9/11 and the Coward Killing by Muslims

By Julio Severo

Today is the day when 15 years ago the United States suffered the biggest Islamic terror attack in its history. Over 3,000 innocent Americans were cowardly killed.

It should be sadly remembered also that after 9/11 U.S President George W. Bush visited a mosque to say that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Besides, even knowing that the terrorists were Saudis, he did not invade and attack Saudi Arabia. He invaded Iraq, which was made into a scapegoat to save the Saudi king.

Bush did a good pro-life work. But, about Islam, he was not different from Obama: Both treated Islam as a religion of peace. Apparently, Bush’s glorification of Islam as a peaceful ideology made way for the first U.S. president with a full Islamic name: Barack Hussein Obama.

Bush’s unnecessary invasion of Iraq provoked untold suffering to the old Iraq Christian community, which was reduced from over 2,000,000 to less than 400,000. Bush could have received those persecuted Christians as refugees in the United States — persecuted by Muslims enraged over his war. But, instead he received thousands and thousands of Islamic “refugees.”

Who cares about Christians? Not the U.S. government, which provokes wars that bring persecution to them and, as Pilate, washes its hands.

More Iraq Christians were killed in the hands of the followers of the religion of peace, as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, than Americans were killed in the hands of those followers in 9/11.

Portuguese version of this article: O 11 de Setembro e a Matança Covarde Feita por Muçulmanos

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

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

Siding with the “religion of peace”: Obama, Bush, Brzezinski…

Christian Persecution Follows US, UK and France in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

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

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

Joseph Farah

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

So why should we care what just happened in Brazil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the lessons of Brazil go beyond that.

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

Again, sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the alternative is no change from the status quo.

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

Take your pick.

Learn the lessons of Brazil.

Source: WND

Recommended Reading:

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

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

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

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

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

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

Immigration: A Weapon of Mass Cultural Destruction in Liberal Hands

By Julio Severo

It is a fact that conservatives in the United States are losing the culture war mainly through a massive immigration facilitated for decades by liberal policies. Democrats, who are essentially socialists, have a comfortable upper hand on immigration.

The typical answer from U.S. conservatives is to restrict some immigration. But, by then, America has already been flooded by immigrants who are largely contributing to the liberal project of cultural hegemony in the U.S.

By now, U.S. conservatives should have noticed and concluded that if liberals are winning by immigration, they should also use the same methods. Fire against fire.

If liberals are flooding America with Muslims and others who are helping their project, conservatives should also work a plan to flood America with immigrants. Not any immigrant, but real conservative immigrants. Ann Coulter noted that many Latin American Catholic immigrants, who are pro-life, are easily misled by Democrats and their socialist handouts. Usually, they love pro-life values. But they will vote for any candidate who gives them handouts, regardless of whether he is pro-abortion or not. This is not real conservatism.

To fit the ever-changing liberal population profile induced by mass immigration, conservatives and Republicans are increasingly espousing liberal ideas, methods and policies. Immigration is changing the way conservatives and Republicans think and behave politically. Because of the huge army of immigrants serving the Democratic Party, Republicans and their stances, especially their actions, are increasingly less conservative, while Democrats behave increasingly more liberal.

Conservatives who do not embrace the relativistic way of liberals suffer the consequences of irresponsible immigration aimed at making the Left, not America, strong.

An American-Jewish friend of mine told me that she lives in a very conservative county in Denver, which is receiving numerous Muslim immigrants, who are politically labeled as “refugees” by the Left. She said that UNC (University of Northern Colorado) began 2 years ago providing Halal (Islamic food) in all their cafeterias and that federal funding is linked to both immigration and transgender bathrooms. “So if the school districts want the federal funding they must abide by the laws,” she said.

Dr. William J. Murray, a former Marxist who today denounces the Marxist ideology, read my article, agreed and said, “Yes, conservatives helping conservatives immigrate would be good but… There are very few actual conservative churches left in America. Short answer: Good idea but the church will not help.”

Murray, who is the founder and director of Religious Freedom Coalition (a Washington DC-based Christian organization that helps persecuted Christians), also said, “We have done all we can to bring Christians in from Syria… this is the result: 99% of Syrians this year allowed in by Obama are Muslims with 97% being Sunni Muslims. Keep in mind that it is the Sunni Muslims who are responsible for 9-11 and every act of terror including Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, Orland, Paris, Brussels and Nice just to name a few.”

Murray was featured in my blog in 2015 in the article “Exclusive Interview with William J. Murray, Defender of Persecuted Christians.”

Murray’s answer is fascinating. For him, conservative evangelical churches should be engaged in helping conservative evangelicals to immigrate to America. But they are not doing it.

Yet, liberal and leftist churches are doing it — for their liberal and leftist brothers. And even anti-Christian groups are doing it too — only for their anti-Christian brothers.

Recently, Republican candidate Donald Trump was criticized for his comment about banning Islamic immigration to America. This unnecessary and harmful immigration has received preferential treatment for decades in America’s politics, while Christians, who are preferential victims of Islamic oppressors, have been ignored and forgotten.

To attack Trump, Democratic socialist opponent Hillary Clinton featured Khizr Khan as a Muslim speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

Khan has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia and to controversial immigration programs used by him to help Muslim foreigners to essentially buy their way into the United States. In short, he is actively helping his Islamic brothers. But where are the U.S. conservative Christians helping their brothers?

According to the article “Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.,” a Catholic source says that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops receives millions in U.S. government grants to provide benefits to Muslim “refugees.” So the Catholic Church is helping the Islamic immigration revolution. In this perspective, it is no wonder that in America most Catholic immigrants, who are conservative, have a consistently leftist voting history. Their leftist behavior does not match their supposedly conservative beliefs.

The invasion of Islamic “refugees” is also benefiting left-wing billionaire George Soros, who, through his Open Society Foundations (OSFs), is influencing the U.S. Supreme Court and the mainstream media to support the immigrant invasion to promote his left-wing causes. The revelation came as a Russian hacker organization released thousands of documents from OSF officials. (Read: Left-Wing Billionaire George Soros and His Plan of Global Chaos.)

This invasion is not new. Little is said about a “refugee” program that has been delivering thousands of Somali Muslims annually to U.S. cities for 33 years. In fact, it was started by Ronald Reagan.

Somalia is a hotbed of Sunni jihad terrorism — the same kind as ISIS. Somalia is home to the notorious al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabab.

Al-Shabab launched massacres against Christians in Kenya last year at a mall and at a university. Dozens of Somali-American “refugees” and children of refugees have been charged over the years with providing material support to al-Shabab, ISIS and other overseas terror groups. More than 40 have left the U.S. since 2007 to join either al-Shabab or the Islamic State in Syria.

Left-wing President Obama has, during his more than seven years in office, approved the resettlement of 47,500 Islamic Somali “refugees” into U.S. communities.

The supposedly right-wing George W. Bush administration brought 49,613 Islamic Somalis to the U.S. over eight years, according to the U.S. State Department’s refugee database. They were resettled by nonprofits such as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Church World Services, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the National Association of Evangelicals’ World Relief Corp.

Largely Catholic, Protestant and Jewish organizations are collaborators in this invasion. According to WND (WorldNetDaily), since Reagan in 1983, the U.S. has taken in a total of 132,224 Somalis, 99 percent of whom are Sunni Muslims who observe Shariah law. These Jewish-Catholic-Evangelical organization, with socialist Democrat and conservative Republican administrations, have generally followed the socialist agenda on Islamic immigration to the U.S.

So even Republican and conservative presidents (including Reagan and both Bushes) helped the liberal scheme of massive invasion of Islamic immigrants to America. In contrast, would Democrats and their socialist allies help a conservative plan that included massive immigration of conservative evangelicals to the U.S.?

An immigration policy to bring pro-Israel conservative evangelicals to America would be discriminatory, in the U.S. media’s view, which sees nothing wrong in bringing in anti-Israel radical Muslims.

Pro-Israel conservative evangelicals bring blessing to a nation and anti-Israel Muslims bring curses, because God said about the Jews: “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.” Because of her stupid immigration policies, now America has massive Islamic rallies, in major cities like Chicago, supporting terror groups and protesting Israel.

The original evangelical Americans were pro-Israel and I doubt that they would support the mass immigration of anti-Semites that America is allowing today. Why is America importing thousands and thousands of pro-terror and anti-Israel immigrants? Why are evangelical presidents helping such immigrants?

If conservative evangelical churches in America do not help conservative evangelicals in other nations, who will do it? The U.S. government? It is too busy, under conservative Republican and socialist Democratic presidents, helping Muslims — thousands of them, indeed. In fact, according to WND, Reagan (whom I admire as the most conservative president in recent U.S. history), was the first U.S. president to flood America with Muslim immigrants! It is a nightmare for you to learn that your most admired president did an unthinkable thing.

How can conservatives condemn crypto-Islamic Obama for his immigration policies favoring Muslims when even mega-conservative Reagan was mistaken on it? At least, Obama has been consistent with his crypto-Islamic values. Reagan and the Bushes were not consistent with their Christian evangelical values. If they were, they would have immigration policies favoring evangelicals.

A Brazilian friend, who is an Assemblies of God minister, told me that he wanted to live in America to help conservative evangelicals. He is completely conservative. He has several U.S. conservative evangelical friends… who are unwilling to help him to immigrate to America. He feels their unwillingness, but he does not understand it.

On the other hand, you see liberals in America helping liberals around the world immigrate to America.

You see Muslims in America helping Muslims around the world to immigrate to America.

You see secular Marxists in America helping secular Marxists around the world to immigrate to America.

You see Christian Marxists in America helping Christian Marxists around the world to immigrate to America.

But you do not see conservative Christians in America helping conservative Christians around the world to immigrate to America.

Who will win this war? Those with an ineffectual answer of immigration restrictions or those working for decades to flood America with immigrants hungry for socialist handouts?

Sadly, the latter are already winning and in a few decades America will be remade according to their liberal image and likeness.

The best way to analyze the strength of a people is by their religious power. America, whose republic was founded by a moral people 98% Protestant (and their Protestantism was strong in numbers, virtue and the Bible), is today less than 50% Protestant, and they are losing in numbers and spiritual quality.

The original U.S. Protestants were conservative.

In the past, America was a superpower in the hands of Bible-believing evangelicals. Today, America is not in the hands of conservative evangelicals and the evangelical vacancy in the U.S. government has been filled by a crypto-Islamic man in the White House and by numerous activists opposed to conservative evangelicalism. More vacancies will be filled by Muslims over time. From evangelical superpower to Muslim, socialist and homosexualist superpower. I am pretty sure that the U.S. Founders never envisioned such tragedy for America.

It is obvious that American liberals are flooding America with immigrants who are not Protestant and definitely are not conservative. They are helping their friends and allies.

Why don’t American conservatives help their friends and allies?

Why do only liberals know how to use immigration as a weapon? In their hands, immigration is a weapon of mass cultural destruction to destroy a conservative culture.

Why can’t conservatives use immigration as a weapon of mass cultural destruction to neutralize the liberal weapon of mass cultural destruction and save America and restore her to her original Bible-centered evangelicalism?

Of course, conservative evangelicals can counter the onslaught of liberal immigration policies by taking the Gospel to thousands of Muslim immigrants who have already been brought by Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan. But such policies are insane and conservative presidents were not sane to implement them.

Above all, why cannot conservative evangelical churches use immigration as a channel of blessing to their conservative brothers and sisters around the world? Is not this what the Bible teaches us?

“So seize any opportunity the Lord gives you to do good things and be a blessing to everyone, especially those within our faithful family.” (Galatians 6:10 The Voice)

“Whenever we have the opportunity, we have to do what is good for everyone, especially for the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:10 GWV)

“Right now, therefore, every time we get the chance, let us work for the benefit of all, starting with the people closest to us in the community of faith.” (Galatians 6:10 Message)

With information from WND and DailyMail.

Portuguese version of this article: Imigração: Uma arma de destruição cultural em massa nas mãos de esquerdistas

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

Obama’s Immigration Amnesty: Joy for Some and Sadness for Many

America, Conservative Christians and Third World Expectations

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

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

Canadian Paradise: Only for Homosexual Thugs, Not for Christians

By Julio Severo

As far as Christians are concerned, free speech is an endangered species in Canada. Prominent homosexual activists Christopher Hudspeth and George Smitherman, a former Liberal Deputy Premier, have filed a $104-million class action lawsuit against Christian activist Bill Whatcott for infiltrating the 2016 Toronto gay pride parade while he and his Christian friends were dressed as “gay zombies” in green suits to distribute leaflets which graphically warned about the health dangers of homosexual sex and accused socialist politicians of being in cahoots with the gay agenda.

They are suing Whatcott for mental distress on behalf of Toronto’s entire gay community and for libel against various socialist leaders including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The allegations of “mental distress” are comical, because the vast majority of gay parade’s over one million participants never came into contact with Whatcott.

Danielle McLaughlin, former Education Director at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who herself marched at the gay parade and describes Whatcott as a “homophobic sexist”, couldn’t help mocking the homosexual activists who are suing him:

“Really? What kind of damage have they suffered as a result of Whatcott’s flyers? Has former Ontario deputy premier George Smitherman, one of the lead plaintiffs, lost status in the community because of Whatcott’s flyers? Did the Prime Minister have to go into hiding because of the publications (or did he march in two subsequent Pride parades?) Did my LGBTQ family members and friends experience pain and suffering as a result of Whatcott’s words? Not that I noticed or heard about.”

Their class action lawsuit may seem ridiculous, but Hudspeth and Smitherman know exactly what they are doing. This is a fear campaign, intended to silence all Christian activists and journalists who may be critical of the gay agenda. The demand for $104 million is meant to show just how giant the plaintiffs’ boxing gloves are, threatening financial ruin to all those who dare squeak in opposition.

Whatcott, with other Christians, had paid the $100 fee to the Toronto Gay Pride Parade organizers to register their invented “Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association” so that they could move more easily along the parade route to distribute a pamphlet that showed graphic images of diseases associated with same-sex behaviors, including anal warts and AIDS.

The pamphlet was not forced on homosexuals.

“I asked them if they wanted ‘Zombie safe sex,’” Whatcott told LifeSiteNews at the time.  “Everyone loved it. But, if you try to give out a Gospel pamphlet, they swear at you and throw slushies on your forehead. But, give them some wackadoddle thing that looks like a condom, and they really can’t grab it fast enough. I had three thousand out in 20 minutes,” he said.

One part of the pamphlet stated: “Natural law is clear, homosexuality is incompatible with human nature. Disease, death and confusion are the sad and sordid realities of the homosexual lifestyle. The ‘Gay Zombies’ are concerned about the spiritual, psychological and physical welfare of all potential homosexual pride attendees, so we want to give you this accurate information and encourage you to abstain from the homosexuality.”

Whatcott said that the goal of his “Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association” in participating in the gay parade was twofold: First, to be a prophetic and unambiguous witness against the unfettered celebration of homosexuality, and second, to offer people caught up in the same-sex lifestyle a way out through a call to repent and to turn to Jesus Christ to be saved.”

Whatcott knows homosexuality very well. In his 2014 autobiography Born in a Graveyard, Whatcott reveals his experience of not only being raped by another male in prison, but of selling himself to a man to pay for his drug addiction. Whatcott makes it clear that his activism is inspired by his concern for others — based on his past of involvement in homosexuality.

Whatcott has become famous for his creative ways to give the Gospel to homosexual sinners. In 2014 he marched in the Vancouver Gay Pride Parade as a member of a church he invented: The Calgary Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There, he distributed pamphlets. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada found Whatcott guilty of so-called “hate speech” for distributing flyers in Saskatchewan in 2001-02 that criticized homosexual practices. 

Canada is a “developed” nation that fully guarantees unilateral free speech to anti-Christians. In fact, anti-Christians — especially homosexualists and Muslims — are entitled to verbal and legal aggression against Christians. Canada is truly a “developed” infernal paradise.

In the “developed” Canada, if you offer the Gospel, they swear at you. But if you offer a pamphlet about kinky zombie sex and cannabis, they love!

Bill Whatcott’s case is being used by the Canadian homosexual activism to frighten Christians into hiding themselves in the closet and hiding their Christian testimony about the physical, moral, spiritual and mental hopelessness of the homosexual behavior and the only ultimate answer: Jesus Christ.

With information from LifeSiteNews and Mercatornet.

Portuguese version of this article: Paraíso canadense: Só para delinquentes homossexuais, não para cristãos

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Beware of False Conservatives! Neocons and Their Leftist Mistreatment of Christians

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

By Julio Severo

Major media outlets in the U.S. have ignored the leak of thousands of emails from Open Society Foundation (OSF) by the activist hacker group DCLeaks. OSF, which was founded by the left-wing billionaire George Soros, has funneled billions of dollars over the past two decades to left-wing organizations in the U.S. and throughout the world.

According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story.

Of course, another reason for the cover-up is that the mostly pro-abortion and pro-sodomy media is fond of the most pro-abortion and pro-sodomy candidate in this U.S. election, as they have been fond of the equally pro-abortion and pro-sodomy incumbent President Barack Hussein Obama.

DCLeaks exposes the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s socialist philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts — from Ukraine to Brazil. No policy area is left untouched — from the gay agenda to anti-Israel politics.

On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with Islamic immigration to Europe and America? What does Ukraine have to do with U.S. national interests?

DCLeaks documents show how Soros-backed projects foster his globalist ambitions in the name of democracy, human rights, economic, racial and sexual justice and other lofty terms. In other words, Soros’s projects and organizations work to subvert nations, from America and Europe to Israel and Russia. His most shining example of subversion is Ukraine.

“Soros has provided more than $100 million to support Ukrainian groups,” according to WorldNetDaily, which also said that “Soros heavily invested in the Ukraine crisis.” The Ukrainian revolution was more than a people’s revolution. It was Soros’s revolution, and his special trophy. It is his revolutionary crown.

Because Russia was his main opposition in Ukraine, Soros has targeted mainly Putin. In his article titled “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than ISIS,” Soros said, “The leaders of the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The evidence contradicts them. Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration.”

But, according to DCLeaks, who is working to disintegrate Europe, America, Israel and even Russia is not Russia, which has become merely his favorite scapegoat. It is Soros himself.

Soros’s actions have been strong on behalf of Muslim immigration. From the U.S. to Europe and Israel, Soros is behind a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine Europe, America and Israel. The leaked emails show that his left-wing groups have interfered in European elections to elect politicians who support open border policies for Muslim immigrants from the Arab world and to support financially journalists who report sympathetically on these immigrants and their Islamic religion.

Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and Europe. They have sought to influence U.S. Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders.

They have also worked to demonize Israel and Russia.

Parallel to these efforts are Soros-supported groups’ push not only for gay “marriage” but for unisex public bathrooms.

They support not only an alleged right of women to serve in combat units, but also efforts to force soldiers to live in unisex barracks. In other words, they support efforts to destroy people’s sexual privacy and identity.

As far as Israel is concerned, Soros-backed groups work to delegitimize every aspect of Israeli society as racist and illegitimate. Soros uses Palestinians to claim that Israel is a racist state and funds moderate leftist groups, radical leftist groups, Israeli Arab groups and Palestinian groups.

Even though Soros is an American from Jewish extraction, his plans and actions are clearly against Israel. He is an anti-Zionist Jew.

In many ways, Donald Trump’s campaign is a direct response not to Hillary Clinton, but to Soros himself. Does Soros support Islamic immigration? Trump opposes it. Does Soros support the Ukrainian revolution? Trump supports Russia. Does Soros support the Palestinian cause against Israel? Trump supports Israel. Does Soros hate Putin? Trump wants friendship with Putin. Does Soros see Russia, not ISIS, as the biggest threat? Trump sees ISIS, not Russia, as the biggest threat.

Trump’s support for Russia has led some prominent individuals, including a former CIA director, to say that Trump is a “Russian agent.” In contrast, no one ever accuses Clinton of being a Soros agent or an Islamic agent.

By supporting a ban on Muslim immigration, backing Israel and Russia and supporting Britain’s exit from the EU, Trump acts as a direct foil to Soros’s multi-billion dollar efforts. It is a war between billionaire Trump and billionaire Soros.

DCLeaks exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign in Europe, America and Israel, including Soros plans to “counter Russian foreign policy and subvert traditional Russian values.” The “direct democracy” movements that he supports are nothing less than calls for mob rule. As F. William Engdahl said: “George Soros, the hedge fund speculator turned self-proclaimed philanthropist, and his tax-exempt foundations are an integral part of that pre-emptive war machine.”

So it is no wonder that Soros-backed groups were kicked from Russia in 2015, because Russian officials understood that these groups wanted to destabilize Russia.

For their own survival, the U.S., Europe and Israel should also expel these groups.

If Trump wins the U.S. presidential election, ISIS, not Russia, will be treated as the biggest threat to America’s and Europe’s existence. In this case, Russia will be America’s partner against ISIS. And if Trump fully understand Soros’s and Clinton’s obsession to promote abortion and sodomy, he is going to fight to promote life and family values.

Yet, if Clinton wins, Russia, not ISIS, will be treated as the biggest threat to America’s and Europe’s existence. In this case, ISIS will be America’s partner against Russia. This is not just imagination. Both Putin and Trump have denounced that ISIS was created by Clinton and Obama, whose Soros-backed sanctions against Russia over Ukraine are helping ruin Russian economy. And Soros’s expertise is to profit from troubled economies.

Christians also have been targeted by Soros’ plots. The Center for Constitutional Rights, a Soros-funded Marxist group, filed a lawsuit against Rev. Scott Lively for “crime against humanity.” His crime? He expressed the traditional Christian view on the homosexual perversions in the Ugandan Parliament. He has also been an international advocate for the Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. This law is hated by Soros, Clinton and Obama. Lively says that Obama used the Ukrainian issue as an excuse to impose sanctions against Russia, when his real motivation was the Russian anti-sodomy law.

If Soros is so successful in the U.S. presidential election as he was in his leftist chaos and revolution in Ukraine, Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States, and Soros and his Marxist machine will have more power against Christians like Lively.

Yet, as far as it depends on DCLeaks, a group of Russian hackers exposing Soros and his global revolutionary chaos, American voters should not give Soros-backed Clinton the opportunity to turn the U.S. into a Soros-controlled Ukraine.

With information from the Jerusalem Post and other international agencies.

Portuguese version of this article: Bilionário esquerdista George Soros e seu plano de caos mundial

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Beware of the Revolution Man: Socialist Billionaire George Soros Spent $33 Million to Turn Ferguson Protest into National Revolution

Top Anti-Russia Journalist Presents a Dossier Suggesting Trump May Be a Russian Agent

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

A Trap for Trump

Is Trump a KGB Agent?

Russia Suspected in Cyber Attack on Campaign of Pro-Sodomy Hillary Clinton

Siding with the “religion of peace”: Obama, Bush, Brzezinski…

Putin Loves Hillary!

Trump and the Pope: a Right-Wing Populist (Today) Clashing with a Left-Wing Populist

Anal Sex: Love or Harm?

By Julio Severo

A very common argument against anal sex among homosexuals is that there are a number of health risks involved. These risks are presented by Christian pastors and pro-family leaders as a powerful reason to discourage people from homosexual anal sex.

The risks are real and true, but not limited to homosexuals. Any individual engaging in anal sex runs the same risks. A woman, married or not, who receives anally a man’s penis is so vulnerable to these risks as a homosexual.

In her book “Sexual Sabotage” (WND Books, 2010), American-Jewish author Judith A. Reisman, addressing what she labeled varied deviant behaviors, quotes that “11% of married individuals participate in anal sodomy at least once.” This percentage probably is much lesser, because, as Reisman makes it clear, its source, the Kinsey Institute, exaggerates in its sexual claims and inflates its sexual numbers. This institute is notorious for its blatant advocacy of homosexual acts and behavior.

Exaggeratedly, only 11 percent married women have engaged in anal sex at least once.

Probably, the Christian married men who require their wives to submit to this kind of sex are silent in the church and in their Christian testimony about risk factors of anal sex for homosexuals. They are right about their silence. After all, what is the point for married men who do it to condemn it among homosexuals if the risks are just the same for non-homosexuals?

In both cases, they are involved in sodomy, which, according to the Macmillan English Dictionary (2nd Edition, 2007), is defined as “a sexual act in which a man puts his penis into another person’s anus.”

So anal sex, by homosexuals or not, is sodomy.

There is a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

·         Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear). Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs and bacteria to enter into the bloodstream. A very tiny tear may provoke, among many other bacterial infections, infective endocarditis, by taking fecal bacteria through the bloodstream into heart valves.

·         The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

·         The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet.

·         The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.

Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections. For heterosexual couples, pregnancy can occur if semen is deposited near the opening to the vagina.

Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay, surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.

Dr. Stephen Goldstone, an open homosexual and author of “The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men” (Dell: New York, 1999), said in his book,

“Just as your internal sphincter muscle involuntarily relaxes when feces enter your rectum, it involuntarily contracts when a penis or other object attempts to enter from the outside…An anal tear can occur during the initial phase of anal sex precisely because your partner pushes his penis through a closed sphincter. Think of his penis as a battering ram, one for which your internal sphincter is no match.”

Dr. Goldstone is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery at The Mount Sinai School of Medicine and an expert on “gay men’s health” and “anorectal disorders.”

The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, founded by evangelical author Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., M.D. (a prominent obstetrician/gynecologist and infertility specialist), says about anal sex:

“It is very damaging to your health and quite possibly life threatening.”

“Anal sex is clearly a dangerous form of sexual activity.”

According to Dr. David Delvin, of NetDoctor, “Anal (rectal) sex used to be referred to in English law as ‘the crime against Nature,’ and this alarming term is still used in the legal statutes of about nine American states. Anal sex has always been a highly controversial subject, and the controversy that surrounds it looks set to continue for years to come because evidence is accumulating that this practice may sometimes lead to anal cancer.”

He also says:

The American Cancer Society states that having anal sex is a risk factor for anal cancer in both men and women.

Our impression is that during the 21st century anal sex has become more common in heterosexual couples, partly because they have watched porn in which this activity so frequently occurs.

One small study carried out in 2009 suggested that in the UK, around 30 per cent of pornographic DVDs feature rectal intercourse. Often, it is presented as something that is both routine and painless for women. In real life, this is not the case. Anal intercourse is often very painful for women, particularly the first few times.

Many point that because the Bible is silent on anal sex, it is allowed. Yet, the Bible is also silent on a number of today’s important issues, including pot and cocaine. So are they allowed too? Of course, they are not, and the critics are fast to emphasize the health risks of drug use, but many are very slow to recognize that a man and a woman engaging in anal sex run the same health risks as two men engaged in the same sexual activity.

Let us see the Bible “silence”:

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” (Hebrews 13:4 ESV)

This verse implies that, besides adultery, the marriage be can be defiled by an unspecified number of immoral acts, making clear that God is going to judge those who defile their marriage beds.

God is not silent also in this instruction:

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 ESV)

About “that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,” the Expanded Bible (published by Thomas Nelson) says this passage can also be put this way: “He wants each of you to learn to live with your own wife in a way that is holy and honorable.”

About “that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter,” the Expanded Bible says this passage can also be put this way: “Do not exploit or take advantage of your sister” in this sexual matter.

Is there exploitation in regard to anal sex? Some years ago, a prominent Brazilian lawyer told me that she had divorced wives from their husbands, who were evangelical ministers. The women were suffering anal and other anus-related ills and, to avoid the causes by their insistent and uncooperative husbands, chose divorce. How many women, unwilling to sacrifice their marriages, sacrifice their health to satisfy the anal lusts of their husbands? This lust, with his aftermath on the health of Christian women, seems a major silent problem in the church today — more silent than the alleged silence of the Bible on the issue.

Even though the First Command of our hedonist culture is ENJOY SEX, God’s First Command, which includes pleasure, has other priority.

Married people engaged in anal sex are not collaborating with God’s First Command to the first married couple: Increase and multiply. Vagina and uterus are proper channels to increase and multiply and bring babies. An anus has nothing to do with this command. Anal sex brings diseases, health problems and no babies. So husbands are cooperating against this command when they choose the wrong channel and potentially harm their wives’ health.

Besides, because a Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, lovers of anal sex should face the reality that this sexual activity can damage this temple. Yet, if they do not want reasons from the Bible, there are abundant medical reasons to avoid this activity and focus on the proper sexual channel created, planned and blessed by God.

If they do not want to give attention to common sense in God’s Word, by appealing to a supposed “silence,” the megaphone of medicine shouts in their ears the consequences of sodomy.

Perhaps the 11 percent of the married people, according to the inflated numbers of the deceptive Kinsey Institute, do not care about health risks in sodomy, but the 90 percent deserve to know them.

If homosexuals deserve to be warned about the health risks of sodomy, why should Christian wives and their husbands be deprived of it?

With information from NetDoctor, Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Peter LaBarbera and WebMD.

Portuguese version of this article: Sexo anal: Amor ou Dano?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Growth of divorce among Christians: a biblical perspective