Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Anal Sex: Love or Harm?


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 and WebMD.
Portuguese version of this article: Sexo anal: Amor ou Dano?
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, August 18, 2016

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


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

By Julio Severo
Anti-Russia activists had a powerful argument 30 years ago. There was the Soviet Union, ruled by ruthless communist dictators, and there was a democratic America ruled by conservative evangelical Ronald Reagan, who prized freedom and Christian values. While the Soviet Union praised atheism, Reagan did exactly the contrary by proclaiming 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”
Donald Trump
Reagan, who said that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire, defeated it through the Bible and strategic and intelligent diplomacy.
Today, the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, Russia is more conservative and prizes its Orthodox Christianity and America, which is the largest Protestant nation in the world, is less conservative and less Christian. Today, America has no Reagan, but just a Kenyan-born, crypto-Islamic and open homosexualist president, who cannot be exposed by his deceptions and socialism because any criticism of him is treated as “racism.”
So 30 years ago are gone and Russia and America have changed. But anti-Russia activists have not followed these changes. They remain tucked in the Cold War mentality.
In a recent report titled “Is Trump a Russian agent? Top Kremlinologist presents a tantalising and disturbing dossier on why the presidential hopeful could have closer links to the Kremlin than it may appear,” DailyMail listed a number of reasons why top anti-Russia journalist Edward Lucas thinks that Russia is the biggest threat and why U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump might be a “Russian agent.”
Months ago, I was wondering why anti-Russia activists in Brazil were not accusing Trump of being a KGB agent. I addressed their inconsistency in my article “Is Trump a KGB Agent?
I do not need to wonder anymore. Lucas asked and answered, “‘Is Donald Trump a Russian agent?’ While the answer may be no, he is certainly what the original Soviet leader Lenin called a ‘useful idiot’ — referring to those in the West who ignored mass murder and chose to support the great Communist project.”
By this question and answer, a reader would understand that Lucas sees Russia as communist and he wants an anticommunist American candidate to fight Russia. Of course, Trump is not his candidate.
Then he complains, “Russian spies have also broken into computers related to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton four times, stealing a trove of documents that cast an unflattering light on the party’s internal machinations. They have also gained access to the emails of Mrs Clinton…”
So “communists” (in his Cold War mentality) gained access to the emails of Mrs Clinton. So is she an anticommunist? Is she against the progressive and socialist ideology? Is she against abortion and sodomy, which are a top priority of the progressive and socialist ideology?
In his book “God and Hillary Clinton,” published by HarperCollins, conservative author Paul Kengor portrays Clinton as a progressive Methodist. Progressive is another term for socialist.
Why then does Lucas see “communism” in Russia, but he does not see it in Clinton?
To confirm his anti-Russia bias, Lucas mentions that “former CIA boss Michael Morell said that he had ‘no doubt’ Putin viewed Trump as an ‘unwitting agent.’” Yet, he does not mention that Morell praises Muslims in CIA, especially a Muslim who for ten years, under Bush and Obama, was director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. He does not also mention that Morell is endorsing Hillary.
So to fight “communism” in Russia anti-Russia activists are supposed to praise Muslims in CIA and endorse socialist Hillary, who is actively pro-abortion and pro-sodomy?
To prove Trump’s “Soviet” ties, Edward Lucas presents a list of economic ventures between Russians and Trump over the years. He points how Trump is receiving Russian money. He does not seem to care that these were capitalist ventures — highly hated by real communists. He does not seem to care about the reality. Trump is not poor. He is a billionaire. He does not need money from anyone. If he is receiving money from Russian for capitalist ventures, he is just showing that he is a capitalist, and Russians are equally showing that they are also capitalists!
Even so, citing the Washington Post, Lucas said, “Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.”
He also said, “Trump’s son, Donald Jnr, boasted to a property industry conference in 2008: ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.’ In the same speech, he said that he had visited Russia six times in the previous 18 months.”
His anti-Trump criticism is laced with a number of mentions of “Soviets,” “KGB” and other Cold War adjectives.
His profoundly negative dossier, as mentioned in DailyMail to denounce Trump and his “Soviet” ties, was written to torpedo Trump’s presidential campaign and help Hillary.
Lucas is bitterly critical of Trump because, as he said, “Trump is friendly to Russia.”
He complains, “Another damning factor in Trump’s relations with Russia is the composition of his inner circle. Paul Manafort, his election campaign chairman, has benefited from multi-million-dollar business deals with pro-Russian oligarchs. He was a close adviser to Viktor Yanukovych, the disgraced Ukrainian president who was toppled in 2014.”
Lucas fails to mention that the democratically-elect Yanukovych was overthrown by a revolution backed by the leftist billionaire George Soros, Obama and his leftist administration and many prominent neocons. U.S. conservatives denounced this coup. So if Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman, was on Yanukovych’ side, he was against Obama and his neocons. Is this so bad for Lucas?
Obama, Soros and neocons wanted a Ukraine open to the sodomy agenda. Does Lucas think that this is ok? I do not know Manafort’s reasons to be against the Ukrainian coup, but he was right.
Lucas also complains about other members of Trump’s inner circle, “Even more startling is the behaviour of one of America’s top spymasters, General Michael Flynn, who now advises Donald Trump. A former head of the Pentagon’s in-house intelligence service, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the wiry, crop-haired spy chief stunned his former colleagues by visiting Moscow in December 2015, where he sat close to Mr Putin at a dinner… Another foreign policy adviser in the Trump campaign is Carter Page, who has spent much of his career in Russia… He justifies Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine, dismissing that country’s pro-democracy revolution and pro-Western leadership.”
According to Lucas, Trump is qualified to be a “Russian agent,” not a U.S. president. He said,
When Mr Putin wrote an article lambasting America’s role as the world’s policeman, Trump called it a masterpiece.
In 2007, he praised Putin for rebuilding Russia.
A year later he added, in a reference to the then President: “He does his work well; much better than our [President George W.] Bush.”
Trump praises the taciturn former KGB man who runs Russia for his leadership.
Then Lucas says, “What the Russian leader wants to do is to help him — notably by undermining Mrs Clinton, the only person who can keep Trump out of the White House.”
Hillary is the only person also who can keep homosexuality as top priority in the U.S. foreign policy, which she, under Obama, had been doing as State Secretary.
There were also many dealings between Hillary, when she was the U.S. State Secretary, and Russia. But perhaps Lucas favors Hillary because after the Obama administration began its sanctions against Russia over a Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents, the dealings stopped. But Trump has never stopped his efforts of friendship with Russia.
What is worrying and enraging Lucas is not the U.S. and its recent socialist administration, which has put homosexuality as top priority in their foreign policies, including imposing the homosexual doctrine on other nations. They even tried to force Russia to submit to it.
What is worrying and enraging Lucas is the prospect of a Trump administration seeking friendlier relations with the current conservative and Orthodox Christian Russia.
I do not know if Trump will survive the onslaught of criticism and pressure from neocons, left-wing Hillary Clinton and other anti-Russia activists as Edward Lucas, but if the times have changed, and Russia and America have changed, Trump is a fresh air away from the moldy Cold War atmosphere.
I would like Trump to get also a fresh air away from the moldy gay ideology atmosphere. In this point, he could learn a lot from Russia.
Weak-minded simple people could equate anti-Russian views with anti-communism, but this is far away from reality.
In 2014 I attended a pro-family meeting at the Kremlin, in Moscow, with several prominent pro-family leaders from the United States.
The Americans were under threat from feminist, homosexualist and left-wing Americans, who wanted the U.S. State Department to investigate them for violating the sanctions the Obama administration was imposing on Russia.
No, these were not anticommunist Americans threatening “communist” Americans visiting “communist” Russians in Moscow. These were socialist Americans threatening pro-family Americans who were visiting pro-family Russians in Moscow.
Edward Lucas and other anti-Russia activists do not stop to think that if their case against Russia is over communism, why support Hillary Clinton, whose policies are more socialist (including a strident abortion and sodomy advocacy) than the modern Russia? If they cared about socialism, they would admit that socialists are in the White House and that these socialists are against Russia.
This is about nationalism, which is strongly anti-Russia among conservative and socialist Americans, but it is not strongly anti-Islam, and Donald Trump is radically changing the ideological nationalistic landscape shared equally by conservative and leftist Americans. Neocons, whose radical nationalism dominates the conservative and socialist camps in America, are avid anti-Russia troublemakers and warmongers.
If anti-Russia activists need a candidate to keep the Obama sanctions against Russia, Trump is not their candidate. Hillary is. But just remember: both Hillary and Obama are socialists!
The simple message seems to be: to be an American communist is OK, but it is not OK to be a capitalist or communist Russian.
Another message seems to be: It is OK to be Muslim, but is not OK to be Russian.
Therefore, the ideological fight against Russia today is about irrational nationalism, not rational anticommunism. I am anti-communism, anti-socialism and anti-leftism, and this is the reason I am against Obama and Hillary. This is the reason I supported Reagan and opposed the Soviet Union. In that time, I contacted the U.S. Embassy in Brazil expressing my support to Reagan, and I sent encouraging letters to Christian prisoners in Soviet camps.
As a pro-family activist, my reason to support Russia today is its incomparable law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. This reason also includes the fact that Russia has been defending traditional values in the United Nations. But pro-family values do not seem the reason Trump has been the biggest American cheerleader for Russia. Trump’s reason seems exclusively capitalist or economic: Russia has been a very good partner for his capitalist ventures.
If embracing capitalist ventures makes you a capitalist, what is hindering Lucas from seeing Russia as capitalist? And if endorsing an avid supporter (Hillary) of a very socialist gay and abortion agenda makes you a socialist, should Lucas be spared?
So Lucas shares more ideological interests with socialists than Trump does.
The accusation of anti-Russian activists that Trump is receiving Russian money because he needs it to fund his presidential campaign is ridiculous because Trump is not poor. He is a billionaire, and he makes business with anyone, Russian or not.
In the Cold War days, you were a Russian agent if you advocated socialist interests. Now if you do not support socialist Hillary Clinton and her abortion and sodomy agenda, you are a Russian agent too!
If it is important for America to make sodomy a priority and massively impose it on other nations, it is equally important for conservative Christians to support nations resisting this stupid imposition.
The Cold War does not exist anymore, but its moldy mentality is making its adherents crazy and irrational in regard to what is more important for pro-Reagan conservative Christians: conservative and Christian values.
The only thing worrying me is not neocons’ obsessions or anti-Russia concerns. It is the gay agenda and what it does to persecute Christians, deface families, destroy children’s innocence and demolish society. Hillary is sure to aggravate the homosexualist threats against Christians and families. And what about Trump, what is he going to do?
He has allied himself to Peter Thiel, the PayPal owner who has persecuted Christians. In Russia, Thiel could never do it.
Trump is better than Hillary in many respects, but in the homosexualist respect, he needs to listen and imitate Russia exactly as Russia should have listened and imitated Reagan’s America 30 years ago.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, August 15, 2016

Brazilian State Legislature of Pernambuco Establishes Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition


Brazilian State Legislature of Pernambuco Establishes Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition

By José Roitberg
The Sephardic Association in Pernambuco, Brazil, announces that state Law 15.871 has been enacted. Authored by State Representative Joel da Harpa (PTN-PE), it establishes in the official calendar in the state of Pernambuco March 31st as Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition.
This was a historic victory, which will honor our Jewish ancestors who were victims for more than 300 years of religious persecution in Brazil.
Law of Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition
“May this day be a landmark in our history, and may we annually remember Sephardic Jews who came to Pernambuco and here built their families and, resiliently, resisted all kinds of oppression, remaking a different way of keeping themselves Jews (through Crypto-Judaism), and making possible for us today to recover our roots! And may this day be also a day to fight all forms of religious intolerance.”

To know more about the subject, we recommend the Museum of the History of the Inquisition (www.museudainquisicao.org.br) and to watch our full report on this museum in Brazil on YouTube.
Translated by Julio Severo from the original in Portuguese of the Brazilian Jewish website Menorah Net: Assembleia Legislativa de Pernambuco cria Dia em Memória dos Judeus Vítimas da Inquisição
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, August 07, 2016

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


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

By Julio Severo
Donald Trump has become a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin, presenting “dangers” to American national security that would only grow if he obtains the White House, said a former CIA director who also explained that Muslims do not present dangers to America.
Michael Morell, a CIA officer under Republican President Bush and Democratic President Obama, said Friday in a New York Times op-ed that he is endorsing Hillary Clinton in the presidential race because she is “highly qualified” and Trump is not. 
And if you ask why the U.S. has experienced remarkable failure in its war against terror, Morell unintentionally explains it in his praise of a Muslim serving as the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. He said that the Center was directed by this Muslim for nearly a decade, during the presidency of Bush and Obama. Morell said that he cannot name the director of this CIA agency, but he highly praises him as the Muslim “most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.”
If in the War against Terror (and this is Islamic terror) CIA has an Islamic director to fight Islamic terror, what had CIA in the Cold War? A Soviet Russian director in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center? Sorry, but it is very hard not get a fit of laughter over CIA and its blunders. “Get Smart” is smarter than this.
“Mr. Trump has taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States,” Morell writes.
Trump has responded in kind and called Putin a “great leader,” he said.
Trump is “damaging our national security,” he argues, and he’s fraternizing with Putin.
Morell warned in the op-ed that Putin, who has been accused by the Obama administration of killing and jailing journalists and political opponents, is manipulating Trump, who has not cared about what Putin has done in Russia, while Morell has not cared about what Muslims have done in America. Only in the 9/11 terrorist attack, approximately 3,000 Americans were killed. Even so, Muslims occupy high-ranking posts in CIA. What about if Russians had been responsible for the 9/11 attack? Would Morell warmly welcome a Soviet Russian as CIA director? Would he praise Soviet Russians in high-ranking posts in CIA? So why is he praising Muslims in CIA?
In spite of the fact that the greatest threat today is Islam, Trump has been heavily criticized by right-wing and left-wing Americans for wanting friendly relations with Putin and Russians and for not wanting such relations with Muslims.
U.S. nationalistic interests, supported by both right-wing and left-wing Americans, see Islam as an ally and Russia, which is the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world, as eternal enemy.
It is a suicidal nationalism that embraces Muslims as allies. Allies against whom? Russia.
Right-wing and left-wing Americans are united in an anti-Russia nationalistic fanaticism that is willing to embrace Islam and its adherents.
How exactly, according to Morell, is Hillary “highly qualified” and Trump is not?
Morell’s support of Hillary is in harmony with CIA’s politics. Former CIA agent Osama bin Laden created al-Qaeda in the late 1970s to unite Muslims in Afghanistan against Soviet Union. Why does Morell think other Muslim agents in high-ranking posts in CIA could not imitate bin Laden?
In the WND report “Declassified docs: Hillary aided rise of ISIS,” Jerome R. Corsi said, “More than 100 pages of previously classified Department of Defense and Department of State documents implicate the Obama administration in a cover-up to obscure the role Hillary Clinton and the State Department played in the rise of ISIS.” The report mentions shipments of weapons to ISIS.
Another WND report says that CIA has directly been delivering weapons to Syrian Muslim rebels. Many of these rebels, who have connections to al-Qaeda and ISIS, have been raping, torturing and slaughtering multitudes of Orthodox Christians in Syria.
Certainly, Hillary is “highly qualified” to support Islamists against Christians. In contrast, Trump is highly qualified to support Orthodox Christian Russia against Islamists.
So why are right-wing and left-wing Americans willing to go along with Islam, not Russia?
Why are these Americans, including CIA directors, warmongers against Russia, but not warmongers against Islam? Why are they very comfortable with Islam and its adherents, but not comfortable with an Orthodox Christian Russia?
Because Trump is going along with Russia, not Islam, they are indignant.
So America had a Muslim as director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center for ten years. Now she has Muslim John Brennan as CIA director. And she is besieged by Islamic terror. And what is the concern of right-wing and left-wing Americans? Russia!
Michael Morell wants a Trump against Russia, not against Islam. And because Trump does not fit his neocon mentality, Morell prefers endorsing Hillary, who has proven her high qualities by helping ISIS and supporting the Obama boycotts and sanctions against Russia over a Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents, even though the official excuse by the Obama administration is that Russia annexed Crimea, which for centuries belonged to Russia.
When he was asked on ABC whether he would support the Crimea annexation, Trump said: “I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
In the time of Soviet Union, it made sense to fight this evil empire. This is why I fervently supported Ronald Reagan in that time. But Soviet Union is 25 years gone and the greatest threat today is Islam and it makes sense now to support an American candidate against Islam. Trump is such man. Trump challenges the nationalistic paradigms that favor Islam against Russia.
Americans who endorse Hillary do not care about Christians being raped, tortured and slaughtered by ISIS and other Islamic groups supported by her. Certainly, the Muslim director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center did not care. And does current Muslim CIA director care?
Trump’s campaign dismissed Morell’s criticism, linking the ex-CIA director to the Obama administration’s public response defending Hillary after the September 2012 Islamic attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Obama administration officials tried to play down the role of Islamist militants in the attacks.
In his Twitter account, Trump responded to Morell’s op-ed by saying: “Wow, folks! Former CIA chief Michael Morell calls me Putin’s Agent. Endorses Clinton. A TOTAL & COMPLETE DISASTER!!”
Clinton’s campaign subsequently posted a video to her Twitter account drudging up Trump’s past statements about Putin, whom he invited last week to hack her emails.
Alongside the video was a statement that said: “We don’t know why Trump and Putin praise each other so much and share many foreign policies. We’ll let you guess.”
With his vast experience as a former CIA director, Morell is resolute and he promised, “On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.”
He will be not alone. If Hillary intends to support Islam, keep the Obama sanctions against Russia and promote abortion and sodomy ideologies, she has already a major ally: The Communist Party USA, which officially nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton as their undisputed candidate for president of the United States.
Pro-Islam nationalism is a disaster.
With information from DailyMail, WND and Reuters.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

A Trap for Trump


A Trap for Trump

Democrats use Muslim to ruin Trump’s candidacy

By Julio Severo
A perfect trap was set for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. His Democratic socialist opponent Hillary Clinton put in the Democratic National Convention last week Khizr Khan, a Muslim speaker, who viciously attacked Trump.
Hillary is not a match for Trump. This is why she needed to resort to a low trick. While Trump brought Peter Thiel, a Republican homosexual, to give a speech at the Republican National Convention to offend conservative Christians by saying that he is proud about his homosexuality, Hillary brought a Muslim to offend Trump by saying that he is proud about Islam.
In Khizr Khan he has finally met his match. In the convention, Khan said, “If it was up to Donald Trump he never would have been in America,” in reference to his dead son and Trump’s plans to ban non-American Muslims from the United States.  
All the U.S. conservative and leftist media is attacking for days Trump, because Khan’s main argument was that his son, a captain in the U.S. Army, was killed in combat in the Iraq War in 2004. Hillary called the late soldier “the best of America.” 
Democrats and Republicans are attacking Trump.
Socialists and conservatives are attacking Trump.
“I don’t know where the bottom is,” sneered Hillary, rejoicing that at last Trump was ensnared.
But the real bottom, said liberal journalist Piers Morgan addressing Hillary, “It’s using grieving parents who lost their son in an illegal, unethical, immoral war that YOU voted for, as a political weapon.”
The Iraq War that killed Khan’s son was approved by then Senator Hillary Clinton, who now uses Khan to attack Trump.
Morgan said about this war, “This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of modern America.”
Both George W. Bush and Hillary approved it. From a Christian and humanitarian perspective, this war was a total disaster for Christians.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today, they number 300,000. The U.S. military presence in Iraq did not protect Christians and even after the genocide, the U.S. has massively opened its immigration doors to Muslims, not their Christian victims.
The ten Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were not from Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia. Why did not the U.S. invade and attack Saudi Arabia, which is, in fact, the biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism?
Saddam Hussein was not a good man, but at least he protected Christian minorities much better than the U.S. did after the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military mission in Iraq was a failure and eventually brought ISIS and chaos and genocide to Christians.
In no way Khizr Khan is an innocent “American” patriot. According to WND (WorldNetDaily), he “has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the Clinton Foundation.”
Now, Khan has deleted his law firm website that specialized in Islamic immigration to the U.S. to try to hide his dark secrets. He was being paid to bring more and more Muslims to the U.S.
But the American public is so blind about the Islamic reality, especially when covered up by a supposed American patriotism, that they are attacking Trump.
Veterans of Foreign Wars, which was praising Trump, now attacks him and defends Khan.
Arizona Senator John McCain, who was a Republican presidential candidate in the 2008 election and a hawkish neocon who helped stir a revolution in Ukraine against Russia, told Khizr Khan, “thank you for immigrating to America,” while expressing how much he disagrees with Trump over his call to ban non-American Muslims from entering the United States. 
House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican Catholic, also rebuked Trump, saying a “religious test for entering our country is no reflection” of American values. He does not know the history of his country! Actually, when America had such tests in the time of her founders, she was better and more Christian. Now she does not know what she is.
Trump tried to react to the massive attacks, which essentially defended Khan and his Islamic ideology, saying: “This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!”
But it was to no avail. Everybody are united with Khan and against Trump. Conservatives, liberals, hard-core Marxists, hawkish neocons. Everybody.
Trump saw rightly. This is about Islam. While he was facing an Islamic trap set by Hillary, Pope Francis was saying, “It’s not true and it’s not correct (to say) Islam is terrorism.” But he did not face the massive hurricane of criticism Trump did.
The pope added: “I believe that in every religion there is always a little fundamentalist group. I don’t like to talk of Islamic violence because every day, when I go through the newspapers, I see violence, this man who kills his girlfriend, another who kills his mother-in-law. And these are baptized Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic violence.”
As for the Islamic State group, he said it “presents itself with a violent identity card, but that’s not Islam.”
The European and U.S. media have not attacked the pope for such remarks. Hillary, Obama, John McCain and hawkish neocons have not attacked the pope for such remarks.
But all of them want Trump to soften his stance on Islam. And all of them want him to harden his stance on Russia.
After the daily, relentless attacks by all of them using Khan against Trump’s hard stance on Islam, they are now targeting his “soft” stance on Russia. Besieged by all sides by a powerful media hurricane supporting Khan, Trump seems to be willing to make some sacrifices and backtrack on Russia for the sake of Khan and Islam.
The whole media is attacking him over Russia. When he was asked on ABC whether he would support the Crimea annexation, Trump said: “I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
Most of Crimea is populated with ethnic Russians. But, for geopolitical interests and neocons’ ambitions, the Obama administration has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Russian referendums in Crimea.
Trump, though, suggested the U.S. should accept Russia’s annexation if it would lead to better relations with Russia and stronger cooperation in fighting ISIS militants.
Obama imposed economic sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea two years ago. But according Dr. Scott Lively, this was a pretext. Actually, Obama provoked and used the Ukrainian chaos to chastise Russia for defying his homosexual imperialism.
The United Nations also doesn’t recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and some top hawkish Republicans staunchly defend the U.S. geopolitical interests in Crimea against what they consider Russian “aggression,” when in reality there was no aggression.
Under Trump, the Republican Party platform softened a stance on military involvement in Ukraine. Although the platform is not pro-Russia, Trump supporters succeeded in preventing a neocon reference to arming Ukraine from being added. 
Many in the U.S., in the conservative and leftist camps, are displeased by his focus on Islam, not Russia. Neocons are working hard to change his focus. And the Khizr Khan case is helping both camps.
In a searing denouncement on defense of Khan, President Obama castigated Trump as “unfit” and “woefully unprepared” to serve in the White House. He challenged Republicans to withdraw their support for their presidential candidate, declaring “There has to come a point at which you say ‘enough.’”
“I think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president,” said Obama, who noted his opposition to Trump replacing him goes beyond policy differences with his 2008 and 2012 opponents, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
“I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as president,” he said. “I think I was right and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job.”
If the U.S. is to have a Republican president, Obama supports Romney or McCain. Trump, never.
If Khan were Russian, Obama, McCain, Romney, the whole Democratic Party, the whole Republican Party and the whole (liberal and conservative) media would be supporting Trump. But he is Muslim, and this grants him special privileges.
Hillary introduced Muslim Khan in the elections to ensnare Trump, and Trump seems to have fallen into the trap. Why did Trump introduce Peter Thiel, the PayPal founder? To ensnare conservatives? To lead the conservative moment to fall into a trap? In 2011, I was victim of Thiel’s abusive power favoring the homosexual movement. You can watch this Catholic video (https://youtu.be/fSSjmMwQNn4) and this evangelical video (https://youtu.be/oZ8fzSkiB5A) on my case.
Definitely, it was not cool for Hillary to use Khan to provoke Trump. And it was not cool for Trump to let the Republican Party and his staff use Thiel to provoke conservative Christians.
While neocons want everybody worried and panicked over Russia, so that they may keep profiting from arm trade and wars, it is Islam that is showing a formidable capability of defeating Trump through democratic weapons used by liberals and misguided or false conservatives and blind patriots.
If Trump does not follow neocons’ interests, they will have everybody worried and panicked over him. From Hillary’s trap to neocons’ trap.
They want him to make certain sacrifices. Russia will be one of them. Islam? Never.
With information from DailyMail, WND and Associated Press.
Portuguese version of this article: Uma armadilha para Trump
Recommended Reading: