with Syria on behalf of the “freedom fighters,” amazingly, in the name of “human rights” (Apparently the unsubstantiated rumor that Assad massacred people is enough for the U.S. to go to war, but the ongoing and well-documented massacres of Christians and other civilians at the hands of the opposition is not enough for the U.S. to stop supporting them.)

What’s worse, even the most misinformed mainstream-media-watching American today knows that the so-called “Arab Spring,” which was hailed to justify U.S. support for “rebels” of all stripes—in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (which months ago destroyed some 80 churches); in Libya, al-Qaeda, which has turned Benghazi into a terror zone; and now the “freedom fighters” in Syria—is not what it was touted to be.

In other words, at this point, whenever the U.S. intervenes in an Islamic nation, Islamists come to power. This is well demonstrated by the other three nations to which the U.S. brought “democracy” and where Christian minorities suffer “extreme persecution”:

Afghanistan: The supposedly “moderate” Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan’s last Christian church.

Iraq: After the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, Christian minorities were savagely attacked and slaughtered, and dozens of their churches were bombed (see here for graphic images). Christians have been terrorized into near-extinction, with well over half of them fleeing Iraq.

Libya: Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have indeed suffered extreme persecution. Churches have been bombed; Christians have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert); and nuns have been threatened.

Surely a common theme emerges here: Where the U.S. works to oust secular autocrats, the quality of life for Christians and other minorities takes a major nosedive. Under Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad, Christians and their churches were largely protected.

Moreover, while George W. Bush was responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq, the argument can be made that, back then (2001 and 2003), this pattern of Islamic radicalization that erupts once autocrats are gone was less well known than it is today. There weren’t many precedents.

Conversely, the Obama administration has had both Afghanistan and Iraq to learn from—and yet still it supports Islamists and jihadis. But by now, what happens once they assume power—religious persecution, terror, oppression—is no longer a secret.

Incidentally, those who care little for the fate of Christians or other minorities in the Islamic world would do well to remember a simple truism: Wherever anti-Christian elements come to power, anti-American forces come to power. The two are synonymous.

Put differently, Muslim persecution of Christians is the litmus test of how radical an Islamic society has become. In all those Muslim nations that the U.S. has interfered in—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt (till the Egyptians revolted, to the chastisement of the U.S.), and now Syria—the increase of religious intolerance is a reflection of the empowerment of forces hostile to Western civilization.

I am often asked, “How can we help persecuted Christians?” At this point, one must respond: “How about starting with getting the U.S. government to stop being the chief facilitator of Christian persecution?” Altruism aside, it would be in the interests of all who value freedom, religious or otherwise—and especially their descendants.

Source: Raymond Ibrahim, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

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