Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?

By Julio Severo

U.S. President Donald Trump took the world by surprise when he ordered the U.S. military to launch a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase Thursday in reaction to a deadly chemical attack, allegedly by the Syrian government, on Islamic rebels formerly supported by Obama and now by Trump.

Dozens of rebels were killed, and at least 10 children. Republican neocons led by Senator John McCain used the attack to push Trump to attack the Syrian government. Hillary Clinton called for bombing of Assad’s airfields hours before Trump’s airstrike. 

The major problem that Trump faces in foreign policy is neocons, and he clearly identified it before his election. But now he does not recognize this problem anymore.

Yet, the reason for Trump’s attack on Syria has been disputed.

Former senator Ron Paul said:

“[I]t doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think there is a zero chance he would have done, you know, this deliberately.”

Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily (WND) chief, said:

“I strongly disagree with President Trump’s decision to attack Syria… There are two warring parties in Syria – the Syrian government, which is attempting to repulse an invasion and partial occupation of Syrian territory, and ISIS, a terrorist plague on the entire world, not just Assad’s regime… Both of those parties have been accused of deploying sarin weapons against civilians, though I have yet to see any proof that Assad ever did… ISIS is the primary opposition to Assad.”

According to Infowars:

“The White Helmets, a al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, reportedly staged the sarin attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.”

The Syrian government has been in a deadly war against two enemies: ISIS and Islamic rebels supported formerly by Obama and now by Trump. In 2015 Obama gave to these rebels $500 million for “training.” A multimillion dollar investment against a government fighting ISIS.

To fight only against ISIS is a huge challenge. How to fight at the same time against two enemies facilitated or trained by the U.S.? Even Trump recognized last year that ISIS was founded by Obama. But he never attacked ISIS as he is attacking Syria. By attacking Syria, he is automatically helping ISIS.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan and leftists have praised Trump’s attack on Syria. Incidentally, all of them were or are in George Soros’s payroll.

But praises are not coming from conservatives.

Michael Savage, a powerful anti-neocon writer, had called Trump the “Winston Churchill of our time” in July 2015. But now, on his Thursday radio show, Savage complained, “The generals have gotten to him and turned him from peace with Russia. And the people standing in the way of war, like Steve Bannon, are being shown the door. This beating of the war drums with Russia has to stop.”

Alex Jones, of Infowars, said in February that he was “ready to die for Trump.” Now that Trump launched airstrikes against Syria, Jones said on a Friday livestream, “Trump is really disintegrating in my eyes on many levels.”

Ann Coulter, U.S. conservative author and political commentator who had been an ardent Trump supporter and wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust” last year, has used social media to criticize the Trump’s decision. “Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates,” she wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday morning, adding:

“Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

“Christians who live in Syria are terrified of what will happen if Assad is gone.”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

“What follows Assad? What followed Saddam? Gaddafi? 15 yrs, 6k lost heroes 500k massacred Christians $5 Trill--for what?”

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

Coulter and a number of Trump’s well-known supporters have expressed their surprise — and fear — at Trump’s hasty decision, which is totally at odds with his previous stance on interventionism. As a presidential candidate, Trump campaigned against military exploits abroad, often railing against Bush and his war in Iraq. In December, shortly after winning election, he said “we will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.”

When Obama was considering military action against Syria in 2013, Trump strongly urged him not to do it.

In one September 5, 2013 all-caps criticism, Trump tweeted, “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”

“Don’t attack Syria – an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!” Trump tweeted four days later.

During the presidential campaign, Trump also bashed Hillary Clinton for her disastrous foreign policy, tweeting, “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s foreign interventions unleashed ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Libya. She is reckless and dangerous!”

What has made Trump change his mind and act as Hillary would have done, by helping ISIS in Syria? What has made him listen to neocons?

After all, what is the point of being pro-life within the United States and not being pro-life for Christians directly threatened by ISIS in Syria?

What is for sure is that the Trump who attacked Syria and helped ISIS is not the same Trump who lambasted neocons last year. Where is the original anti-neocon Trump?

With information from Charisma, Breitbart, DailyWire, DailyMail, Time and WND.

Portuguese version of this article: Por que Trump está ajudando os islamistas de Obama na Síria?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Syria Condemns Invasion of U.S. Troops in Its Territory

Trump and Prophecies, and a New Model of National and World Leader

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

Joseph Farah

Americans have their hands full with a presidential election, societal strife, terrorism, a bad economy, corruption in government and political parties that seem tone deaf.

So why should we care what just happened in Brazil?

Because the impeachment of the nation’s first woman president, Dilma Rousseff, reveals some striking parallels between conditions in Brazil and what’s been happening in the states. It may even provide a glimpse of where the U.S. is headed should Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

First off, the Brazilian Senate voted 61 to 20 to convict Ms. Rousseff on charges of manipulating the federal budget in an effort to conceal the nation’s mounting economic problems. More to the point, the central charge was that she employed budgetary tricks to conceal gaping deficits.

Sound familiar? That’s exactly what Barack Obama has been doing for the last eight years.

I would suggest to you that the political downfall of Rousseff’s leftist Workers Party occurred because Brazil is about five years further down the road of socialist chickens coming home to roost.

Socialism is an appealing idea as a theory, and it can appear to work in the short term as the government confiscates wealth and redistributes it. But, sooner or later, the wealth dries up. No more is being created.

That’s what happened in Brazil and everywhere else socialism has been tried throughout history. We’ve had eight years of socialist rule in the U.S., without serious opposition. It took 15 years in Brazil for the house of cards to fall.

But the lessons of Brazil go beyond that.

The economic crisis was coupled with leadership that was arrogant, corrupt and lacking in both charisma and humility.

Sound familiar?

It’s just what American leadership will be like in a Hillary Clinton administration – socialist, out of touch, corrupt, arrogant and lacking in charisma and humility.

Rousseff outraged the public in Brazil with what has been described as “colossal graft schemes” that included bribes and illicit campaign financing.

Again, sound familiar?

Rousseff, like Hillary, had a long history of radical political activities. She was involved with the Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard, an urban guerrilla group, in her youth. Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinsky in hers.

Rousseff is 68 and white, but appealed politically to Afro-Brazilians. Hillary Clinton is 68 and white and appeals politically to Afro-Americans. Her husband, a white man, relished descriptions of him as “the first black president.”

The Brazilian Workers Party is perfectly synonymous ideologically with America’s Democratic Party.

So the question on the table for Americans is very simple: In 2016, do we want to set the stage for political upheaval, corruption, colossal graft schemes and economic calamity by electing Hillary Clinton president?

There is one big difference between Brazil and the U.S. revealed in this political crisis. It appears that Brazil operates more democratically and with political opposition that holds leaders accountable to its constitution.

We haven’t seen that in the U.S. for the last eight years.

So we may actually be worse off five years from now unless there is a political realignment – the kind Donald Trump may bring if he is elected.

Will he do it? Will he be able? Who knows?

But the alternative is no change from the status quo.

We’ll continue going down the same road – socialism, government power grabs, less individual liberty, more open corruption, more divisive racial politics, less accountability to the rule of law, one standard for the gilded elite and another for the average citizen.

Take your pick.

Learn the lessons of Brazil.

Source: WND

Recommended Reading:

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”

Former CIA director endorses Hillary Clinton, supports Muslims in CIA and characterizes Trump as Putin’s agent

People for the American Way’s Leftist Diatribe Against a Brazilian Conservative

By Julio Severo

The American Way should be to expose and destroy tyrannies, especially socialism. But do not tell that to the People for the American Way (PFAW), which, according to WorldNetDaily, is “an atheist socialist organization which, through publications like its ‘Right Wing Watch,’ dedicates itself to the destruction of conservatives in general.”

Former leftist U.S. President Bill Clinton in People for the American Way

The latest attack from “Right Wing Watch” was against me, Julio Severo, in a piece entitled “BarbWire Pundit Defends Brazil’s Past Violent Dictatorship, Fears Looming ‘Gay Agenda.’” My BarbWire article, “U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat,” just exposes that the Obama administration is betraying military men who protected Brazil from violent and bloody communist revolutions and rules. It also stresses that in this time in Brazil there was freedom to proclaim the Gospel, and that Billy Graham, Rex Humbard and Pat Robertson reached millions with their Christian message.

According to its website, “Right Wing Watch” has a special mission to attack conservatives opposed to the gay agenda, abortion and Muslim ideology.

“Right Wing Watch” has denounced C. Peter Wagner, founder of the New Apostolic Reformation, for his influence on the conservative candidacy of Rick Perry for the U.S. presidency in 2010. Wagner is best known for leading the conservative resistance to the efforts by Liberation Theology adherents to hijack the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in 1974. The hijack was successful only years later through the Theology of Integral Mission, which is the Protestant version of the Liberation Theology.

“Right Wing Watch” has also denounced WorldNetDaily for its exposé of John Brennan, the director of CIA who converted to Islam and allegedly was recruited in Saudi Arabia. Islam is undeniably violent. Saudi Arabia is one of the most violent tyrannies in the world. But the real enemy, for PFAW, is WorldNetDaily.

PFAW has also attacked Joseph Farah, the owner of WorldNetDaily, for saying that “Obama Is ‘At War With God.’”

In another piece, “Right Wing Watch” says: “Franklin Graham Blasts ‘Anti-Christ’ Obama Administration, ‘Ungodly’ World Vision For Accepting Gays.” Graham is the son of the most famous American evangelist, Billy Graham. He is also the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

There are many other PFAW attacks on Graham, including: “Franklin Graham Endorses Vladimir Putin’s Anti-Gay Crackdown.”

Of course, Graham did not endorse any crackdown. He just supported the Russian law that protects children from homosexual propaganda. Does PFAW endorse forcing Russian children to be exposed to the immoral and nasty gay propaganda? Does PFAW endorse pedophilia?

The excellent stance of Graham was the cover story in Decision magazine, a famous evangelical publication of BGEA, entitled: “Putin’s Olympic Controversy.”

The Russian law protecting children was not praised only by Graham. The World Congress of Families, which is the largest pro-family and pro-life organization in the world, praised it too. Its spokesman, Don Feder, defended it in his article: “Sochi and The Left’s Human Rights Hypocrisy.” But again, “Right Wing Watch” attacked Feder in its malevolent article “World Congress Of Families Spokesman: Putin Will Save America From ‘Heady Elixir Of Sexual Rights.’”

So, according to PFAW, homosexual activists need unrestricted access to children. And if you try to protect them, you are the problem. You are violent.

According to PFAW, children should be exposed to messages about Islam as a “religion of peace.” And if you try to protect them, you are the problem. You are violent.

Norman Lear, founder of PFAW

People for the American Way (PFAW), founded by Norman Lear, has partnered with leftist and pro-abortion organizations and receives grants from many groups, including the Ford Foundation. In 2013, the Ford Foundation, which has been a population control investor for many years in Brazil, gave $300,000 to PFAW.

According to Conservapedia, “98 percent of the PFAW’s political contributions went to Democratic Party candidates.” This is, PFAW is solidly committed to Obama’s pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality party.

This definitely is not the American way. Population control; advocacy of abortion, Islam and homosexuality; efforts to withdraw protection of children from the homosexual propaganda: this is not the American way.

The American way, as lived by George Washington and other real Americans, was virtue and respect to God. But PFAW wants to pervert it into depravity and disrespect to God. By the way, Washington did not accept homosexuality and he would never have accepted the Islamic ideology. And absolutely he would have supported every effort to protect children from homosexual propaganda and to chastise homosexual propagandists.

If PFAW dislikes conservative Christians, it should not spare George Washington and his original American way.

The PFAW’s leftist diatribes against Franklin Graham, C. Peter Wagner, Don Feder, the World Congress of Families and me just put me in a worthy company. I am sure that Washington would have been pleased to join us.

I am also sure that Josef Stalin and the tyrannical Saudi kings (who have no tolerance for Christians and free speech) would have been pleased to join the so-called “People for the American Way” — better labeled “People for the Anti-Christian Way.”

Portuguese version of this article: Crítica esquerdista perturbada de People for the American contra um conservador brasileiro

Source: BarbWire, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

“1984” Live! US Surveillance Scandal Is The Biggest Story Of Your Lifetime

By Julio Severo

“The (National Security Agency) NSA surveillance scandal is the biggest story of your lifetime” – that was, according WND, Michael Savage’s message all this week, as details emerged about the US government spying on Americans and people around the world.

However, “They obviously weren’t spying on Muslims, or people known to have associated with terrorists,” Savage pointed out. Otherwise, the authorities would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing.

The White House assures that its massive surveillance is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

The US government’s sweeping surveillance of most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

So if the US massive surveillance is not aimed at Muslims, who were behind 11/9, what its aim? Throughout his administration, Obama has been charged of aiming at Christians and pro-lifers. More recently, the US Army and DHS labeled conservative Christians as “hate groups.”

This is not only an American problem. Two years ago, WND reported on DHS monitoring my blog. I am a Brazilian citizen. Why such surveillance on me? Are my pro-life and pro-family activities a threat to America?

Probably yes. A 2011 WND report said about the Obama plan to have the US as a global LGBT sex cop. In Brazil, I am in the frontlines against gay tyranny.

Thirty years ago, if someone had told me about a global surveillance program, I would have pointed Soviet Union as its source.

After my recent article was published on Free Republic about the NSA scandal, an American told me, “The US government has taken the road of anti-Christian, anti-freedom, pervert tyrants. I don’t know when it will be the end times, but I imagine the US creating an oppressive and hateful KGB ruled globe, would be a part of it.”

The leaks made by Edward Snowden reveal that there is a powerful American KGB watching you on Facebook, Skype, Google and other internet channels. There is no safe place. Big Brother is watching you.

Big Brother is, according to George Orwell’s “1984” novel, an omnipresent, totalitarian government keeping a watchful eye on its citizens.

In fact, sales of Orwell’s classic novel have rocketed in the wake of the scandal evolving around the National Security Agency surveillance programs. Last week, four editions of the book were in the top 40 of Amazon’s “Movers and Shakers” list. At one point one of the editions was up 10,000 percent.

Thanks to the massive, global US surveillance, “1984” is here, and what Edward Snowden has said about the U.S. government spying should send a chill up our spine. He said,

1 – “The majority of people in developed countries spend at least some time interacting with the Internet, and Governments are abusing that necessity in secret to extend their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate.”

2 - “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to.”

3 - “…I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building.”

4 - “The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything.”

5 - “With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your e-mails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your e-mails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

6 - “Any analyst at any time can target anyone. I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

7 - “…they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them.”

8 - “Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. …it’s getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life.”

9 - “Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest.”

10 - “Everyone everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten — and they’re talking about it. They have the power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state.”

11 - “I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under.”

12 - “I don’t want to live in a world where there's no privacy, and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”

13 - “The great fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. [People] won’t be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things... And in the months ahead, the years ahead, it’s only going to get worse. [The NSA will] say that… because of the crisis, the dangers that we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power, and there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny.”

Calling whistleblower Edward Snowden “a patriot, not a traitor,” Dr. Michael Savage declared that “the NSA scandal makes Watergate look like what it was: a green pea inside a tidal wave.”

Edward Snowden

What George Orwell “leaked” was, through his a novel, his perception about how a future government would watch people. Fiction has become reality. What Edward Snowden has leaked are facts about how the US government is already doing it.

Even though being a socialist, Orwell was not considered a “traitor” for revealing where socialism would take society. If his book, which is fiction, has been praised, much more deserving is Snowden’ act of revealing what is not fiction. It is “1984” live.

I agree with Joseph Farah, who said that Snowden should be granted immunity to speak everything he knows about how Big Brother is watching you.

With information from WND, Investors and The Economic Collapse.

Portuguese version of this article: “1984” ao vivo! Escândalo de monitoração dos EUA é a maior história da sua vida

Spanish version of this article: ¡“1984” en vivo! Escándalo de vigilancia en Estados Unidos es la más grande historia de su vida

French version of this article: «1984» en direct! Scandale du système de surveillance des États-Unis est la plus grande histoire de sa vie

Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Beware: You Are Being Monitored!

Homeland Security surveillance detected on Julio Severo website

US surveillance on blogs and websites