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

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRASILIA, February 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) — The Brazilian government has determined that 99% of its citizens are “homophobic,” and therefore must be reeducated, according to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo.

The results are taken from a study that tested for “homophobia” by asking people to comment on such statements as “God made men and women with different sexes so that they could fulfill their role and have children.” The 92% of Brazilians who agreed partially or completely with the statement were labeled “homophobic.”

Another test question for “homophobia” was, “Homosexuality is a sin against the laws of God.” Fifty-eight percent of Brazilians agreed.

Those who agreed partially or completely that “Homosexuality is an illness that should be treated” (41%) were also labeled “homophobic,” as were those who objected to homosexuals kissing and hugging in public (64%).

According to O Globo, Brazil’s federal government will use the data “to plan new policies, and warns that it has now detected a dark consequence of so much prejudice: intolerance.” The study was performed by an organization linked to the socialist Labor Party, which currently occupies the nation's executive branch and predominates in the legislature.

“There’s no way [for the government] not to involve itself, because intolerance must manifest itself in crimes, including crimes committed by agents of the government,” said Paulo Biagi, coordinator of the government’s official “Brazil Without Homophobia” campaign.

Biagi says that the government will now begin to “rearticulate” the case for its proposed “anti-homophobia” law, which would make it illegal to criticize homosexual behavior in Brazil.

In addition, the government will be launching the National Plan for the Promotion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Citizens in May. It will also soon initiate a television campaign to combat “homophobia” in conjunction with ten other Latin American countries.

“What is surprising is how a population that is 99% against homosexuality is accepting passively that its 100% pro-homosexuality government is lifting homosexual acts to the level of inviolable sacredness,” wrote Brazilian pro-family activist Julio Severo on his blog, Last Days Watchman, “and at the same time it is lowering 99% of Brazilians to the class of ‘ignorant mob’ that should be forcefully condemned to state policies of reeducation.”

Related Links:

“Study” in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo: 99% Brazilians do not accept homosexuality
http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/2009/02/study-in-brazilian-newspaper-o-globo-99.html

In Portuguese:
http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/2009/02/pesquisa-no-jornal-o-globo-indica-99.html

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Brazilian President: Opposition to Homosexuality is a “Perverse Disease”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060904.html

Brazilian Government Punishes Dissenters of Pro-Homosexuality Policy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032702.html

Brazilian Homosexuals File “Hate” Charges Against Brazilian Christians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07112805.html

Brazil Attacks Against Family Defenders Backed by Pro-Homosexual Regime of Nation’s President
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07073108.html

Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021301.html

Pro-Abortion Law Firm Abuses UN Treaties to Badger Brazil on Abortion

by Susan Yoshihara

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York-based abortion advocacy group, is claiming Brazil violates an international right to maternal health when a pregnant woman dies in that country. According to CRR and its advocates at the United Nations, such a right to maternal health includes universal legalized abortion. This is the latest move in a strategy to create a new international human right to abortion.

At the end of last year, CRR prepared a “communication” on behalf of the family of Alyne da Silva Pimentel, a 28-year old Afro-Brazilian woman who died while pregnant after da Silva was misdiagnosed and not given timely emergency care. The communication was sent to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Under the Optional Protocol of the Convention, which 90 states have ratified, individuals may communicate directly with the committee if they feel their country has violated their rights under a treaty. The committee is allowed to investigate the story and offer its “views” on the matter.

Use of the UN committees is part of a broader attempt to get national high courts and legal authorities to find a new right to maternal health that includes abortion. For this reason, CRR refers to the da Silva letter as a legal case, and asserts that the CEDAW committee is authorized to find Brazil in violation of international law. In fact, the committee has no legal standing, and can only offer comments and recommendations, which governments are free to ignore.

The communication is one of various means CRR is putting pressure on the Brazilian government to slacken its strict abortion laws. In 2007, CRR prepared a “shadow report” for the CEDAW committee’s review of Brazil, saying “there is a critical need for the revision of abortion laws in Brazil,” due to the fact that women who want terminate a pregnancy must seek clandestine abortions which are “unsafe,” thus violating their right to nondiscrimination in health care.

At the 2007 Women Deliver conference in London, CRR’s Luisa Cabral announced that CRR was focusing on Brazil because it has both high maternal mortality rates and left-leaning jurists. The plan, according to Cabral, is to get the high court to cite CEDAW interpretations of international law in a decision involving the death of a pregnant woman.

The overall strategy was launched at the same 2007 conference as the “International Initiative on Maternal Mortality and Human Rights.” The initiative’s sponsors include the UN Population Fund and the UN Special Rapporteur for Health. It is chaired by CRR.

Even though the United States is not a state party to CEDAW or the Optional Protocol, certain lawmakers are pushing the new agenda. Both houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions last year to promote US funding of “global initiatives” toward reducing maternal mortality, sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA). Original language in both resolutions which attempted to promote abortion under the guise of a “right to maternal health” was defeated by pro-life members of Congress.

Source: C-Fam

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

Lula administration will use “study” to make new public policies to fight the “homophobia” of 99% Brazilians

Julio Severo

According to a report in the O Globo newspaper of February 7, 2009, “Only 1% Brazilians above the age of16 years do not discriminate against homosexuals”. What does this “study” mean? That only 1% Brazilians do not kill homosexuals? That only 1% Brazilians do not assault homosexuals?

Since the term “discrimination” is often interpreted to mean words and views against homosexuality, what are the implications of that “study”?

The “study” was led by the Brazilian socialist foundations Perseu Abramo and Rosa Luxemburgo, which polled how many Brazilians do not accept homosexuality. Perseu Abramo Foundation has connections to the Workers’ Party, of President Lula.

Taking advantage of the ideological echo of those foundations, the Lula administration will now use the results of that “study” to make more forceful policies against “homophobia”. In the words of O Globo, the “study” indicated that “every three days of 2008, there was at least one hate crime related to sexual orientation in Brazil, according to the ‘Brazil without Homophobia’ federal program”.

Do crimes against those that practice homosexuality occur in Brazil? Of course. Declaring that most homosexuals killed are transvestites, Oswaldo Braga, president of the Movimento Gay de Minas, said, “They are homosexuals more involved in criminality, as prostitution and drug-trafficking, exposing them more to violence”. (Tribuna de Minas, 09/03/2007, page 3.)

Any Brazilian citizen, whether homosexual or not, who exposes himself in environments of drugs and prostitution runs the risk of suffering assaults and murder.

Yet, murders, of any kind of citizen, are nothing new in the hyper-violent Brazil. In the last 25 years, while 800,000 Brazilians were murdered, only 2,000 homosexuals met the same end, according to the Grupo Gay da Bahia, the oldest gay militant group in Brazil.

However, the “study” did not mention directly murders of homosexuals, but only “crimes”. While every three days 414 Brazilians are murdered — not mentioning other crimes —, every three days only one crime is committed against homosexuals.

No, the Lula administration is not looking at the sky-rocketing number of 414 murders. Its eyes are focused on the one crime against homosexuals every three days. That one crime can be any “crime” — even people annoyed by two men openly and brazenly kissing one another.

The Lula administration’s eyes are also on the “discrimination” of the 99% Brazilians. To eradicate “intolerance” against homosexuality is much more important than working to save the lives of 50,000 Brazilians murdered yearly in hyper-violent Brazil.

So much violence in Brazil is no wonder. Life lost its value under an administration that, instead of protecting its citizens, works to legalize abortion and make homosexuality a sacred right.

What is surprising is how a population that is 99% against homosexuality is accepting passively that its 100% pro-homosexuality government is lifting the homosexual acts to the level of inviolable sacredness, and at the same time it is lowering 99% Brazilians to the class of “ignorant mob” that should be forcefully condemned to state policies of reeducation.

Such socialist action demands, as always, media support. No one better than the big Brazilian media to help the government to reeducate 99% of the Brazilian population. According to the BBC in Portuguese, soap operas of TV Globo — which is connected to the O Globo newspaper — increased the number of divorces in Brazil in the last 40 years. Is it possible now to increase the number of people accepting homosexuality?

With the assistance of Globo and other liberal TV channels, the “ignorant” people will be reeducated to see homosexuality according to the politically-correct trends. Not mentioning that, using public schools and other means, the federal program “Brazil without Homophobia” will spare no measure to eliminate “discrimination” of Brazilian citizens.

While the Brazilian Department of Health has spent 15 million dollars in lubricants so that homosexuals may be occupied and entertained in their carnal relations, 99% of the population will be “occupied” being chased and reeducated for “discrimination”.

That “discrimination”, as the Lula administration and Brazilian media define, comprehends any view contrary to homosexuality. It makes no difference what 99% of the Brazilian population think, it makes no difference what 99% Christians believe — the program “Brazil without Homophobia” is determined to “heal” them, according to the words of Lula himself, from their “perverse disease”.

Because of socialism, Brazil is facing today a monumental ideological tyranny, where 1% of the population is determined to impose on the other 99% not only censorship of their convictions and views, but legal persecution as well.

Very wisely someone said,

“In the past, homosexuality was illegal in Brazil. Afterwards, it was tolerated. Today it is accepted as a normal behavior. I will leave Brazil before it is mandatory”.

Source: http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

‘Opposing homosexuality makes you sick’

Brazilian President: Opposition to Homosexuality is a “Perverse Disease”

Persecution over homosexuality looms for Brazilian Christians

Are you ready for persecution at the hands of gay activists?

Brazil without Homophobia: What the Lula administration is doing to impose the homosexual agenda on Brazil

NGO Committee Rejects Brazilian Homosexual Group for UN Accreditation

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) After two years of debate, the UN committee responsible for reviewing applications from non-government organizations (NGOs) has voted to reject Brazil’s Associação Brasileira de Gays, Lésbicas e Transgêneros (ABGLT) over questions of the group’s position on pedophilia. ABGLT came under scrutiny by the NGO committee over allegations that one of the organization’s founders was being investigated for posting essays promoting pedophilia on his blog.

The NGO Committee member from Egypt urged the committee not to make a rushed decision on any organization where there was even the “slightest shadow of doubt” about its involvement in pedophilia. He argued that the answers provided by AGBLT so far were not sufficient to clear the case and make members comfortable that the NGO did not have any members or associates involved in such a “deplorable act.”

The 19-member NGO committee is a subcommittee of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), one of five principal organs of the UN which approves and governs participation of all UN NGOs. The NGO Committee uses various criteria to recommend official status, with ultimate authority residing with ECOSOC.

Consultative status is a key means for civil society to access the UN system. Accredited NGOs are invited to participate in UN meetings, can deliver oral and written reports, and may organize events on UN premises.

The committee voted against deferring a decision on AGBLT and rejected the application in a roll call vote of 8 (Guinea, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sudan, Burundi, China, Egypt) to 6 (Colombia, Israel, Peru, Romania, United Kingdom, United States).

Debates within the NGO committee meetings over applications from homosexual rights groups have become increasingly heated in the last few years. While ECOSOC almost always accepts subcommittee recommendations, it has made exceptions to accredit radical homosexual groups. In two instances, homosexual rights groups have received a negative recommendation from the NGO Committee which the ECOSOC council has subsequently overturned.

After the vote, the representative from the United Kingdom said she deeply regretted the committee’s decision to reject the NGO and that it did nothing more than reinforce the view that the committee could not properly undertake the work for which it was tasked. For years, the United Kingdom has championed homosexual rights groups’ participation in the UN. The UK rep stated, “Simply put, it is their right.”

The observer for the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, associated herself with the statement delivered by the United Kingdom and added that “Withholding its status, the NGO Committee acted in a discriminatory manner against the NGO, which has every right to participate in the work of the UN.”

The observer for Brazil, who had vouched for the organization earlier, said that the committee had failed to evaluate the merits of the organization and instead acted as a “censorship chamber” on what kind of NGOs were allowed to express their views and contribute to the work of the UN.

The ECOSOC council is expected to review the recommendations of NGO Committee at its July session in Geneva.

Source: C-Fam

Read also:

Luiz Mott, the Top Homosexual Leader in Brazil and One of the Founders of ABGLT, Posts Home Addresses of Julio Severo and Other Pro-Family Activists

Luiz Mott Under Investigation for Pedophilia

ABGLT Files “Hate” Charges Against Julio Severo and Other Brazilian Christians

In Defense of Marriage: When Rights Trump Freedom

Brazilian Populism: Good for Politicians, Bad for the Poor

Written by Augusto Zimmermann

Friday, 06 February 2009

Populism reflects the rhetorical style of political leaders who claim to govern directly for the people. In the context of Latin America, populism can be used to describe "mass-popular movements... based on an emotive call... and often organized around a single charismatic leader". As the political theorist Carlos Alberto Montaner puts it:

“Populism is an ideological trend and a form of governance that amalgamates all the errors and political vices blithely practiced by Latin Americans throughout the 20th century: strong-man rule, patronage, statism, collectivism and anti-Americanism."

Politicians whose view can be described as populist wish their people to regard them as endowed with real or imaginary attributes of goodness, generosity, courage, and concern for the poor. These are politicians who pretend to speak for the people even though, as the late historian José Honório Rodrigues observed, socio-economic problems in Brazil have been aggravated by such "false leaders of the agitator type, restless and dominated by feelings of shame and guilt."

During the colonial period, the Portuguese Crown was largely dependent on the landed aristocracy for the development of Brazil's economy and for its military security. Landowners administered justice across their lands and possessed their own private militias for the purposes of maintaining public order. Being independent of the law, they became paternal protectors of the population surrounding their homes.

Hence, as history professor Márcio Valença points out, "a patron-client relationship was based on mutual exchange and the expectation of both sides that it would provide future yields. The patrão provided resources, protection and links to the outside world... The "client" offered support and obedience... The patron-client system depended on the interaction between individuals and favoured informal flexible relationships".

With the fall of the Brazilian Empire on 15 November 1889, local rural bosses became the mediators between citizens and the government. These local bosses maintained their traditional power by demanding the personal loyalty of those under their paternal protection. The economic security and social well being of individuals flowed directly from their bosses' personal dominion. There was indeed a certain sense of noblesse oblige on their part, with their vassals developing an attitude of personal loyalty to them.

As the late American anthropologist Charles Wagley explained:
Frequently the local political boss, the coronel was a sort of patrão to his followers, who received favors and expected future favors. A lower-class worker without a patrão of the kind or another was a man without a protector in time of need. The patrão provided some measure of social security - generally the only form available to the worker.

An important text for those interested in understanding, in detail, the role played by the political boss in Brazilian society, and in particular the way political power has been exercised since the beginnings of Brazil's colonization, is the classic text, Os Donos do Poder (The Owners of Power) written in 1957 by the late Brazilian jurist Raymundo Faoro. In one of the last and most important paragraphs of this seminal book, Faoro provides a general explanation of why personal power is of such significance in Brazil:

"The chief protects particular interests, grants privileges and incentives, and distribute jobs and benefits. It is expected that he will make justice without any attention to objective and impersonal rules. In the person of the sovereign is concentrated all the hopes of the rich and the poor, because the state is the centre of all power in Brazilian society... The chief is not subject to the landed aristocracy or the bourgeoisie. He governs... directly over the nation.

"He speaks directly to his people, not intermediaries... He is the people's father, not... a legal and constitutional ruler. He is the good prince who... carries out welfare-state policies in order to guarantee the support of the masses. To avoid any [real] popular participation, he often appeals to street mobilizations; public rallies where the only thing left behind are the dust of his meaningless words.

"As the son of state providentialism, he strengthens the state power by using all the means this [statist] tradition offers. In extreme cases, he will become the social dictator of a socialistic type, who satisfies popular aspirations by calming down the people with bread and circus."

The process of industrialization initiated in the 1930s created a large urban class which developed apart from the old influence of the landed aristocracy. This period of internal migration saw political power transferred from a landed oligarchy to urban political leaders. The rise of populism is identified as a by-product of that industrialization process emerging on the political scene when the popular masses migrated to the urban centres in search of new opportunities.

However, all this change of socio-economic structure did not modify traditional patterns of behaviour, since those who moved from the countryside to the cities preserved the tendency to view all relationships, including those with public officials, in personal rather than impersonal (legal) terms. In other words, those in power were still expected to be "generous" towards supporters and personal acquaintances.

The first political leader to capitalise on the preservation of the political mind-set inherited from the countryside was Getúlio Vargas, a prosperous caudillo (rural oligarch). In 1937, he masterminded a coup that installed the Estado Novo (New State), a populist dictatorship where he assumed the role of paternal ruler who directly appealed to the popular masses as their supreme ruler and benefactor. As Joseph Page points out:

"Upon assuming the presidency after the revolution of 1930, he set about creating a relationship of dependency not only between government and private enterprise... but also between government and labor. This relationship turned out to be a mirror image of the traditional tie between haves and have-nots in rural Brazil.

"Peasants who moved to the cities encountered a social structure quite different from the one to which they were accustomed. They have to live in amorphous slums and, as Brazil industrialized, to toil in impersonal workplaces. Thus it was easy for Vargas to substitute the government as the authority figure that would take care of the needs of employees, just as the landlord had done in the countryside.

Curiously, Vargas was a lawyer and landowner who began his political career with the support of other rural oligarchs from his native Rio Grande do Sul. But he was wise enough to perceive that the urbanization process would dramatically reduce the power of landowners. Originally, however, as the political philosopher and former Brazilian ambassador J.O. de Meira Penna explains:

"Vargas was linked mostly to the landlords of his own state, whose interests he continued defending even after he had turned into a populist rabble-rouser. Just after the 1930 "revolution", one of his young followers, Lindolfo Collor, suggested the introduction of a new labor law... Vargas accepted Collor's ideas with misgivings: "Let's hope this little German will not cause us too much trouble"... But then he understood that the new labor and social welfare laws were copied from the Italian fascist Carta del Lavoro, keeping labor unions strictly under the thumb of the Ministry of Labor in his own government. Thus, the proletarian masses could eventually be mobilized to his advantage..."

Vargas constructed around himself the image of a paternal ruler modelled on the pater familias. He posed as the great "father" of the working classes, expecting absolute loyalty from them to such an extent that, from 1937 to 1945, laws were little more than a tool for the imposition of his personal will. In fact, Vargas was virtually free to instruct public authorities to kill, arrest, and torture anyone he wished.

After visiting the country in 1938, a famous political scientist, Karl Loewenstein, wrote that the greatest asset of the Brazilian dictatorship was the dictator himself, who, as he put it, carried the regime "on his shoulders":

"The dictatorship is personalistic in character. In that, it is altogether different from the European totalitarian pattern. No government party protects it, and no coercive ideology supports it. The regime rests on no visible props, except the army; it is based on the popularity of one man alone."

Even since, some of the most successful Brazilian politicians have been proud "disciples" of Vargas. They admire the former dictator for his "progressive" policies of national-statism and welfare-state labourism, which are also very appreciated by voters who wait expectantly for a "saviour" to inaugurate a "tropical paradise" in Brazil.

These voters rationalise: "Vargas was a dictator but for us he was good". Or, as one worker put it: "I never permitted anyone to say anything bad about Vargas... I knew that he always gave us benefits, my work papers... I thought, I am a worker, and he has given me so many benefits".

According to the Brazilian sociologist Maria Lucia Victor Barbosa, populism is strong in the country because many Brazilians "make a more emotional reading of the world", so that they are also keen to accept demagogical promises of "messianic nature". This undemocratic aspect of Brazilian society might explain the results of a survey conducted by the United Nations which found in 2004 that only 30.6% of Brazilians regard themselves as democrats.

The survey may reflect nostalgic feelings for previous "benevolent" dictatorships. Its results could have been worse had those who answered favourably to the idea of democracy been asked to explain what they mean by it. Due to the nature of Brazilian society, many Brazilians associate democracy with majority will but not with the rule of law. Indeed, the whole process of "mass mobilization" tends toward the personification of power, isolating the supposedly "democratic" power of demagogic-populist leaders from the rule of law.

As a result, under the current populist government of President Lula da Silva, corruption has reached unprecedented levels. The Lula administration is responsible for the biggest series of corruption scandals in the country's history. According to James Petras, a left-wing sociology professor and expert on Brazilian politics, "every sector of Lula's Workers' Party (PT) has been implicated in bribery, fraud, vote buying, theft of public funds, failure to report illicit campaign financing, and a host of other felonious behaviour".

The fact that President Lula remains so popular in the midst of so many scandals involving hundreds of millions of US dollars should come as no surprise to those familiar with the political workings of Brazil. For instance, the Government has spent millions of dollars on political propaganda. While such propaganda does nothing to reduce social problems, it serves to boost the President's charismatic image as "a former factory worker with no university degree who speaks to his people as one of them".

Support to the government is also obtained from the fact that the federal administration has employed within the state machinery thousands of members and supporters of the ruling PT party. A large number of party cadres, including trade union leaders, have been appointed to high positions in the government. This is so common place that a retired Supreme Court chief justice, Maurício Corrêa, has denounced that even the most highly technical jobs are going to unqualified party members, who nonetheless pay the party a levy constituting up to 20% of their salaries.

Another example of populism taking place involves the distribution of money to families in the form of a supposed anti-poverty programme called Bolsa Família (family fund). This programme is controlled by the federal government and provides direct cash to millions of Brazilians, roughly a fifth of the country's population.

Such "generosity" offers no real solution for the problem of poverty, although it encourages the poor to regard President Lula as a "generous" paternal leader and provider. Unfortunately, demagogic governmental programmes such as the Bolsa Família end up aggravating the excess in government bureaucracy and spending, which is actually one of the reasons that public debt, taxes and interest rates are so high in Brazil, with its government claiming an estimated 40% of GDP in the form of taxes and contributions.

In Brazil, taxation to subsidise government expanding is overwhelming and the amount of red tape confronted at all levels of government is simply enormous. According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, "starting a business in Brazil takes more than three times the world average of 43 days, and obtaining a business license takes more than the global average of 234 days". (1)

Finally, "inflexible employment regulations", which is another problem that populism certainly aggravates, is found to have created "a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise hire more people and grow".

(1) Miles, Marc A. et al; 2006 Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, 2006, p.120

Augusto Zimmermann, LLB, LLM, PhD is a Lecturer in Law at Murdoch University, Western Australia.

Source: Brazzil Magazine, Los Angeles/CA

Divulgation: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Torture and death in the Obama administration? Only for the innocent

The messiah has become Herod. Obama signs presidential order to export abortion throughout the world

Julio Severo

The worldwide left is happy and commemorating. In the second day after his inauguration, Obama signed a presidential order banning torture for terrorists. Torture for dangerous and inhuman criminals? Never again!

The worldwide left is jumping of joy. Abortion promoters received an important and multi-million dollar gift. Obama signed, just three days after his inauguration, a presidential order to allow the exportation of abortion throughout the world.

In abortion procedures, which are legal in the US for the nine months of any pregnancy, unborn babies are ripped by surgical tools, smashed or even poisoned with salt solutions, which give them the agony of a slow burning until their last minute of life. Torture never again? Not for unborn babies. At least, not in the obamian administration, which has already taken measures to export and fund this torture to the innocent in the whole world.

In the obamic administration, compassion only for terrorists

The left, which is horrified by the capital punishment for hard-core killers, but loves it for unborn babies, welcomed the Obama decision. Now, terrorists are safe from tortures in interrogations. So that they may receive the same mercy from Obama, who now thinks he has in his hands the life and death-decision power, unborn babies will need to conquer the classification of terrorists. Without this, they will have no chance.

President Lula and liberals fighting for the legalization of abortion in Brazil are glad. After all, the international impact of the Obama decision will inevitably include Brazil.

His presidential decision, which orders the channeling and funding of millions of dollars from the US government for groups involved in the promotion and execution of abortions, will hit directly American tax-payers, who will be forced to support that colossal investment in the blood-shedding of the innocent. The whole world will suffer the consequences, where in the name of the “freedom to choose” the socialist obamic administration is imposing globally its pro-abortion will.

This propensity to spend tax money on abortion was not typical of every American president. Ronald Reagan, who was the first US president to write a book against abortion, established the Mexico City Policy, which banned US government funding for groups involved in abortion in other countries. In the past he was a member of the Obama party, leaving it after seeing that its politics were contrary to the family needs. Differently from Obama, who is known by his pro-abortion views, Reagan was better known for openly defending family values and for his anti-abortion views.

In spite of some 37.8 million viewers in 2009 — with the American and international media spectacularly at his feet —, the Obama inauguration was not the largest. In audience, his inauguration lost for the Reagan’s, which — even without the messianic coverage Obama received from media — drew about 41.8 viewers in 1981.

Why was the American public more interested in Reagan than Obama? If Obama stopped supporting abortion, certainly he would receive much more support from the American people.

On January 16, 77 members of the US Congress requested Obama not to reverse the Mexico City Policy. Representatives Doug Lamborn and Joe Pitts said, “In these difficult economic times, the American people would not want us funding groups that are trying to export abortion around the world”. Nevertheless the grave economic crisis and the request from the representatives, Obama signed the multi-million dollar funding. In spite of so many most urgent needs of the world population, he gave preference to abortion.

An ancient “change”

Obama, who won the election using the slogan “Change”, proves that, without Jesus, change is impossible. For decades his party has had an obsessive abortion agenda. With the Obama victory, the only “change” is that abortion will now be promoted more aggressively in other nations.

Obama is resuming the legacy of Bill Clinton, another abortion-proponent president. How a government official defending child killing may have an honest life? He cannot. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Clinton administration had been marked by many scandals, including known sex cases of Clinton with several women.

He, who was a “champion” of the “women’s right to interrupt their pregnancies”, was accused even of rape. He had then his reasons to support abortion.

Yet, there was a voice to rebuke him. In 1994, 83-year old Mother Theresa of Calcutta, a guest in a presidential prayer breakfast, opened her mouth while ministers and other religious leaders remained silent. She rebuked Clinton openly for the abortion sin. Needless to say, she was never invited again to such prayer meetings — where what reigned was flattery. But the message was delivered. No one remembers the messages and prayers from the other Christian leaders, but her testimony has been recorded in history.

Ministers invited by Clinton abstained from rebuking him so that his conversion dreamed by them might not be damaged. After all, we are supposed to pray for authorities. So they prayed their prayers — and he did never get converted. But a humble woman left his testimony and mark, which were more valuable than the soft, beautiful and empty words from an army of ministers.

Today, evangelical celebrities sit with Obama, to celebrate the victory of the first Afro-American president. But to celebrate a man following the pro-abortion and pro-sodomy lineage of Clinton? Is there something to celebrate?

The Ahab lineage

Obama also follows the lineage of King Ahab, who promoted the worship of god Baal. Not that he is a Baal worshipper, but its worship involved child sacrifices and homosexual prostitution. Is any similarity with the Obama administration (or the Lula administration) a mere coincidence?

The new Ahabs, in the US and Brazil, want the worldwide promotion of child-killing and homosexual prostitution. They talk about change, but nothing has changed, after thousands of years since the original Ahab. The difference is that Brazil has a poor Ahab and the US has a rich Ahab, who can provoke greater damage to the nations.

In the recent past, socialists preached incessantly against “American imperialism”. Now that the pro-abortion imperialism of Ahab has come, they choose silence. Ahab — oops, “Change” — has come to Washington.

The world needs change. The world wants change. But all that the world is able to get are Ahabs, who promise “freedom to choose”, but produce child-killing and homosexual prostitution.

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19 NKJV)

Clinton is a proof of it. In my book O Movimento Homossexual, published ten years ago by the Brazilian branch of the Bethany House Publishers, I denounced him and his promotion of sodomy and abortion, because his decisions affected not only the US, but the whole world too, including Brazil.

While evangelical leaders in the prayer meetings of Clinton remained silent, he worked in his sodomy and abortion agenda.

While evangelical leaders celebrate the first Afro-American, Obama works in his sodomy and abortion agenda.

With Clinton or Obama, Mother Theresa of Calcutta would neither remain silent nor celebrate. She died in 1997, but where are today the true Christians to — instead of celebrating or remaining silent — cry before God and resume courageous testimonies before Ahabs?

She did her part before Clinton. Let us do ours before Obama.

Portuguese version of this article: Tortura e morte no governo de Obama? Só para os inocentes

Source: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Read also in this blog:

Babylonian prayers in the launching of the Obamian administration

Obama as US president: Who wins, who loses

Babylonian prayers in the launching of the Obamian administration

Feminist minister, gay minister and minister against gay “marriage” are invited for leading religious prayer ceremonies for the consecration of Barack Obama

Julio Severo

The “inclusion” propaganda, quite present during the electoral campaign of Obama, now conquers an opportunity in the traditional religious ceremonies for his inauguration. American presidents, all Protestants — except for one Catholic —, sought to surround themselves with prayers, even if symbolic. Yet, for the first time, an elected president wants to surround himself with prayers made by clerics with behaviors and values incompatible with the Bible which they affirm to believe in.

During the inauguration oath, January 20, Obama invited to pray for him Rev. Rick Warren, to represent conservatives. Not that Warren is strictly conservative, but only because he does not support homosexual “marriage” and abortion he is automatically left in the conservative category in the liberal eyes. In fact, they shoot the “conservative” label on any least view disagreeing abortion or sodomy. Even if Warren were only against abortion, even so liberals would shout out labels against him.

Inclusion: a door for feminism, sodomy and other aberrations

In order to not give the impression that the presence of Warren represents the ideological stands of his administration, Obama made the point to select the liberal minister Sharon E. Watkins to deliver the sermon in the National Prayer Service in the National Cathedral in the day following the presidential inauguration. This service is traditionally attended by the president and vice president; members of the Supreme Court, Congress and the diplomatic corps; and a host of clergy members and dignitaries.

Watkins, who considers herself progressive and is a member of the leftist Protestant Sojourners, is the first woman to lead a mainline Protestant denomination. Now she will be the first woman to lead a presidential prayer ceremony, where her sermon will focus on unity, inclusivity and tolerance. Also at the National Cathedral a prayer will be offered by Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of the Islamic Society of North America.

Another official guest to pray for Obama is Rev. Joseph Lowery, who worked with Rev. Martin Luther King. Even though Lowery is revered as a civil rights leader, over the last 35 years he has been more notable for his inflammatory rhetoric and embrace of conspiracy and radical causes, such as supporting terrorist Muslim Yasir Arafat and communist guerillas.

To deliver the invocation for him, Obama also chose Bishop Gene Robinson, who entered a legal partnership with another man. Because of his attitude of not repenting of sodomy and assuming openly a homosexual relationship with another man, the Robinson case became the principal division point in the worldwide Anglican Communion. He endorsed Obama in August 2007, and has since then remained a spiritual adviser to Obama. He will be the first homosexual to lead an official presidential prayer ceremony. The event will be 18, two days before the prayer ceremony by Warren.

Matt Barber notes, “It’s a shame that President-elect Obama apparently has so little regard for his Christian constituents that he would give such a high place of honor to a self-styled man of God whose only claim to fame is that he abandoned his wife and children to enter, ‘loudly and proudly,’ a sexually deviant lifestyle expressly condemned by the very Bible he’s ironically called ‘holy and sacred.’”

However, gay militants have different views. The radical homosexual group Integrity USA, which pushes the gay agenda within the Episcopal Church, declared, “While there are many miles to go before we are done with racism, sexism and homophobia in this country, we look forward to Barack Obama’s inauguration, to Sharon Watkins’ sermon and to Gene Robinson’s prayers as signs of great progress and profound hope.” Integrity USA has also remarked that Watkins and Robinson are an indication that we are entering an historic era of diversity and inclusion.

Even Rick Warren made interesting remarks. The Washington Post said,

Warren issued a statement praising Obama for selecting Robinson, saying the president-elect “has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen.”

In the prayer ceremonies for his presidential consecration, Obama wants presidentially to consecrate “inclusion” — meaning that everyone should be included in everything. If men can be soldiers and generals, feminists and homosexuals also can. If men can be ministers, feminists and homosexuals also can. If women can be day-care center workers and nannies, men and homosexual also can. Besides, it will be strengthened the feminist ideal that, whether in a day care center or in a police car, men and women can work side by side without being married to one another — but not without falling into sexual temptations.

Zero tolerance for inclusion within the Obamian administration

Yet, to build a society mirroring his inclusivity ideology, Obama was very careful so that his administration was composed only by pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and pro-feminism militants. Only liberals are able to spread the best throughout society the forced inclusion of everyone into everything.

The inclusivity of Obama involves symbolically everyone only in the propaganda. Outside the propaganda, there will be no inclusion. Conservative politicians against abortion or sodomy were not selected to fill Cabinet posts in his administration, even though most of the Christian constituents of Obama voted against homosexual “marriage” in California.

Why would Obama respect his constituents by allowing inclusivity in his administration? Those that believe that abortion and sodomy are incompatible for a humane and healthy society could upset the Obamian agenda. So outside the symbolic prayer ceremonies, there will be no room in the Obama administration for politicians not accepting the leftist sanctity of abortion and sodomy.

We do not know what effect the symbolic prayer ceremonies by those chosen by Obama — a feminist minister, a gay minister and a minister against gay “marriage” and abortion — will have, but it is evident that the Obama administration is beginning marked by a religious salad that eventually honors just the leftist ideology of inclusivity. It is the Babylonian spirit at last leaving its apocalyptic closet to influence nations with dark cultural trends.

Yet, away from the propaganda, from mere religious symbolisms and from politically-correct extremisms, three Christians took on themselves the commitment to pray in the backstage, even though they were not chosen by Obama.

In the midst of Babylonian prayers, sincere prayers outside of the liberal media coverage

According to the online version of the Charisma magazine, Rep. Paul Broun, joined together by pro-family leaders Rev. Rob Schenck and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, began the initiative to pray and anoint with oil the doorway Obama will walk through on Jan. 20 on his way to the inaugural platform

Schenck read from Proverbs 21:1, which says God directs the hearts of kings, and from 1 Timothy 2:1-4, which admonishes Christians to pray for those in authority. He then rubbed oil imported from Jerusalem on the doorpost of the arched walkway to consecrate it “to the use of God and His Word.”

“Oil symbolizes consecration, or setting something apart for God’s use,” Schenck said in a statement. “George Washington used oil during the dedication of the U.S. Capitol. We used oil today to set apart the walkway and doors that will be the literal right of passage for Barack Obama as he ascends to the highest office in our land.”

Broun, a Baptist layman who was widely criticized during the election for calling Obama a Marxist and likening him to Adolf Hitler, said he hopes Obama as president will heed God’s direction.

“It’s important for us to pray for this place, but it’s also important for us to pray for the people who are involved so that God, as He stirs our hearts, that we can hear very clearly and that we can heed God’s directions and can follow those directions,” Broun said. “Because that’s what’s going to make the nation successful, that’s what’s going to put this country back on the right course is our listening to the Lord, reading His Word, understanding what God expects of us and what He wants of us so that we can follow in obedience.”

Mahoney, the director of the Washington DC-based Christian Defense Coalition, is on a 21-day fast for Obama.

Fervent prayers are needed, so that God may act and intervene as the God of Elijah in the midst of a religious nation, but whose president and evangelical leaders as Watkins and Robinson use the name of God only in their lips, with prayers from hearts that in practice want distance from God and his will.

Obama welcomes symbolic Christian participations of evangelical ministers, provided that they are properly deprived of the Kingdom of God values and do not reflect the image of God, whether in the government, whether in society. The humanist, liberal and leftist mindset, which sees the secular State as its exclusive possession, accepts only the reflection of warped images of the agenda of abortion, sodomy, state inverse racism and pagan Christianity as positive influences within the society.

It is with such mindset that Obama has made a commitment to strike down all laws against abortion and sodomy in the US. As a 32-grade Mason, he is ready to change the course of the US and world for a new age, where the New World Order will be marked by the expansion of the abortion right, the gay agenda and the unification of religions for equality and peace. It will be the marriage and climax of socialism with liberalism and ecumenism.

Yet, God does not change. He deposes and elects presidents. He overthrows and raises powerful nations. He humiliates the proud and honors the humble. With the fervent prayers of his faithful servants, God can make great political and government surprises, because his eternal and universal government is above any new or old world order. If Babylon raises herself arrogantly again to the heavens, from on high an answer will come.

Source: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Portuguese version of this article: Orações babilônicas no lançamento do governo obâmico

Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation

Rivers of Blood

A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation

LifeSiteNews Guest Commentary by Julio Severo

BRAZIL, December 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) — In the early days of the human race, Cain killed Abel and buried him, and the Bible says that Abel's blood cried out from the ground. The murder of Abel did not go unpunished or forgotten.

In the end times, the Bible tells us that rivers, seas and the fountains of water will “become blood as of a dead man” (Revelation 16:3-4), explaining that because of the shedding of innocent blood (see Revelation 16:5-6), judgment shall come.

From the beginning to the end, the Bible makes it clear that no murder of innocents goes unpunished, because their blood cries out for justice.

Today, perhaps in fulfillment of these prophesies, rivers have become deposits of annihilated lives. Hundreds of millions of women use pills and other birth-control devices that provoke micro-abortions that end flushed in toilets, and then into rivers.

Micro-aborted children: Who cares?

The current generation was conditioned not to know or care that one of the functions of contraception is to provoke imperceptible micro-abortions. (To understand the way IUD and hormonal methods annihilate recently-conceived lives in the womb, see: http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pil...)

How many users of “the pill” know that hormonal contraception not only prevents conception, but also prevents a newly-conceived embryo from implanting in the mother's uterus? A new human being, too tiny to see, dies of hunger, and is flushed out of his mother's body with her next menstrual cycle. The contraceptive pill not only represents the refusal of God's gift of new life, but it actively destroys it.

The current generation lives a planned and conditioned life, where the priority is material comfort and pleasure. With that mentality, children become burdens and hindrances. With contraception, they become options and disposable items, where governments and individuals impose controls and limitations.

In an age of planning, it is easy to discard human life. Even those who are called Christians use the same worldly means, spilling innocent blood into rivers.

The Contraceptive Religion: Socialism and Esotericism take aim at human reproduction

Is not the Bible correct when it says that the people of God suffer destruction because they lack knowledge? How many, among the people of God, know that Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), who coined the term “birth control”, had strong connections to the New Age, socialism and sexual depravity?

In her first essay, The Woman Rebel, she confessed, “Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism”. [1]

Sanger also had profound links to Nazism. Before World War II, Sanger had close contacts with Nazi Germany officials, because the Nazi system of total planning and control was much more open to her ideas of total control over human reproduction.

While Sanger struggled to promote the controversial idea of birth control in the US, in Germany there was no opposition. Nazism welcomed the family-planning ideology promoted by Sanger. With its vision brutally based on the theory of evolution, the Nazi government saw birth control as a normal component of its policy of planning and control over the human "animal".

In Nazi Germany, medicine was at the service of the “collective well-being” ideology. Any measure was acceptable to achieve a greater benefit. “Unfit” lives could be sacrificed, if the result was to improve the quality of life of productive human beings. Nazism was similar to Communism in that it helped to inspire the modern culture of materialism, where so-called science and technological advancement ignore the intrinsic value of human life.

Even though modern governments do not impose all the Nazi policies of social control, the role and effort by governments in the indoctrination of the masses in contraceptive planning is undeniable. Nazism died, but government intentions of control over reproduction live on.

Modern technocratic systems of population control and family planning have deeper roots in the occult movements of the 19th century. Before Margaret Sanger, Annie Besant (1847-1933), the famous British theosophist, distributed leaflets teaching couples how to have fewer children. No, she did not work in pagan Africa or pagan India, but in the mostly Protestant England. With her new ideology, Besant preached that smaller families were a blessing.

Besant, whose work influenced Sanger, had come from an unsuccessful marriage with an Anglican priest, next getting involved with socialism, theosophy, the New Age and lesbianism. But so-called Protestant England did not care about her lesbianism, her occultism, or that in the Bible God states that children are blessings and that blessed is the man that has many children, like a quiver full of arrows.

The contraceptive religion of Besant, with all its consequences, prevailed over the superficial Christianity of the English people. Her heresies did not begin in the Christian churches and it did not hit the Christian churches first.

Besant's aim was a place untouchable by the church pulpits: the Christian marriage bed. From this intimacy, far away from pulpits, a new ideology, a new religion was spread that eventually swallowed the truth proclaimed from the pulpits, casting into oblivion the Biblical idea that bigger families are big blessings.

It is no accident that Sanger founded in India (the same India venerated by esoteric mystics like Besant) the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the largest and oldest abortionist organization in the world. Today, the UN and IPPF work together to implement policies of contraceptive planning around the world. Those organizations see abortion and homosexuality not as murder and perversion, but as unalienable human rights. Such work is perfectly tuned to the goals and dispositions of socialist ideology.

The vision of Besant, Sanger, socialism, the UN and IPPF, contraception is the rejection of the unfit and the acceptance of theosophical, technological, Nazi and socialist planning over human reproduction. In the Bible vision, contraception is the rejection of the planning of God over the married sexual life, in a modern autonomy where individual independence is proudly preached — at the cost of God, but never at the cost of the State.

Illusory Rights and Freedom: State Planning vs. Divine Planning

The result is that the current generation, including most Christians, trust in the technological devices of contraception the same way the German people trusted in the technology and social planning of Nazi Germany and the same way the Soviet people trusted the state planning of the communist Soviet Union. Both socialist systems preached the contraceptive religion of Margaret Sanger and Annie Besant.

The illusory freedom offered by hormonal contraception has cost lives that are technologically hindered and rejected from a natural and just refuge in the womb. The uterus of the modern woman, by the will of social planners, became a little Nazi death camp, where the conceived life, forced into a micro-abortive contraceptive program, is immediately discarded. It is the state and theosophical planning invading the sanctuary of life, bringing destruction.

The contraceptive culture asserts the right of men and women to be free from all divine planning in their lives, but it is never open for them to be free from surreptitious government planning. At the end, with so many acquired rights — sexual rights, reproductive rights, etc. —, the individual is intoxicated by the illusion that, living under the contraceptive planning of the United Nations and his national government, he is free.

Sin always tends to lead to more sin. The countries that first welcomed birth control were also the first ones to legalize abortion. The nations today that have the highest rates of contraception are exactly the nations where surgical abortion became a right as sacred as was considered sacred the right of the pagans to sacrifice new-born babies to their gods. The difference is that the new bloodthirsty gods are respected because of their cloak of scientific sophistication.

In historic pagan religions, the priest was predominantly homosexual. Coincidentally, the most contraceptive nations are also fervently pro-sodomy. The contraceptive “religion” revived, in a sophisticated and “scientific” way, paganism, whose homosexual priesthood and sacrifice of babies were sacred. The “right” to sodomy and abortion is sacred today in the contraceptive countries. Only coincidence?

The contraceptive religion versus the pro-life culture of the Kingdom of God

The United States, Europe and United Nations are exporting and imposing the contraceptive “religion” throughout the world. No religion today has more adherents and faithful observers than the religion of contraception. In fact, the contraceptive religion has strong presence in the mainline world religions, as Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and it has been gradually penetrating Islam as well.

As in the case of Freemasonry, the contraceptive religion permeates world religions as a parasite, but the Masonic religion is losing in numbers and strength in relation to its contraceptive rival.

Even though it penetrates all religions, the contraceptive religion is unable to make the smallest infiltration in the Kingdom of God.

The culture of the Kingdom of God is pro-life, pro-conception, pro-children and pro-family and it is totally against abortion, micro-abortion and homosexual and other sterile and perverted sex relations. For men and women attuned to the culture of the Kingdom of God, children are blessings and each new birth is as it were a Christmas, making a family bigger and richer.

Christmas, which is commemorated as the birthday of Jesus Christ, is a time of joy and happiness. As Mary welcomed the baby Jesus in her womb, so every woman who opens herself fully to her maternal role is receiving not only a little child, but also the presence of Jesus himself. Jesus says:

“Whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me. Whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me”. (Mark 9:37)

The joy and happiness of Christmas are multiplied with each birth that we welcome in the name of Jesus. When a Christian woman welcomes her maternal mission in the name of Jesus, she is welcoming not only a baby that comes as a gift planned by God, but also more power from the Kingdom of God. The God who planned the sexual and reproductive life of Mary knows well how to plan the size and number of his blessings for each womb and family, whenever he is given the opportunity.

The beautiful example of Mary contrasts sharply with modern examples, where wombs are closed to the full extent of the blessings of God and are open to the contraceptive illusion, with all its micro-abortive consequences filling rivers with blood.

Blood, Justice, and Judgment

Does the bloodshed of annihilated lives by hormonal contraception and dumped in rivers have some relation with the bloody rivers prophesied in Revelation? We do not know.

What we know is that there is a real apocalyptic scenario of hundreds of millions of women who, knowingly or not, micro-abort their recently-conceived babies through chemical contraception. Next, with a mere flush, those tiny micro-aborted babies end in rivers, transforming them into rivers of blood.

What we know also is that Revelation makes it clear that judgment shall come. And thousands of years ago the Bible explained that the shedding of innocent blood causes the land to be polluted:

“You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it”. (Numbers 35:33 ESV)

As it happened in the phenomenal technological and scientific advance of Nazi Germany, the cost of modern progress of technology and science in human reproduction is delusion and the shedding of innocent blood. Hormonal contraception has transformed modern, sexually active men and women into shedders of innocent blood, leaving society under the curse of uncountable number of murders that shall bring judgment.

Where are the prophets to warn the society about the consequences of its acts?

Where are the prophets to warn about the deceits of contraception?

Where are the prophets to warn that the blood of innocents cries out for justice and exposes the whole society to destruction and judgment?

Other English articles by Julio Severo can be read at: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Contact Julio Severo at: http://www.blogger.com/profile/03079977728841299575

Source: LifeSiteNews