Monday, April 17, 2017

Blogger ordered to pay $6,000 for protesting taxpayer funding of transgender group


Blogger ordered to pay $6,000 for protesting taxpayer funding of transgender group

Steve Weatherbe
CAMPO GRANDE, Brazil, April, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A Brazilian Catholic blogger was ordered to pay a US$6,000 fine after his conviction for hate speech against homosexuals.
Roberto Flavio Calvacanti published the offending article on his blog “Catholicism and Conservatism” in 2007. Federal prosecutors characterized it as “clear hate speech and incompatible with human respect and dignity.”
His post called for the public to protest a proposal before Campo Grande city council to fund the Transvestite and Transsexual Association of Mato Grosso do Sul. He declared, “It is the limit of villainy to consider giving taxpayer money to the main hosts of infectious and communicable diseases as AIDS and syphilis.”
The article continued, “Evidently, Campo Grande has more moral and urgent needs for tax money than funding an association of transvestites. In a little while they may propose tax money to pedophiles. If you are also against the State funding homosexuality and faggoting, visit the website and vote NO.”
Fellow pro-family and pro-life blogger Julio Severo, who fled Brazil in 2009 to avoid prosecution for a similar offense, argued on his own blog that Brazilian prosecutors have tolerated far worse offenses against Christians without taking action. “Left-wing activists who advocate the homosexualist movement have inserted, publicly, crucifixes in their anuses as a form of protest with no fear of being prosecuted,” he said.
However, prosecutors charged that Calvacanti “is a provoker of moral pain and suffering to the LGBT community in Campo Grande through this offense against the rights of personhood of those people.”
Calvacanti argued that Brazilian law does not recognize homosexuals as a group that can be discriminated against. He also challenged the role of the prosecutors, who appeared to be acting as lawyers for the transvestite and transsexual association.
The judge, who Calvacanti claimed makes regular appearances on TV newscasts advocating the LGBT agenda, agreed with the prosecutors and dismissed Calvacanti’s arguments. In his ruling, the judge stated, “It does not matter if this person is male or female, is black or white, religious or atheist, heterosexual or homosexual. Everyone has the right to live as they wish, especially in intimacy, without anyone being allowed to incite hatred.”
The action against Calvacanti follows closely a similar conviction against politician Levy Fidelix and a US$8,000 fine for remarks he made while contesting the Brazilian presidency in the 2104 election.
Severo expressed hope that free speech about homosexuality might be restored to Brazil by “the extraordinary growth of conservative evangelical movements that are pushing Brazilian politics to the right.”
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Hank Hanegraaff and Confusions


Hank Hanegraaff and Confusions

By Julio Severo
Was Hank Hanegraaff, a prominent apologist against the Prosperity Gospel, raised in a Calvinist or Arminian home? Was he brought to Christ in a Calvinist or Arminian church?
Hank Hanegraaff being received in the Greek Orthodox Church
Is Hanegraaff’s background of waging wars against the Prosperity Gospel Calvinist or Arminian?
Brazilian Calvinist theologian Franklin Ferreira thinks that the answer is Arminian. He said in his Facebook page,
“Hanegraaff was a prominent popular apologist and wrote one of the best books against the prosperity ‘gospel,’ ‘Christianity in Crisis,’ published in Brazil by CPAD (which launched other four of his books). He was Arminian, and in spite of critical of the Reformed view (there are audios and texts by Hanegraaff published by the website Society of Evangelical Arminians), he joined forces with Calvinists to fight the heresy of the prosperity message.”
Even though CPAD is a Pentecostal and Arminian publishing house, a book published by them is no proof that the author is Arminian. If so, John MacArthur, a strident cessationist Calvinist theologian, would be an Arminian. MacArthur has several books published by CPAD.
Yes, the Society of Evangelical Arminians mentioned Hanegraaff as an “Arminian author” in recent years.
So was Hanegraaff raised in an Arminian home? Was he brought to Christ in an Arminian church? Was the main influence in his life, before his apologetic ministry, Arminian?
In the website of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), its own director, Hanegraaff, affirmed that he is not an Arminian. CRI defends Calvinism in several of its articles.
The Theopedia website says that “Hanegraaff was born in the Netherlands and raised in the United States in the Christian Reformed Church.”
Theopedia explains that “The Christian Reformed Church… has roots in the Dutch Reformed churches in the Netherlands, but find their true Reformed roots in John Calvin from the Reformation.”
Rev. D. James Kennedy, of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, said decades ago,
“Hank was brought to Christ through the ministry of this church, of which he then became a member. I employed him some time later at Evangelism Explosion International in the Development Department. It was here that he learned his basic knowledge of the Scriptures. Here that he learned to evangelize. Here that he learned Mnemonics, the science of memory. It was from here and from me that he learned most of the things needed to get the position that he now holds.”
With this strong Presbyterian background, Hanegraaff became the president of the Christian Research Institute.
With this strong Presbyterian background, Hanegraaff became an apologist against the Prosperity Gospel.
The surprise is not that he began to call charismatics “heretics.” Eventually, he called even his former pastor D. James Kennedy a “heretic” too. As quoted by the Walter Martin Ministries Blog, Kennedy said,
“In conclusion, much of what Hank has learned he learned at this church and through my other ministries. I have tried in every way to be helpful to him. I have also endeavored to be gracious in spite of the many letters I have received accusing him of plagiarizing my book. In spite of all this, for some reason, totally unbeknownst to me, he has started attacking me on his public radio program. And as I just recently heard, has now had the temerity to call me a heretic. I have been called all manner of names by the enemies of the Cross, but one name I have never been called before is heretic. Given my 42 years of ministry, almost 50 books that I have published, the thousands of radio and television programs which have been broadcast here and around the world, it is almost laughable to think that we must wait until this late date to have it discovered by no less a scholar than Hank Hanegraaff that I am a heretic.”
This is the problem of Calvinism and its environment, especially of the cessationist variety: baseless wars and accusations of “heresy,” which ultimately hits everyone.
Franklin Ferreira said that Hanegraaff allied himself, apparently as an outsider, to Calvinists to fight the “heresy” of the Prosperity Gospel. Actually, he was not an outsider. He was inside the Calvinist camp!
The Calvinist camp has not been hit by the Prosperity Gospel. In fact, the major problems affecting Presbyterian churches are abortion and sodomy advocacy. No one of these problems, including theological liberalism, are caused by the Prosperity Gospel. All of them are caused by the Social Gospel, which is similar to the Theology of Integral Mission, which is the Protestant version of Liberation Theology.
So instead of fighting internal problems that directly affect them, many Calvinists prefer directing their attacks to external problems not affecting them.
Hanegraaff began by demonizing ministers of the Prosperity Gospel and eventually demonized his own former Presbyterian minister… Confusion leading to confusion.
Not only Calvinist churches in Europe, U.S. and Brazil are suffering from socialist theological influences, but the whole Brazilian society is also suffering from socialist influences.
If Calvinist or Reformed eyes cannot see the reality, through Bible or supernatural vision, which many of them reject in their cessationist unbelief, God will use a “stone” (a non-Christian mind) to see and cry out. This is what is happening.
This week, Rodrigo Constantino, a Brazilian conservative secular and non-Protestant writer, published an article titled “Democracy and the Prosperity Gospel,” written by Claudir Franciatto, who said,
“While the large part of the Brazilian society that is not evangelical restricts itself to call ministers, bishops and apostles of neo-Pentecostal (charismatic) churches ‘thieves’… [those ministers, bishops and apostles] are bringing to Brazil — secretly and imperceptibly — certain ‘Anglo-Saxon spirit’ of courage, pioneerism and positive individual attitude, which shaped a nation like the United States. This spirit was and is very necessary.”
Claudir added,
“Neo-Pentecostal ministers do not stimulate members to pray and remain sitting on their pews, but to act — within and outside the church.”
Yet, evangelicals cannot accept this “Anglo-Saxon spirit” of courage, pioneerism and positive individual attitude, because Hanegraaff, Ferreira and other theologians influenced by a cessationist Calvinism think and preach that the Prosperity Gospel is “heresy.”
If it is easy for Ferreira to call the Prosperity Gospel a “heresy,” can he call the Social Gospel or the Theology of Integral Mission a heresy?
Can he call cessationism a heresy? Theological liberalism (with its aftermath of abortion and sodomy advocacy) thrives on unbelief of a living and supernatural God working today.
Based on the Society of Evangelical Arminians, Ferreira said that Hanegraaff is an Arminian. Hanegraaff denied it. This is confusion.
Actually, when the Society of Evangelical Arminians said in recent years that Hanegraaff was an Arminian, he was already in the process of conversion to the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, Christianity Today said that his move to the Greek Orthodox Church took a decade. So it is no wonder that in 2011 he denied that he was a Calvinist.
Hanegraaff was raised and trained in Reformed and Presbyterian environments to attack the Prosperity Gospel and other charismatic issues not affecting this environment. This is confusion.
After years calling charismatic ministers “heretics,” he eventually called his old Presbyterian minister a heretic too! This is confusion.
Jill Martin Rische, daughter of Walter Martin, who founded the Christian Research Institute in 1960, said about Hanegraaff,
“Shortly after my father, Walter Martin, died in 1989 his ministry was taken over by a man who we later discovered had a disturbing habit of ‘borrowing’ other people’s work and claiming it for his own.”
This is confusion.
When he became the president of the Christian Research Institute and wrote “Christianity in Crisis,” which attacks the Prosperity Gospel, Hank Hanegraaff had come directly not from an Arminian or Pentecostal church. He came directly from a Presbyterian church.
Now, he is in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Be it as may it, Hanegraaff did not leave cessationist Calvinism and its influences now. He did it years ago. He did not begin to attend the Greek Orthodox Church now. According to Christianity Today, he did it many years ago. The only new thing is the formal announcement that now he is an Orthodox Christian.
More confusion?
Portuguese version of this article: Hank Hanegraaff e confusões
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Olavo de Carvalho Praises Socialist Militant and Says He Would Even Work with Satan for Brazil


Olavo de Carvalho Praises Socialist Militant and Says He Would Even Work with Satan for Brazil

By Julio Severo
The title of this article was based on the original title of a BBC report in Portuguese that says, “Olavo de Carvalho Praises Suplicy and Says He Would Work with Satan for Brazil.” I had to replace Suplicy with socialist militant, because English-speaking readers do not know he is such a militant. The original BBC report covered an event called “Brazil Conference,” in Harvard. It is understandable why BBC used Suplicy. Its report, only in Portuguese, was not directed to an international audience.
BBC says,
“Reputed as an ideologically opposite extreme of councilman Eduardo Suplicy (PT-SP), philosopher Olavo de Carvalho declared that he approves the idea of a basic income of citizenship, which is a bill of Suplicy, a member of the Workers’ Party, advocating a minimum wage to every citizen in Brazil. Carvalho said that he would work with Suplicy to improve it.
“Suplicy is a very nice guy and his idea is not bad — everybody having an income,” said Carvalho in an exclusive interview to BBC Brazil in the Harvard University, in Massachusetts.
Suplicy mentioned basic income of citizenship in all of his answers. His bill proposes a basic income to every citizen, wealthy or poor, including foreigners living in Brazil for more than five years.
Carvalho added, “Basic income is morally right.”
In the ruling years of the Workers’ Party (2003-2016) Brazil began “bolsa-família,” a populist family-fund program from the Brazilian socialist government providing cash to millions of Brazilians. This program was directed only to poor families. Yet, Suplicy’s proposal is more socialistically ambitious and expansive and seeks to grant automatically free wages, or free money, to every Brazilian citizen. This is much more extensive and socialist than “bolsa-família,” which was funded by tax-payers.
Suplicy’s proposal would similarly be funded by tax-payers.
How could Carvalho improve such socialist proposal? If state socialism (funded by tax-payers) is abhorrent for him, what about Catholic socialism? Because Carvalho says that he is a Catholic, would his alternative get the Catholic Church to fund fully a free wage to every Brazilian citizen? Or what about a Masonic socialism? Considering that Carvalho has shown admiration for Freemasonry, would he interested in convincing Freemasonry to fund it?
Carvalho’s debate with Suplicy was just a microcosm of 100 other debates with Brazilian speakers and moderators. The event, held in Harvard by Harvard and MIT Brazilian students, brought together a very high number of Brazilian speakers, including former President Dilma Rousseff, Federal Judge Sérgio Moro, Supreme Court Justices Gilmar Mendes and Luís Roberto Barroso and former Senator Marina Silva. Each one of them took part in a debate with another individual with similar social prominence.
According to BBC:
The conference’s objective, according to its organizers, is to bring near individuals who are in opposite extremes.
“In Brazil, Right and Left just do not talk,” said researcher David Pares, one of the presidents of Brazil Conference, in the beginning of the week.
“People only share what they believe. We see it as an absence of dialogue between different ideals and this is the biggest problem in polarization. The conference’s idea is to help people to demystify the opposite extreme,” he said.
Carvalho fulfilled the event’s objective: he talked nicely about socialist Suplicy and about his socialist proposal. It is impressive that he called Suplicy “a very nice guy,” saying that his socialist idea “is not bad.” In contrast, he is not known for saying nice things to conservatives. In a December 2016 interview to BBC, Carvalho was presented as a right-winger fighting other prominent right-wingers in Brazil. In fact, he is known for saying not only unpleasing and immoral things about right-wing leaders, but also for actually reviling them.
Even though the event was held in Harvard, warranting spotlight and massive media visibility in the United States, the specific debate of Carvalho, held last Friday (April 7), had gained a limited spotlight only in the Portuguese service of BBC, whose English version made no report of it.
Google search shows (from a April 7-12 span in the search) no spotlight in the U.S. media for Carvalho’s debate, six days after the event.
Evidently, the American public had no interest in a Brazilian event in U.S. Even though some names of speakers are very famous in Brazil, 100 is too much to sort out through, and any name less known than Rousseff and Moro was not even considered for attention. At least, no member of the big U.S. media paid any attention.
Yet, even when the big U.S. media avoids an event, the American conservative media, which is very powerful, covers conservative speakers, especially if they are speaking in Harvard. But no member of the U.S. conservative media got involved.
Be it as it may, the microcosm of Carvalho’s debate with socialist Suplicy in no way resembled conservatism in defense or opposition to ideas. Suplicy’s proposal was not conservative.
Was Carvalho’s answer conservative? Hardly. In fact, his concept of conservatism is so misty as his esoteric past. Some weeks ago he said in his Facebook page:
So when I am introduced as a “conservative philosopher,” the only answer coming to my mind is: “Conservative is ‘puta que o pariu’ (an offensive Brazilian slang which means ‘son of a bitch’ or ‘fucking hell,’ but the real translation is: ‘a prostitute who gave birth’), who preserved you in her belly for nine months instead of dropping you in the toilet.”
With such dirty talk, it is understandable why Carvalho did not take advantage of the opportunity to defend conservative values. While Suplicy defended his socialist values, Carvalho limited himself to praise him.
In Brazil Carvalho is known for condemning “bolsa família,” but in Harvard he praised a worst socialist model of “bolsa família.” In Portuguese, never in English, Carvalho unjustly reviles Protestantism, Luther and Calvin with his typical foul mouth, but in Harvard he abstained himself from reviling this university, founded by a committed Protestant, which today is a center of Marxism, feminism, witchcraft, etc. Besides, Harvard receives funding from Saudi Arabia. Harvard deserves to be criticized.
This is not a problem for Carvalho: years ago he received an award from the Saudi dictatorship (which the U.S. media insists on calling “government”) for a biography of Mohammed he had written. If this is not to cooperate with Satan, I do not know what it is.
If, as affirmed by BBC, Carvalho would work with Satan in political dealings with socialists like Suplicy, it is something that remains to be seen, but many things have already been seen in Olavo’ history several times. According to BBC, he “worked with Satan” in the past. In his interview to the Portuguese service of BBC (not available in English) in December 2016, Carvalho talked about his involvement in astrology (he was the founder of the first school of astrologers in Brazil) and in Islamic witchcraft.
To BBC, he said that this experience was “absolutely indispensable” for his formation.
In the interview, BBC introduced Carvalho as follows:
Born in Campinas, SP, 69 years ago, a philosophy teacher having never graduated in a college and adherent of the theory that “the entity called the Inquisition is a fictional invention of Protestants,” Carvalho has been amassing opponents in the same intensity he is defended by his fans.
The BBC interview was a major breakthrough because even though Carvalho says that all the Left hates the Inquisition and uses it to attack Catholics, the massively left-wing Brazilian media has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho. BBC was the first major Portuguese channel to mention Carvalho and his defense of the Inquisition.
BBC said,
The views of this philosopher on the role of the Catholic Church have produced criticism from Brazilian evangelicals. Carvalho wrote in Twitter in 2013 that “the entity called the Inquisition is a fictional invention of Protestants.”
“Even in the popular image of the Inquisition fires, lies are predominant. Everybody believe that condemned individuals ‘died burned,’ amid horrible suffering. The flames were high, more than 16 feet high, to hinder suffering. The condemned individuals (less than ten a year in two dozen nations) died suffocated in a few minutes, before the flames could touch them.”
According to him, heretics — “less than ten a year in two dozen nations” — died suffocated before the flames could touch them. He has been criticized in the social media for such affirmation…
Two years later, he reviled Luther and Calvin, the main leaders of the Protestant Reformation. “The Catholic Church has been overcrowded by sons of bitches during the centuries, but the Protestant church was already born founded by two sons of a bitch.”
You can find more information, including a video, on his defense of the Inquisition in this article authored by me: “Olavo de Carvalho and the Inquisition.”
Carvalho is dividing the Brazilian Right on many conservative issues, including homosexuality, which he believes is natural, but he has had a major victory: he is unifying the Catholic Right with his strident pro-Inquisition discourse.
In my view, any individual who worked with the Inquisition 500 years ago worked with Satan. And any individual today who wants to sanitize the Inquisition actually works with Satan.
A deep esoteric background has made possible for Carvalho to work to rehabilitate the Inquisition.
If the Brazilian Left has never used the Inquisition to attack Carvalho, why would apostate Harvard, immersed in Marxism and Satanism, see a problem with a Brazilian working with Satan to advocate the revisionism of the Inquisition?
Recommended Reading:

Monday, April 10, 2017

Hank Hanegraaff, the Most Prominent Calvinist Theologian against Prosperity Gospel, Leaves Calvinism


Hank Hanegraaff, the Most Prominent Calvinist Apologist against Prosperity Gospel, Leaves Calvinism

By Julio Severo
Additional Reading: Hank Hanegraaff and Confusions
Known as the “Bible Answer Man,” Hank Hanegraaff was received this week, through chrismation, in the Orthodox Church. Originally a Reformed Presbyterian, he became famous in the Christian Research Institute (CRI), the conservative Protestant countercult and apologetic ministry which Walter Martin founded in 1960.
While the CRI’ founder focused on real heresies, after Martin’s death Hanegraaff became president of CRI and expanded its focus to perceived heresies, especially among Pentecostals and charismatics. Differently from Martin, the Prosperity Gospel was Hanegraaff’s special negative attention.
In contrast, his special positive attention was Calvinism. CRI published the article “Why I Am a Calvinist,” which said, “I’m not afraid to be called a Calvinist. I’ve read the Institutes multiple times, most of Calvin’s commentaries, and was voted ‘Calvin Clone’ by my peers at seminary. I thank God for Calvin.”
Hanegraaff turned CRI into a war machine against the Prosperity Gospel. He became a main reference against this theology. Even the Lausanne Movement, of the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, quoted him in the article “The Prosperity Gospel: A Critique of the Way the Bible is Used,” saying that “Hank Hanegraaff has traced the roots of many of these prosperity and faith teachers to the metaphysical cults.”
The most important meeting held by the Lausanne Movement against the Prosperity Gospel happened in Brazil in 2014, and it was led by Rev. Valdir Steuernagel, a Brazilian Lutheran minister who is a militant of the Theology of Integral Mission (TIM), which is the Protestant version of Liberation Theology.
Steuernagel’s denomination in Brazil is heavily involved in Liberation Theology, Gay Theology and TIM, but his worry is the Prosperity Gospel, which is not present in his church and has not brought the Gay Theology to his denomination.
In Brazil, Marxists and TIM militants hate the Prosperity Gospel and Marxist philosopher Marilena Chaui said that this theology is the number 1 enemy of the socialist revolution in Brazil. I do not understand this theology completely, but I see positively that it is a resistance to the socialist revolution in Brazil.
In the CRI’s list of heresies is “Charismatic/Pentecostal.” Hanegraaff even criticizes John Wimber over signs and wonders. Wimber was a Calvinist.
What kind of Calvinist was Hanegraaff if he could not accept Calvinist Wimber doing signs and wonders in the name of Jesus? Are signs and wonders against the Bible? If so, Jesus and his apostles were against the Bible.
Yet, Hanegraaff seems to have no difficulty to endorse Protestants activists who fight Israel and promote the Palestinian cause.
Hanegraaff was committed and solid in his Calvinist faith. What has happened? I do not know, but in Brazil many cessationist Calvinists who say that they have a “apologetic ministry” have focused on the Prosperity Gospel. Interestingly, this theology does not affect Calvinist churches in Brazil, Europe and America. Even so, these churches are victims of the theological liberalism brought specially by the Social Gospel (very similar to TIM), and the result is: support to abortion, sodomy, stances against Israel, etc.
The Prosperity Gospel has zero influence in these liberal problems in Calvinist churches. So it is surprising that Calvinist apologetic ministries focus on this theology and largely dismiss the Social Gospel, which affects these churches.
Hanegraaff seems to have burnt out himself advocating Calvinism and fighting the charismatic and Pentecostal movement. If he wanted traditionalism, actually a Presbyterian church is only midway to it. The Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, is the only way for those wanting to embrace total traditionalism. This was Hanegraaff’s choice.
Hank Hanegraaff being received in the Orthodox Church
Do not get me wrong. I appreciate Wimber’s Calvinism. But a Christianity without signs and wonders leaves its adherents disorientated and dry. This was Hanegraaff’s case.
Hanegraaff turned the Christian Research Institute into a war machine against Pentecostals and charismatics because he was a Calvinist.
Hanegraaff turned the Christian Research Institute into a war machine against the Prosperity Gospel because he was a Calvinist.
What about now that he has left Calvinism?
For him, was Calvinism wrong after all?
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Islamic and Christian Syrian Reaction to Trump’s Airstrike over a Suspicious Chemical Attack


Islamic and Christian Syrian Reaction to Trump’s Airstrike over a Suspicious Chemical Attack

By Julio Severo
A Syrian who introduces himself as a “medical doctor trained in the UK” and “humanitarian aid worker” was a key eyewitness on the ground during an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government, offering himself for media video interviews and uploading mobile phone footage of victims which was shared thousands of times.
His footage of people and children dying from gas shocked the world, and mobilized U.S. President Donald Trump into action. Trump ordered airstrikes against a base of the Syrian government.
Previous claims that Assad had launched chemical attacks turned out to be shaky at best. A WND (WorldNetDaily) report said, “Evidence: Syria Gas Attack Work of U.S. Allies.” And a DailyMail report said, “President Obama accused of LYING about intelligence which he said proved Assad was behind sarin gas attacks in Syria.”
The supposedly kind Syrian who made the footage is Shajul Islam. According to conservative Jewish-American writer Pamela Geller, “Islam, described as a ‘committed jihadist’ by foreign intelligence agency MI6, was tried for kidnapping John Cantlie and Jeroen Oerlemans, journalists from the UK and the Netherlands, while fighting with an Islamist group in northern Syria.”
Even so, Islam was interviewed by a number of U.S. mainstream broadcasters, including NBC News, as a reliable source for the alleged attack by Assad. After allegedly seeing one of these news shows, Trump launched missiles on the Syrian government.
The big U.S. media was careful not to reveal the terrorist identity of Islam. And it has been equally careful not to reveal that most Syrians interviewed showing support for Trump’s airstrikes are… Muslims.
According to U.S. conservative writer Don Hank,
The Saudi online news site Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (meaning “the Middle East”) ran an article under the headline “Syrian Opposition Welcomes US Strike on Regime Airbase, Urges More.” The article said, “‘Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians,’ a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. ‘The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides.’”
So who is this Mohammed Alloush, that Saudi Arabia chooses to quote? The BBC reports that “Mohammed Alloush is the political leader of the powerful, Saudi-backed group Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam). Both the Syrian government and its staunch ally, Russia, consider Jaysh al-Islam a terrorist organisation.”
RT, along with other sources, says about Jaysh al-Islam: “The Islamist group Jaysh al-Islam admitted to using chemical weapons against Kurdish militias in Aleppo. It also uses human shields and publishes execution videos – yet it has a delegation at the UN-backed Syria peace talks in Geneva.
So Islamic radicals welcomed Trump’s airstrikes. They use chemical weapons, but they accuse their main enemy: the Syrian government.

Have Syrian Christians also welcomed Trump’s airstrikes?

The leaders of Syria’s local Christians churches have generally looked to President Bashar al-Assad as their protector.
Assad is of the Baath Party. The founder of this party, which has ruled Syria since 1963, was a Christian, and Christians rose to senior positions in the party, government and security forces.
In spite of the old Christian influence in Syria, the Syrian Christian community, which is a cradle of Christianity, is dying.
One year ago, Chaldean bishop of Aleppo, Antoine Audo, said that the Christian population in Syria has been reduced by two-thirds in five years — from 1.5 million to only 500,000.
Speaking at a press conference at the UN headquarters in Geneva, Audo said that only in Aleppo the Christian population was reduced from 160,000 to 40,000. According to Breitbart, these remaining 40,000 Christians are pro-Assad and fear the Islamic rebels backed by the U.S. They fear that if these rebels gain ground, Christians will become targets, both for their faith and their support of the Syrian government.
Who can blame Syrian Christians? If with Assad is bad, with ISIS and U.S.-backed Islamic rebels is much worse.
ISIS, which according to Trump was founded by the Obama administration, has been accused of carrying out genocide against Syrian Christians. The Syrian government has been fighting ISIS and Islamic rebels at the same time. This is the major reason why Syrian Christians support Assad.
“We are facing terrorist action in the whole geography of Syria,” Rev. Ibrahim Nseir, pastor of the National Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon and the Presbyterian Church in Aleppo, told Fox News from the ISIS de-facto Syrian capital of Raqqa last year. “They are destroying our churches, killing and kidnapping Christians, stealing our homes and our businesses.”
“It was on the road to Damascus that the Apostle Paul experienced his conversion to Christianity, and Syria remains one of the few sacred locales where the language of Aramaic — the language of Jesus — can still be heard,” noted Fox News.
“In the 1920s, Christians — mainly Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox — made up nearly a third of the Syrian population,” it added. “By the time civil war erupted in 2011, Christians in Syria numbered just 2.2 million, or less than 10 percent of the nation’s population. Experts now estimate that the Christians make up less than five percent of the population.”
ISIS and Islamic rebels are devastating the Christian population in Syria.
Differently from Syria, in Saudi Arabia there is no Christian churches, and the Bible is banned. Even though Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of global Islamic terrorism and Saudi terrorists made the 9/11 attack in New York, Bush, Obama and Trump have never launched airstrikes on Saudi Arabia.

What do Muslim Syrians in the U.S. think about Trump’s airstrikes?

“I think it is a very good thing, to put it in a short answer,” said Hussein Assaf, a Syrian-American Muslim who lives in Allentown, Pennsylvania. “It is a very overdue step, a step that should have been taken years ago.”
“What I would like to see is a comprehensive military and security plan where they would put an end to Assad's killing machine,” Assaf said.
Assaf, a Hillary voter, admitted he has to give Trump some credit for taking a stand against Assad in this instance. “I have to give Mr. Trump a lot of respect,” he said.

What do Christian Syrians in the U.S. think about Trump’s airstrikes?

“The U.S. is not the world’s policeman and has no right to insert itself, uninvited, into Syria’s internal affairs,” said the Very Rev. Anthony Sabbagh, pastor of St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church in Allentown, which is the cultural center of Allentown’s Syrian Christian community.
“His action is not going to strengthen the Syrian government, which is protecting the Christians,” Sabbagh said. “It will strengthen ISIS, which is killing the Christians.”
Sabbagh said he voted for Trump thinking he would let the Syrian people determine their own fate, but he’s now regrets casting that ballot. In his mind, Assad is the only leader standing in the way of chaos fueled by ISIS and Islamic rebels.
With information from Breitbart, MCall, Pamela Geller and Laigle’s Forum.
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, April 08, 2017

Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?


Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?

By Julio Severo
U.S. President Donald Trump took the world by surprise when he ordered the U.S. military to launch a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase Thursday in reaction to a deadly chemical attack, allegedly by the Syrian government, on Islamic rebels formerly supported by Obama and now by Trump.
Dozens of rebels were killed, and at least 10 children. Republican neocons led by Senator John McCain used the attack to push Trump to attack the Syrian government. Hillary Clinton called for bombing of Assad’s airfields hours before Trump’s airstrike. 
The major problem that Trump faces in foreign policy is neocons, and he clearly identified it before his election. But now he does not recognize this problem anymore.
Yet, the reason for Trump’s attack on Syria has been disputed.
Former senator Ron Paul said:
“[I]t doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gasses. I think there is a zero chance he would have done, you know, this deliberately.”
Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily (WND) chief, said:
“I strongly disagree with President Trump’s decision to attack Syria… There are two warring parties in Syria – the Syrian government, which is attempting to repulse an invasion and partial occupation of Syrian territory, and ISIS, a terrorist plague on the entire world, not just Assad’s regime… Both of those parties have been accused of deploying sarin weapons against civilians, though I have yet to see any proof that Assad ever did… ISIS is the primary opposition to Assad.”
According to Infowars:
“The White Helmets, a al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, reportedly staged the sarin attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.”
The Syrian government has been in a deadly war against two enemies: ISIS and Islamic rebels supported formerly by Obama and now by Trump. In 2015 Obama gave to these rebels $500 million for “training.” A multimillion dollar investment against a government fighting ISIS.
To fight only against ISIS is a huge challenge. How to fight at the same time against two enemies facilitated or trained by the U.S.? Even Trump recognized last year that ISIS was founded by Obama. But he never attacked ISIS as he is attacking Syria. By attacking Syria, he is automatically helping ISIS.
Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Paul Ryan and leftists have praised Trump’s attack on Syria. Incidentally, all of them were or are in George Soros’s payroll.
But praises are not coming from conservatives.
Michael Savage, a powerful anti-neocon writer, had called Trump the “Winston Churchill of our time” in July 2015. But now, on his Thursday radio show, Savage complained, “The generals have gotten to him and turned him from peace with Russia. And the people standing in the way of war, like Steve Bannon, are being shown the door. This beating of the war drums with Russia has to stop.”
Alex Jones, of Infowars, said in February that he was “ready to die for Trump.” Now that Trump launched airstrikes against Syria, Jones said on a Friday livestream, “Trump is really disintegrating in my eyes on many levels.”
Ann Coulter, U.S. conservative author and political commentator who had been an ardent Trump supporter and wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust” last year, has used social media to criticize the Trump’s decision. “Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates,” she wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday morning, adding:
“Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.”
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017
“Christians who live in Syria are terrified of what will happen if Assad is gone.”
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017
“What follows Assad? What followed Saddam? Gaddafi? 15 yrs, 6k lost heroes 500k massacred Christians $5 Trill--for what?”
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017
Coulter and a number of Trump’s well-known supporters have expressed their surprise — and fear — at Trump’s hasty decision, which is totally at odds with his previous stance on interventionism. As a presidential candidate, Trump campaigned against military exploits abroad, often railing against Bush and his war in Iraq. In December, shortly after winning election, he said “we will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.”
When Obama was considering military action against Syria in 2013, Trump strongly urged him not to do it.
In one September 5, 2013 all-caps criticism, Trump tweeted, “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”
“Don’t attack Syria – an attack that will bring nothing but trouble for the U.S. Focus on making our country strong and great again!” Trump tweeted four days later.
During the presidential campaign, Trump also bashed Hillary Clinton for her disastrous foreign policy, tweeting, “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s foreign interventions unleashed ISIS in Syria, Iraq and Libya. She is reckless and dangerous!”
What has made Trump change his mind and act as Hillary would have done, by helping ISIS in Syria? What has made him listen to neocons?
After all, what is the point of being pro-life within the United States and not being pro-life for Christians directly threatened by ISIS in Syria?
What is for sure is that the Trump who attacked Syria and helped ISIS is not the same Trump who lambasted neocons last year. Where is the original anti-neocon Trump?
With information from Charisma, Breitbart, DailyWire, DailyMail, Time and WND.
Recommended Reading: