Sunday, May 28, 2017

Trump and Pope Francis and Their Ideologically Fatal Smile


Trump and Pope Francis and Their Ideologically Fatal Smile

Would Progressive Martin Luther King Have Smiled?

By Julio Severo
The U.S. liberal mainstream media began pushing a narrative that President Donald Trump and Pope Francis had a “strained” meeting at the Vatican, because in one picture Trump was smiling and the pope not.
Picture produced by Brazilian “conservative” Catholics
In Brazil, the misinterpretation was worse. Radical Catholic “conservatives” suggested that Trump’s smile was confirmation that he is a conservative, and a lack of pope’s smile was a confirmation that he is a communist! In fact, they used (and misused) several pictures of Francis.
Pro-life Bill Donohue, who is president of the conservative organization Catholic League, said that this narrative is false.
He issued the following sharp rebuke of the media:
The first news report I heard this morning on the meeting between the president and the pope was on radio: WCBS said reporters were taking note of the fact that President Trump smiled but Pope Francis did not. That must mean something, of course. But it does not—it means nothing. As even the New York Times and the Washington Post acknowledged, the two were beaming when they shook hands. So what?
When I met the pope, he had a winning grin when we shook hands, but looked serious for a group shot. That’s the way he is. Imagine if the president wasn’t smiling and the pope was. Would that mean Trump had just been put in his place? What if neither was smiling? Would that mean they hate each other?
By Donohue’s experience, the pope might be seen smiling and not smiling in the pictures in the same meeting, and everything would depend on the photographer’s choice, who could choose a picture with Trump smiling and the pope not. He could also choose a picture with the pope smiling and Trump not.
Donohue said,
President Trump and Pope Francis disagree on climate change and immigration, but they have more in common on abortion, gay “marriage,” gender ideology and religious liberty than what divides them. The real difference was between President Obama and Pope Francis—on these issues and others—though the media failed to report it.
Yet, Donohue was generous about the disagreement between Trump and Francis by limiting it only to climate change and immigration, because actually Trump has not been opposed to gay “marriage” as he has been opposed to abortion. In this respect, Francis’s stance seems to be more conservative than Trump’s stance, which has kept Obama’s homosexual imperialism.
The pope also disagrees with Trump’s new warmongering attitudes, which Trump himself had condemned in his campaign. Today’s warmongering (which is essentially neocon) Trump was condemned by the campaign’s Trump. So the pope is not alone: the campaign’s Trump would not be pleased with the current warmongering Trump too.
By the way, if I were the president of the United States, I would bring a special gift to the pope: a collection of books on President Ronald Reagan or another conservative American leader. Trump could have easily done it.
Yet, he gave Francis a case of first-edition books by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and said, “I think you will enjoy them.”
Moment Trump gives Martin Luther King collection to Francis
King was a famous progressive leader. He was an adherent of the Social Gospel, the U.S. Protestant version of the Marxist Liberation Theology. He was also a serial adulterer.
Was Trump trying to show the pope that he has also a place for the progressive ideology in his soul?
Trump has no conservative history. And his progressive gift to Francis is consistent with his history. Does His gift shows that, as far as the progressive ideology is concerned, Trump has affinity with Francis?
If the liberal media were honest, it would use his progressive gift to show that President Donald Trump and Pope Francis had a friendly meeting.
If the pope had given a Martin Luther King’s collection to Trump, the liberal media and Brazilian Catholic conservatives would be saying, “It is confirmed. Francis is progressive!” But it was Trump who gave it. What then is confirmed?
Francis reciprocated Trump’s gift with a large medal crafted by a Roman artist — an image of an olive tree, a symbol of peace.
“It is my desire that you become an olive tree to construct peace. I signed it personally for you,” Francis told him.
“Ooh,” Trump said. “That’s so beautiful.”
A beautiful and necessary message. Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that he is worried about the “arms race” after Trump signed a massive military deal (US$ 110 billion sale of military equipment, representing the “largest single arms deal in U.S. history”) with Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of the global Islamic terror.
Actually, Trump has accelerated the arms race by arming the most dangerous people in the world: Sunni Muslims. You just cannot preach peace and have a speech against Islamic terror by arming the terrorists themselves. And Trump did it.
Neocons love wars. During his campaign, Trump had been opposed to them and their warmongering greed. Perhaps the pope’s gift may help Trump remember that neocons are a threat.
It is not possible to smile when neocons control the U.S. government to wage unnecessary wars around the world only to produce jobs in the U.S. military industrial complex.
The U.S. military industrial complex smiles to neocons, who did not smile to the last year’s Trump, but who are smiling to the current Trump. The pope is not smiling, and I am with him.
Progressives smile about Martin Luther King. If Trump was smiling when giving a King’s collection to the pope, why did the liberal media and Brazilian Catholic conservatives choose to use a picture of the pope not smiling?
Certainly, I would not be smiling at receiving progressive books and at meeting the man who is heavily arming the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. But I would smile upon the opportunity to pray for him, including for God to bury the current Trump’s warmongering greed and raise again the campaign’s Trump, who was against neocons. Does the pope understand what is to take the advantage of such opportunities for Jesus?
With information from Charisma magazine, DailyMail and Haaretz.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

U.S. Embassies Under Trump Advance LGBT Agenda


U.S. Embassies Under Trump Advance LGBT Agenda

By Julio Severo
Conservative evangelicals, whose vote gave victory to Donald Trump, had hoped that once he became president the U.S. government would stop using its embassies to promote the homosexual agenda, as happened often under former President Obama.
U.S. Embassy in Macedonia
Yet, last week, when left-wing activists, including Cuba, were celebrating the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (IDAHOT), several U.S. embassies under Trump also celebrated it.
The U.S. Embassy in Macedonia tweeted this:
We’re flying the rainbow flag today to commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, & Biphobia. #IDAHOT2017
Trump did not issue a formal IDAHOT proclamation, but his State Department held a “Worldwide Celebration of Sexual and Gender Diversities.” In addition to the flying homosexual rainbow flag in U.S. Embassy in Macedonia, U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Kyle Randolph Scott held a Rainbow Award in the U.S. Embassy in Serbia. He said,
“The United States remains committed to advancing the human rights of all human beings: that includes LGBT persons here, and around the world.  That is why the Embassy and I have been proud to support the work of the Gay Straight Alliance… The Rainbow Award serves as an important recognition to an individual or institution that has contributed to the fight against homophobia and transphobia in Serbia… The United States Embassy contributes to the advancement of rights of LGBT people in Serbia in a number of ways. We support a variety of rights organizations, such as the Gay Straight Alliance, and the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.”
How can a U.S. ambassador blatantly use his embassy to promote the homosexual agenda in other nations, including by rewarding gay individuals and groups, without the authorization from his government?
Openly homosexual U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius took to the State Department’s official blog to honor IDAHOT.
In February, Trump frustrated his base of conservative evangelicals who hoped him to oust Obama’s first-ever special international LGBT “envoy,” Randy Berry, whose mission is to promote acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism abroad under the rubric of “human rights” and in the name of the United States government. Instead listening to his conservative constituents, Trump chose to keep Obama’s homosexual envoy.
Yet, many conservatives are not protesting such homosexual imperialism under Trump because his administration is making economic advances (it is the economy, stupid!), even when at a bloody cost.
With information from LifeSiteNews (Peter LaBarbera) and the U.S. Embassy in Serbia.
Portuguese version of this article: Embaixadas americanas sob Trump avançam a agenda LGBT
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Bloody Money: Saudi Arabia Conquers Trump


Bloody Money: Saudi Arabia Conquers Trump

By Julio Severo
Abandoning some of the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric of his presidential campaign and his promises of a “total and complete shutdown” of the entry of Muslims to the United States, President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holiest site.
In his first international trip, Trump, whose campaign advocated “America First,” put Saudi Arabia as the top priority, above Israel. He’s the only American president to make Saudi Arabia — or any Islamic nation — his first overseas visit.
He received a glittering welcome from leaders in Saudi Arabia. He was greeted at the airport by King Salman, which was notable given that the Muslim monarch did not show up last year to welcome President Barack Obama on his final visit to Saudi Arabia.
Later, Salman awarded Trump the Collar of Abdulaziz al Saud, the highest Saudi honor.
Trump was joined on the trip by the CEOs of several major U.S. companies, which announced multi-billion dollar agreements with the Saudis.
In Saudi Arabia, he addressed the leaders of 50 Muslim countries saying, “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations. This is a battle between those who seek to obliterate human life and those who seek to protect it. This is a battle between good and evil.”
In his turn, Saudi King Salman said, “Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance… it considers killing an innocent soul tantamount to killing all of humanity.”
Trump said, “Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land. America is prepared to stand with you.”
Trump hailed America’s friendship with Saudi Arabia, which “stretches back many decades, and covers numerous dimensions.” It is a markedly different message from his campaign that said “Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays.”
Meanwhile, Ivanka Trump, who accompanied her presidential father in the visit, praised Saudi “progress” on women’s rights.
The 2016 Trump said that “I think Islam hates us” and that Muslims have “great hatred toward Americans.” The 2017 Trump asked for unity with Saudis and other Sunni Muslim nations against Islamic terror.

Saudi Arabia Funds Terror

Yet, how could Muslim nations fight Islamic terrorism if Saudi Arabia, according to CBN, has a prominent role in spreading Islamic terrorism?
A leading spokesman for religious freedom said years ago that the U.S. government will make no serious effort to defeat ISIS terrorists because they are Sunni. William J. Murray, the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition said the royal family of Sunni Saudi Arabia would not permit any genuine attempt to stop a Sunni onslaught of terror in the Middle East because it is Sunni based.
Murray said the United States has been the “puppet” military of the Saudi royal family, attacking and isolating Shia nations such as Syria. In his view the Shia majority state of Syria, which protects the Christian minority, is a target of the United States only because the Saudi royals are giving the orders, not the American people.
Trump, who has condemned Syria’s President Bashar Assad for committing “unspeakable crimes against humanity,” has been silent on Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies persecuting Christians and backing ISIS. Instead, in the first days of his administration he rewarded Saudi Arabia for fighting Islamic terror.
If it is senseless to have Saudi Arabia as an ally against Islamic terror, why did Trump make this Islamic nation his top priority for his first international trip as a president? The reason is money.

Bloody Money, Bloody Profits, Bloody Jobs

In his first day in Saudi Arabia, Trump signed an extraordinary deal worth a total of US$ 350 billion over ten years. He said, “That was a tremendous day. Tremendous investments in the United States. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Separately, U.S. companies in the oil center will gain US$ 22 billion in new deals with the state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco. And pacts with other companies could balloon that number as high as US$ 50 billion.
House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn told reporters that Saudi Arabia is “going to hire US companies” for “a bunch of infrastructure related things,” boasting that the deal is worth “a lot of money. Big dollars. Big dollars.”
Saudi Arabia will “invest a lot of money in the U.S. and have a lot of U.S. companies invest and build things over here,” Cohn said.
The most tangible agreement between Trump and the Saudi leader was the US$ 110 billion sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia that is effective immediately. The White House said the agreement will produce “tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States.”
White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that the US$ 110 billion in military equipment represents the “largest single arms deal in U.S. history.”
Trump and his team have made it clear that human rights violations will not affect these deals. So the Trump administration’s logic, which is very compatible with neocons’ logic, is that Muslim nations giving massive profits to the U.S. will be allies in the U.S. fight against Islamic terrorism, even though they fund such terrorism and are involved in Christian genocide. This is the Saudi case.
Muslim nations not giving profits to the U.S. will be enemies in the U.S. fight against Islamic terrorism, even though they protect Christian minorities. This is the Syrian case.
The secret to conquer Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton is profitable economic deals.
How does the United States expect to defeat Islamic terror if it heavily arms its main sponsor?
How does the United States expect to defeat Islamic terror if it is economically dependent on its main sponsor?
The 2016 Trump would be embarrassed by the 2017 Trump.
Trump chose to continue Obama’s homosexual imperialism by keeping Obama’s special envoy for global homosexual issues. Why did not Trump take the envoy with him to reprimand Saudi Arabia for killing homosexuals?

The Largest Single Arms Deal in U.S. History

A massive deal of US$ 110 billion in military equipment represents not only the “largest single arms deal in U.S. history,” but also a military expenditure bigger than the military expenditure of nations vastly bigger than Saudi Arabia.
Brazil, which is territorially the fifth largest nation in the world and it is larger than the continental United States without Alaska, has an annual military budget of US$ 24 billion. By far, the small Saudi Arabia has surpassed Brazil.
Russia, which is territorially the first largest nation in the world, has an annual military budget of US$ 65 billion. By far, the small Saudi Arabia has surpassed Russia.
Besides its single colossal deal, Saudi Arabia has an annual military budget of US$ 81 billion.
What does small Saudi Arabia intend to do with its new huge military equipment purchased from the U.S.? Does Saudi Arabia intend to use all of it just for itself? Will not it be generous to its many Sunni brothers fighting for Islam around the world, especially in Syria?
Saudi’s bloody money has conquered Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump.
Because of Saudi money, ISIS is alive and active, committing genocide against Christians.

Saudi Role in the 9/11 Islamic Attack

If America and her leaders were ashamed of receiving bloody money, they would recognize the fact that most Muslims terrorists who committed the 9/11 attack were Saudis. But Saudi Arabia has never been invaded by U.S. troops.
The Saudis have long been suspected of financing the 9/11 terror attacks that hit New York and Washington.
The Islamic terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
At the time of the attacks in 2001, Saudi Arabia was funding Muslim radicalism in mosques and charities. This was bloody money going to bloody causes.
The bloody money did not stop there. After the U.S. Congress passed a new law allowing 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, Muslims mounted an expensive political campaign, including paying American military veterans to visit Capitol Hill and warn lawmakers about what they said could be unintended consequences.
What few people knew, including some of the recruited veterans themselves, was that Saudi Arabia’s government was largely paying for the effort, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Saudi bloody money has conquered America, including Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump, and will produce tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States.
With the assistance of the fat Saudi client, the U.S. employment rate will skyrocket. They are bloody jobs.
For Trump, the lucrative Saudi oil is worth more than the Christian blood spilled by Sunni Muslims backed by the Saudis.
I believe in capitalism guided by Jewish-Protestant values. But capitalism without such values is destructive.

Buying American Silence and Indifference

By paying Trump over 100 billion dollars for military equipment, Saudi Arabia has bought American indifference to the Christian genocide by Sunni Muslims and protected itself from being accused of what it is: the main sponsor of the global Islamic terrorism.
Saudi Arabia has abundant petrodollars to buy American indifference, and America has no longer Jewish-Protestant values to guide her capitalism and reject bloody money.
After two days of meetings in Saudi Arabia, Trump was scheduled to travel to Israel and the Vatican to meet with Pope Francis.
Why Trump did not make Israel the first nation of his international trip is a mystery baffling conservatives and defying the rhetoric of U.S.-Israel friendship.
Yet, even if Trump had chosen to visit Saudi Arabia in the end of his list of international trips, this would not change the fact that Saudi Arabia has been spreading Islamic terrorism around the world.
The only proper U.S. visit to Saudi Arabia should be by U.S. troop.
With information from DailyMail, Associated Press, ABC News, Religious Freedom Coalition and WND.
Portuguese version of this article: Dinheiro de sangue: Arábia Saudita conquista Trump
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Does New Immigration Law Open Brazil’s Borders to Islamic Invasion and Drug Trafficking?


Does New Immigration Law Open Brazil’s Borders to Islamic Invasion and Drug Trafficking?

By Julio Severo
Brazilian conservatives are expressing worry that Brazil is facing the threat of Islamization with its New Law of Immigration, approved by the Brazilian Senate and sent for presidential signing. This law follows the deterioration of the political landscape of Brazil with its endemic corruption.
During an Islamic conference in Chicago in 2008, an Imam described how Brazil would become an Islamic nation within 50 years. Even though the U.S. and especially Europe are facing a massive influx Muslims and their destructive religion, why would Brazil be of interest for Muslims?
In 2014 Turkey held an Islamic summit attended by 76 Islamic leaders from 40 countries. Latin America was represented by Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Suriname, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Ecuador, Jamaica and Haiti. Turkey is the only Islamic nation in the NATO and a U.S. ally that is, as reported by WND, “perhaps the biggest al-Qaida base in the world.”
In the summit, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Islamic sailors found the New World in 1178. He said, “Muslims discovered America in 1178, not Christopher Columbus.”
He and other Islamic leaders want Latin America.
Brazil has been of interest because it is larger than the U.S. without Alaska and it is the powerhouse of South America not just due to its size but also due to the size of its economy and influence. It is said that where Brazil goes so goes South America.  Indeed.
Brazil’s contact with Islamic radicalism is not new.
During the military rule, Brazil opened the first diplomatic office of PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, an Islamic terrorist organization, in 1979. Besides, the military administration was a prominent seller of arms to Islamic nations in the Middle East.
In the past decade, the socialist Lula administration helped fund the Palestinian Authority.
More recently, the mayor of São Paulo, João Doria, a Social Democrat, sold municipal assets under the excuse that he wants to improve services. Where did he go to advertise them? To the Gulf countries. He is a strong presidential candidate for the elections next year.
The prospects are not good, but the Brazilian bad example has not been worse than the American bad example. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. government has increased its funding of the Palestinian Authority and CIA has rewarded Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of the global Islamic terrorism, for “fighting terrorism.”
If where Brazil goes, so goes South America, where America goes, so goes Brazil.
Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the fact that the Brazilian Left loves the U.S. Left’s infatuation with Islam. Because Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world, add also the inherent and historic animosity of the Catholic customs and traditions against Jews and Israel, and you have a perfect receipt for left-wingers to open the Brazilian doors to Muslims.
Since the late 1990s Saudi Arabia has been supporting the building of mosques and madrassas in Brazil, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).
Saudi Arabia is the main Islamic ally of the United States in the Middle East, and this alliance has facilitated the Saudi expansion of a radical form of Islam, including in Brazil.
There has been an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders to government officials at municipal, state and federal levels in Brazil. There has also been increasing activity involving public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots.
But Islam has not made an impact on the local population as its leaders would like. The only way for a faster growth is by fostering Muslim immigration to Brazil. There has been a concerted effort linking government officials, NGOs (including U.S. groups as the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, etc.), Christian groups and Islamic leaders to open the doors for more immigrants and refugees. All of them have supported the New Law of Immigration, which has been criticized by Brazilian conservatives.
Why would Christian groups have an interest in Islamic immigration?
Catholic writer Cliff Kincaid said, “According to their financial statement for 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops received over $79 million in government grants to provide benefits to refugees.”
He added that the U.S. government gave more than $1.5 billion to several other Catholic organizations over the past two years.
So Christian groups, especially the Catholic Church, are paid millions in dollars to facilitate invasion of Islamic immigrants in the U.S.
Would Christian groups in Brazil have different interests and profits?
In Brazil, among Catholics, the most prominent institution defending the New Law of Immigration is the traditionally left-wing powerful Catholic National Conference of Bishops of Brazil. Among Protestants, ANAJURE has issued a public manifesto defending the new law.
ANAJURE’s manifesto has no mention of Christians or Christianity and, considering that its director, Uziel Santana, visited a mosque for a meeting with Islamic leaders and a partnership with Muslim groups, what is the interest in its advocacy of the New Law of Immigration?
Yet, VINACC, which was instrumental in the foundation of ANAJURE, has strongly criticized the new law.
Senator Aloysio Nunes, himself a former communist guerrilla fighter, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the author of the New Law of Immigration that, among other things, open Brazil’s borders.
This law, in practical terms, leaves Brazilian migration policy in the hands of international organizations, especially the United Nations, without limiting the number of immigrants coming to Brazil. As the Minister of Justice said: There may be one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand per year, everyone is welcome. It turns out that Brazil cannot provide for its people, with tens of millions living in poverty. How can it provide for “one hundred thousand refugees per year”?
Brazil is facing confrontations of the worst kind. A crisis of confidence, a moral crisis, an economic crisis, unemployment with tens of millions of unemployed people, an overloading of social security, a serious crisis in its public health system, and an excessive tax burden that hampers economic prosperity. There are 60,000 murders per year, 38,000 rapes, and 7.6 million illegal weapons crossing Brazilian borders, and an undisputed level of power for organized crime and drug traffickers.
Considering that the European Union has already expressed its interest in relocating Muslim refugees outside of Europe, is Brazil in danger of becoming the Islamic sewer of the European Union?
Will the New Law of Immigration facilitate the Islamic ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Turkey?
With information from Israel, Islam and End Times.
Recommended Reading: