Luiz Mott: Homosexuals Are Eunuchs

“If your sexual organ causes you to sin, cut it off.”

By Julio Severo

“Homosexuals are modern eunuchs,” said Luiz Mott, considered the father of the homosexual movement in Brazil.

In what sense exactly are eunuchs and homosexuals equal, according to Mott? Did eunuchs only want men?

Luiz Mott and statue of a naked baby

Eunuchs were castrated men who worked in the palaces of some countries. Daniel, the prophet in the Bible, had been brought as a young man to the palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. There, he was castrated to work as a eunuch.

Perhaps these peoples thought, at the time, that a man castrated would be less busy with sex and free to focus on governmental affairs.

Eunuchs were also used as guards of harems. It was a role in which they were fully trusted-worthy. They could be close of the most beautiful women, even if they were stripped naked, without feeling an ounce of sexual attraction.

Eunuchs neither have sex nor sexual desires. They don’t occupy their time and minds with sexual interests.

Then, it is not known why Mott compared homosexuals to eunuchs. Men addicted to homosexual practices occupy their time and minds in anal and fecal lewdness. Different from a eunuch, they are unable to be in front of another man without having lewd thoughts. In the case of Mott, he has said that he has had sex with over 500 men.

Almost all the problems of the addicted homosexual revolve around his addiction. If he were a eunuch, he would certainly have a much more peaceful life: without orgies, with unknown homosexual men, in dirty public restrooms; without pornography; without diseases that accompany fecal sex; without the constant pursuit of pleasures in gay bars; without exposure to risks in zones of homosexual prostitution and without the vices of alcohol and drugs that often accompany the vices of fecal sex. And without the danger of suffering aggression and murder by gay lovers.

Although the comparison of Mott is unreal, is it impossible for a man addicted to homosexuality to be a eunuch? Of course not.

Everything that he would need is an operation of castration.

I can hear some politically correct voices saying, “Oh, what horror! Cut our sex? This is unethical, it is against the Bible, it is a crime, it is insanity, it is animalistic, it is wild!”

Do you hear the same hysterical cry when a homosexual activist, in a TV talk-show, calmly advocates that men addicted to homosexuality should have a sugary right to “sex change”?

This change involves much more than just castration. It involves mutilation, disfiguration and perversion of sexual organs. It is a sacrifice for the sake of perversion.

But did you know that there are sacrifices that can be made for the sake of the Kingdom of God? These sacrifices move you away from the sin and vice of a specific perversion. Jesus said,

“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.  And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” (Mark 9:43-48 ESV)

“You can’t do this that Jesus told. This is crazy!” shout many. Shout it to gay militants who require expensive operations of sexual mutilation, for the sake of perversion, funded by Brazilian tax-payers.

To remove a sexual organ as a sacrifice against sin is better than to mutilate it to dive into sin. This is a helpful advice to the followers of Luiz Mott. If the father of their movement believes that those addicted to homosexuality would be best as eunuchs, I just agree.

In the case of Mott, the problem is much more complex. He has been accused of defending pedophilia. There is even an indecent video produced by Mott in which he, almost embraced to the statue of a naked baby, exalts the “wonders” of an erotic museum. If the charges against him are proved, this is not a case for castration.

Castration is for those who feel strong desires for sins, but have not yet come to commit acts of pedophilia or prostitution. For a man who rapes children, the Bible prescribes heavy sentences.

I want to make it clear publicly that I support the pretension of Mott that those addicted to homosexuality are entitled to be eunuchs. Better this than to get to the point of defending and practicing pedophilia. I just cannot afford to pay for their operations of castration, but I invite everybody to help Mott and his followers on this noble pretension.

My piece of advice then, following the suggestion of Mott that homosexuals should be eunuchs and following the pretension of many gay militants who require the Brazilian population to pay expensive operations of sexual mutilation, is castration.

It is a strong advice because the consequences are much stronger. Homosexuals, with other serious sinners, are prevented by determination of God from entering into the Kingdom of God:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV)

However, the next verse makes it clear that some people who had these aberrant practices had abandoned them. “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11 ESV)

Jesus delivers us from all sins. But sometimes some sacrifice may be necessary.

If people in sin can make great sacrifices for the sake of their sin, including mutilation and perversion of their sexual organs, why could not they follow the eunuch idea suggested by Mott?

The warnings of God for homosexuals are that their vice closes the door to enter the Kingdom of God.

In contrast, God has a special affection for eunuchs:

“Let not… the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who… choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 56:3-5 ESV)

Another version is even clearer:

“’Make sure… no physically mutilated person is ever made to think, ‘I’m damaged goods. I don’t really belong.’ For GOD says: ‘To the mutilated who… choose what delights me and keep a firm grip on my covenant, I’ll provide them an honored place in my family and within my city, even more honored than that of sons and daughters. I’ll confer permanent honors on them that will never be revoked.’” (Isaiah 56:3-5 The Message)

Daniel is a beautiful example of a eunuch blessed by God! Today, he is in the Kingdom of God. On earth, he lived as a eunuch — a sober, pleasant and faithful life to God.

Mott wants homosexuals as eunuchs, but gay activists propose sexual mutilation to sin more and more. The proposal of Jesus is mutilation of a sex organ to stop sinning.

With their sexual organs cut off, individuals who practice homosexual acts will never again make propaganda of their disgusting anal and fecal sexual practices. They will also stop their frequent persecutions of pro-family leaders that denounce the harmfulness of those practices.

In 2007 the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (ABGLT) had lodged a criminal complaint against me for “homophobia.”

The complaint was made because regularly I denounce homosexual behavior as immoral, and because I oppose the goals of the homosexual movement.

Mott rejoiced then at the news. “We are all proud of the ABGLT for filing charges against our archenemy, Julio Severo,” he was quoted as saying in a Yahoo homosexual email list. “I hope that he is condemned to perpetual imprisonment in Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Mott is the most prominent promoter of the “gay rights” agenda in Brazil and an ally of the socialist Brazilian government. He is also a promoter of the legalization of pedophilia and pederasty, a fact that I had helped to expose internationally years ago (see LifeSiteNews coverage at: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073011.html).

The influence of Mott has been instrumental even in the United Nations system, leading it to press Brazil to criminalize “homophobia” — which includes views contrary to homosexual practices.

With castration, his followers would lose interest in the gay agenda, including an obsessive determination to impose homosexual indoctrination on school-children.

Hopefully the followers of Mott, who still do not advocate and practice pedophilia, might cut their sexual organs in order to follow the excellent example of Daniel! The path is open, with the blessing of Jesus, who said (paraphrasing):

“And if your sexual organ causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with your sexual organ to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.” (Mark 9:43-44 ESV)

Portuguese version of this article: Luiz Mott: Homossexuais são eunucos

Spanish version of this article: Luiz Mott: Los homosexuales son eunucos

Source: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Luiz Mott helping UN to criminalize “homophobia” in Brazil

Luiz Mott saves Catholic Church from suffering mega pedophilia scandal

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

No Respect for Family and Nations: US Government Spends Millions on Training Gay Militants Around the World

Comment by Julio Severo: In 1992, I translated into Portuguese the most important excerpts of NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests), prepared by the United States National Security Council in 1974.

As its title implies, NSSM 200 has a number of secret strategies for population control exclusively to serve the US government’s interests. This document, which cites abundantly the strategic role of USAID in this massive project, shows that the US has maneuvered UN and other international agencies to integrate population-control politics into the international health care system, including in Brazil. Sadly, its goals have been amply achieved, after decades of massive investments and disinformation. By this pressure, now the family planning ideology, with its perverted sex education and abortion propaganda, is sacred in Brazil.

Today, the US pressure, which is increasing its international controls, is directed to homosexual acceptance. In view of the huge US success for the “acceptance” of the family planning ideology around the world, is there any doubt that the US government will fail in its efforts to export and impose gay “marriage” and the gay agenda? Please read the below article by Family Research Council:

If the President doesn't respect America's views on marriage, what makes us think he would respect other countries'? Certainly not his latest USAID project. In April, to relatively little fanfare, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) embarked on one of the most shocking abuses of taxpayer dollars in the last five years. With help from the Levi Strauss Foundation and millionaire liberal Tim Gill, the U.S. government is spending $11 million to train homosexual activists in other countries.

The Washington Blade, D.C.'s gay newspaper, praised the Obama administration for creating an army of international lobbyists for same-sex "marriage," anti-discrimination laws, and homosexual "rights" around the world. According to USAID, the first phase of the program is focused on countries with a strong Catholic influence: Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, and other developing nations that oppose homosexuality.

This week, the first in a series of USAID "gay trainings" took place in Colombia, a nation specifically targeted for its rejection of same-sex "marriage." The goal, an agency spokesman says, is to teach people how to infiltrate the political process and advocate for laws that a majority of Americans, who are paying for the program, object to. "It can be a real game-changer in the advancement of LGBT human rights," she insisted. In essence, U.S. taxpayers are being forced to groom the next generation of the world's Human Rights Campaigns — a stunning exploitation of Americans' money, and more importantly, their trust.

For the Obama administration, this is just another part of its strong-arm strategy to bully other nations into compliance. Whether it's through the United Nations, U.S. embassies, or the State Department, President Obama is leading the effort to bribe and coerce poor countries into accepting his pro-homosexual agenda. Our friends at Family Watch International are urging people to get involved. They've released a shocking new documentary highlighting the President's dark world of "Cultural Imperialism." Click over to their website to see a five-minute clip or the full feature. Be prepared to be outraged.

Portuguese version of this article: Sem respeito pela família e pelas nações: governo dos EUA gasta milhões em treinamento de militantes gays no mundo inteiro

Source: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Leading the world by evil example: Obama and gay “marriage”

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

Homosexual “Marriage” and the Last Days

Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?

By Julio Severo

The answer to the title of this article is: Of course not! I, for example, have never defended any kind of Inquisition, and if I ever do it, obviously I will have to abandon the pro-life fight, because it makes no sense selectively to condemn a genocide and support another.

Pope John Paul II, author of the encyclical “The Gospel of Life,” was a pro-life champion and he did not defend the Inquisition. On the contrary, he had the honesty to ask forgiveness for what the Inquisition and its agents did.

The defense of the Inquisition, for any Christian who considers himself pro-life, is so shameful that the only option left to its defenders is to deflect the debate to other details that flee from the essential question.

Three hundred years ago, Jonathan Swift, in his “Gulliver’s Travels,” used the example of a cow, and how a malicious neighbor might, with the help of a dishonest lawyer, say that the animal belonged to him, not to Gulliver. The method is simple: instead of focusing on the central topic of who the cow really belongs to, the lawyer will make the judge digress into details consuming time and energy: the cow’s age, the nature of its pasture is, its size is, etc.

In the end, victory comes by fatigue and a heap of digressions.

There have been a number of digressions in response to my Portuguese article “A inquisição, o papa e o suspiro de alguns católicos conservadores” (The Inquisition, the Pope and the Yearn of Some Conservative Catholics).

The major digression in the issue of the Inquisition and a pro-life identity came with this comment:

In the subject of the history of the Inquisition, Julio is completely illiterate. The Protestant Reformation, in England, killed in a few months more people than the Inquisition did in four centuries.

Obviously, this comment did not respond to the main question in my article: How can those who defend the Inquisition fight against abortion?

Or, to be more precise: How do they want to fight the culture of death of socialism, homosexuality and feminism when they feel comfortable with the culture of torture and death of the Inquisition?

I do not mention the identity of the comment author in order to make it clear that I am attacking stances and ideas, not people. Moreover, the author is a man I respect, in spite of differences. I respect greatly his wife too, a very considerate woman. Yet, for literary convenience, I will call him in this text just Jack Man.

Sometimes, it is preferable not to mention real names to avoid embarrassment and personal attacks. In the case of his comment, Jack Man did not show this consideration, and many of his followers have interpreted his comment as a carte blanche to post aggressive messages both in my Facebook and in other forums, not sparing expletives and names such as “antichrist.” Some said, “The master has spoken, so shut up!” At least, the axes, sickles and hammers were only in very heavy and ugly words. (I’m already accustomed to this, coming from the Protestant Left, whose more frequent weapons are expletives.)

It is in a moment such as this that I give thanks to God that there is no more the Inquisition, because if there were, this rabid pro-Inquisition mob would come up to me with real axes, sickles and hammers to lynch me much before the tribunal of the holy office were able to pick me, judge me and condemn me to death by burning.

One of the strong Catholic reactions to my questioning if the pro-life identity can join the defense of the Inquisition was:

Seeing Julio Severo defaming and denigrating the Inquisition, I notice that he is an ignorant or acts in bad faith. If he is ignorant, he may still learn. If he acts in bad faith, he deserves to be execrated. Anyway, what he said does not offend me. I think that what is much more serious is that those who have an obligation to defend the Inquisition are shamed of it.

This explicitly pro-Inquisition Facebook comment could be seen as an isolated case, but it was “liked” (or signed) by some Midia Sem Mascara columnists.

If they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” communism and its atrocities, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

If they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” Nazism and its crime of the Holocaust, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

In a similar way, if they want to accuse me of “defaming” and “denigrating” the Inquisition, I humbly accept this “shame” — which for me is a great joy.

They can also add that I “defame” and “denigrate” the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). This is the largest organization of contraception, abortion and sex education in the world. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, came from an Irish Catholic family, and before the rise of the Soviet Union, she already preached feminism, socialism, abortion and anarchy. Her strongest opponent was evangelical Anthony Comstock.

There is a parallel between the Inquisition and IPPF. Both have varied torture tools. While the Catholic Inquisition tortured and killed presumably only adults, IPPF uses medical instruments to torture and kill babies: saline injection, partial abortion, dismemberment and decapitation.

Tony Man (not his real name, because he is a friend of Jack Man and wants to remain unnamed), calls IPPF “Planned Parenthood Inquisition.” He has this to ask to those who love and defend the Inquisition: They want babies Protestants to be aborted or merely tortured and killed after birth?

Following the excellent reasoning of Tony Man, I wonder: What about if IPPF had Vatican approval, as the Inquisition had, then it could kill only Protestant babies and other “heretical” babies?

For Tony Man and for me, it is very simple: if you can excuse or defend the Catholic Inquisition, what prevents you from condoning or defending the IPPF Inquisition?

The pro-abortion guy can coolly upbraid you: “Your Catholic Church had the Inquisition and we have IPPF. Leave us with our genocide and you stay with yours.” But, on both sides, there is denial, although on the Catholic side the pope has already asked for forgiveness. So the insistence of defending the Inquisition only exposes its defenders to ridicule.

The only difference between the Inquisition and IPPF is that one has a Catholic title and the other does not. Is this then the reason that those who defend the Inquisition condemn IPPF? But what moral ethics have the Inquisition defenders to attack IPPF?

The fact that there are Catholics today defending the Inquisition indicates only a reality: apostasy.

Tony Man brought to my knowledge that Malachi Martin, the well-known late Catholic theologian, was an adviser to two popes. Martin said in mid-1990s:

* The smoke of Satan is in the Vatican.

* The Catholic Church has come under the control of Satan.

* That the situation is irreversible.

* That both Pope Paul VI (in the mid-1970s!) and later John Paul II said that it cannot be reversed or even halted by anything man can do.

* That the only way to understand the Third Secret of Fatima, which Malachi Martin was allowed to read (most Catholics trust and revere that apparition) is to accept that the Vatican, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and almost all the Catholic laity in the world, are apostate.

* That Catholicism as we know it, as a religious institution, is spiritually dead and that this is God's will!

These comments by the late Rev. Malachi Martin, gathered by Tony Man through a Martin’s sermon, might explain perfectly why some Catholics who attack a genocide (abortion) are comfortable with another (the Inquisition).

According to Tony Man, looking carefully at the Protestant churches and their institutions in the Western countries, Rev. Martin also said that all of them are apostate. The exception is Protestant churches in the poorest nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

It is healthy to face reality, as Martin did. As an evangelical, I often go in the opposite direction of other Protestants, who see Vatican as the Great Babylon described in Revelation 17. Rev. David Wilkerson, an Assembly of God minister and the author of the best-selling “The Cross and the Switchblade,” said that Babylon the Great is America. I agree with him.

Encyclopedia Britannica, in its 11^th edition which I used as the source for the Inquisition in my Portuguese article, is rejected by pro-Inquisition Catholics, because they prefer their own baseless books to an encyclopedia of one hundred years considered by pro-family groups as more reliable than modern encyclopedias. Even so, the pro-Inquisition Catholics close themselves in their denial, even after the pope had already asked for forgiveness. Encyclopedia Britannica also correctly describes the Holocaust. Do we have to accept the Nazi version only because the side guilty of crimes does not accept the official version?

Catholic denial, with its pro-Inquisition supporters, is no different from other historical denials, including Nazi and communist.

Is there a revolutionary mindset operating in these affinities? Deniers should answer it.

If I were an evangelical denier, I never would denounce what America, formerly a Protestant power, has been doing to impose abortion and the gay agenda on the world. In addition, I have also denounced the major role of America in the strengthening and funding of the persecution of Christians around the world. It is a sad reality, but truth is truth and it cannot be concealed. To deny, hide, varnish and cripple information about persecution of Christians is a practice of revisionists and other revolutionary mindset agents.

In the Catholic case, Pope John Paul II has already asked for forgiveness. Why then insist on denials and defense of religious genocide?

It makes no sense Catholics attacking a genocide (abortion) and being comfortable with another (the Inquisition).

Leone Lins, a Brazilian who read my original Portuguese article, understood this point. She said, “Until now, I don’t understand the fuss about this article. As I see it, Julio Severo says that those who defend the atrocities perpetrated by the Catholic Inquisition over the centuries have no moral ethics to say that they are against communist genocides. I agree with him.”

Let us return now to the comment by Jack Man, which shunned this central problem:

In the subject of the history of The Inquisition, Julio is completely illiterate. The Protestant Reformation, in England, killed in a few months more people than The Inquisition did in four centuries.

I will not try to respond to this comment which fled from the vital subject, because Jack Man judged me “completely illiterate.” The answer then comes from my friend Michael Carl, an Anglican Episcopal priest and WND journalist.  His response to me was as follows:

Your Catholic critic is confusing the English Reformation with the English Civil War, much of which was between the Protestant Roundheads (Parliamentarians) and the mostly Catholic Cavaliers who supported the king, mostly Catholic because the kings were the Scottish Catholic Stuarts.

There were more Anglicans killed during the brief reign of Catholic Mary Tudor, after the death of the puny Edward. This is the one nicknamed “Bloody Mary” (which is the origin of the cocktail of the same name) because she had Lady Jane Gray and other Protestant Anglicans executed.

There were also other deviations from the central topic. Some Catholics have tried to refute my Portuguese “A inquisição, o papa e o suspiro de alguns católicos conservadores” by appealing to a supposed “Protestant Inquisition.” Such “Protestant Inquisition” exists only in Catholic books. Searching Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 edition, I have found nothing on “Protestant Inquisition.” But I have found abundant material on the “Catholic Inquisition.” Anyway, even if there were a “Protestant Inquisition,” never in my blog or in my Facebook I have praised or suggested such Inquisition against Catholics.

This article was written in response to some Catholics who have for a long time, under my silence and the silence of many other evangelicals, been praising the Inquisition and, worse, implying that we, evangelicals, deserve it. Do these Catholics want to praise the Inquisition? They are free to do so. They want to say it publicly (as a Mídia Sem Máscara columnist did) that evangelicals are modern “Cathars,” who were considered by the Catholic Inquisition as worthy of torture and death? They are free to do so.

However, they can never say they are fighting the culture of death, because within the culture of death is not only communism. It is also, whether they accept or not, the Inquisition. Do they want to defend life? They cannot then defend the Inquisition. It is not impossible to do so. I have Catholic friends who do not defend the Inquisition. By defending the Inquisition, there is nothing that separates them from defenders of IPPF, the Holocaust and communism. What unites them — the slaughter of the innocents — is stronger than what divides them.

There is no difference between defending IPPF and the Holocaust and defending the Inquisition. But there is a vast difference between fighting against abortion and defending the Inquisition.

Having reaffirmed the main point of my anti-Inquisition and antiabortion stance, let me explain that the Catholic Church does not save. The Evangelical Church also does not save. Who saves? Only Jesus Christ.

But according to Tony Man, Jack Man thinks that the only salvation for Latin America is the Catholic Church. So his involvement in pro-life coalitions with Protestants has only one objective: to help the Catholic Church in a supreme role of spiritual and social salvation for all.

Unfortunately for Jack Man, the Catholic Church in Brazil and other Latin American nations is deeply involved in the Marxist Liberation Theology. Especially in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, no church has been so involved in the establishment of socialism than the Catholic Church has, because of massive apostasy through the Liberation Theology. So it has no salvation, even for itself, and you do not need to be a Malachi Martin to see it.

It is no wonder: any church, Catholic or Protestant, which thinks that it can bring salvation to this world, will commit atrocities. The Inquisition and pervasive socialism in Brazil are just two examples.

Don Hank has said, “This article points to an important reason why that is happening: sheer blind fanaticism. Any Catholic in this day and age who defends the Inquisition is helping to tear down what is left of the Church. I would also wonder if such a person is not a bit mentally unbalanced. I personally am thankful to God that I do not need a fallible human to intercede for me in the place of my personal Savior Jesus Christ.”

To save people, not apostate Catholic or Protestant institutions, God is pouring out His Spirit in these last days.

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17-18 ESV)

With this Spirit, Jesus’ followers will be able to be victorious over the homosexualist, pro-abortion, socialist Beast, its image, and the number of its name (see Revelation 15:2).

Reviewed by Don Hank.

Portuguese version of this article: Um ativista pró-vida pode defender a Inquisição?

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

Recommended Reading:

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

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

Anthony Comstock: the first pro-life activist in the modern history

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Homeland Security: More Insecurity for Christians?

By Julio Severo

President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Jeh C. Johnson as the new secretary of Homeland Security, because of his “deep understanding of the threats and challenges facing the United States.” He credited Johnson with helping design and implement policies to repeal the ban on openly gay service members in the U.S. military, according to an Associated Press story.

Obviously, the main propaganda of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be what has always been: to fight terrorism — in a way that expands Islam! Since the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks and DHS “counter-terror” measures, many new mosques are popping up across the United States.

About 1,200 mosques are now operating in the U.S., and almost 80 percent of them were built after 9/11. The majority of those mosques are led by Wahhabi clerics — from the same branch of Islam that Osama bin Laden followed.

Muslims in the US have felt no insecurity from DHS to grow and expand. They have had no worries about DHS. But since especially the Obama administration, DHS has been a worry and insecurity for Christians. There is a number of reports of anti-Christian bias from DHS.

A recent WND report included several cases, including mine:

“DHS was caught monitoring a blog posted by a Christian who was forced to flee Brazil because of the conflict between that nation’s pro-homosexual ‘hate crimes’ agenda and his advocacy for traditional marriage. The Obama administration declined comment on its decision to monitor Julio Severo’s unabashedly Christian Last Days Watchman blog.”

If any indication, the dark credentials of the new DHS secretary of “designing and implementing policies to repeal the ban on openly gay service members in the U.S. military” only make darker how insecure Christians will be in an America, where mosques are spreading. Christian pro-family groups fought hard to repeal the homosexualist measure imposed in the US military, and Jeh C. Johnson prevailed. In DHS, will he achieve other similar homosexualist victories?

Jeh C. Johnson, new DHS secretary: gay agenda advocate

According to the AP story, Obama nominated him “to help craft the nation’s counterterrorism policy.”

Will Christians and their fight against gay dictatorship be targeted as “terrorist threats”?

Mohamed Elibiary, a DHS adviser since 2010, defends the Muslim Brotherhood and, according to WND, he accuses Egypt’s persecuted Christian minority of “inciting” against Islam. So if Christians are murdered by Muslims in Egypt, is it because they spoke about Jesus the Savior or other similarly “offensive” terms?

Mohamed Elibiary: a radical Muslim in DHS

Elibiary has warned the tea party against attempting to change the U.S. political landscape through “Christianist Xenophobia.”

The U.S. government wants supposedly to defeat terror by employing anti-Christian Muslims and supporting Muslim expansion in America. A nation in sin sows its own destruction.

The wicked U.S. example could infect other nations, including Brazil. “The United States is a global leader on everything, and that includes gay rights,” said Julio Moreira, president of the Rio de Janeiro-based Arco-Iris gay supremacist group. “This will force other nations like Brazil to move forward with more progressive policies.”

With America leading, international anti-terror measures could focus on Christians and their values. After all, to face Muslim terror brings bombs and other mortal consequences. To persecute Christians does not bring any of such consequences.

If DHS is a model for the international future, Christians should be prepared for a world with unsurprising mosque growth, funded by former Christian Western nations, and very predictable Christian persecution.

Portuguese version of this article: Ministério de Segurança Nacional dos EUA: Mais insegurança para os cristãos?

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

Recommended Reading:

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

Obama’s War on Christians

Homeland Security surveillance detected on Julio Severo websiteAfter 9/11, Mosques Popping Up Across America

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland

Muslim Dinner at White House

Free Masons Denounced on House Floor

By Julio Severo

It took House of Representatives stenographer Dianne Reidy to denounce the Free Masons. She had no right to use the House microphone to speak what U.S. Representatives have never spoken, and the media has said that she “freaked out.” Fox News said that what has happened today, October 17, is very strange.

Reidy said, “Do not be deceived. God shall not be mocked. A House divided cannot stand. He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. He will not be mocked. The greatest deception here is that this is not one nation under God. It never was. Had it been, the Constitution would not have been written by Free Masons… and go against God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God, Lord Jesus.”

Reidy was taken to a local hospital for evaluation, given her unusual behavior, which many noted was completely out of character for the stenographer. She was also interviewed by police, but no charges are expected to be filed.

"She’s a well-known person, she’s a perfectly nice person, a good colleague, somebody who’s respectable and dependable, and this is very surprising to everybody who works with her,” CNN reporter Dana Bash said on-air.

For the media, it was just foolishness. But I wonder if there was Somebody behind it:

“But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:27 ESV)

With information of The Christian Post.

Portuguese version of this article: Maçons denunciados na tribuna da Câmara dos Deputados dos EUA

Spanish version of this article: La Masonería es Denunciada en el Congreso Americano

German version of this article: Freimaurer im US-Abgeordnetenhaus angeprangert

Source: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommended Reading:

Leading the world by evil example: Obama and gay “marriage”

United States: between Gayland and Mohammedland