Sex ed material with gay content suspended by Brazilian president

Laigle’s Forum recently ran an article by our friend Julio Severo showing how Julio and a handful of allies who trusted in God, almost single-handedly brought down the pro-gay political juggernaut in Brazil, which bullies and threatens anyone who dares to oppose “gay” marriage and the official view that homosexuality is a harmless and healthy lifestyle worthy of protection. For now, Julio is in hiding, thanks to these threats. But a blogger and his faith can move mountains, as we see below. As always, we urge you to visit Julio’s web site via one of the links below and give your most generous gift. Julio has sacrificed everything to do what he does and has no other source of income but your donations.

 

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has suspended the distribution and production of gay sex education films for schools in Brazil.

By Julio Severo

Education packs containing gay and lesbian video scenes, supposedly aim to combat homophobia, will not be used in Brazilian schools.

Government spokesman Gilberto Carvalho said President Rousseff viewed the material personally and found the footage unsuitable for youngsters.

“She didn’t like what she saw,” Carvalho said. So she decided to suspend its distribution.

However, her reaction came after evangelical and Catholic parliamentarians and their allies in the Brazilian Congress threatened to block any upcoming legislation unless President Rousseff halted the films. They also threatened to support investigative commissions on the minister of Education, his Ministry and another powerful minister, who has been exposed for corruption.

Carvalho said President Rousseff was not, however, discontinuing anti-“homophobia” programs in the public schools.

The “gay kits”, as they are known in Brazil, were produced for the Brazilian Ministry of Education by ABGLT, the largest homosexualist group in Brazil, which received more than one million dollars in government grants to make them. ECOS, another (US-funded) Brazilian NGO that helped make them, also received more than one million dollars. The exposing of this multi-million dollar partnership in a recent Brazilian television news program produced a scandal that rocked the government plan to distribute “gay kit” to all the Brazilian schools.

Matthew Hoffman, in a LifeSiteNews report, said the kits, aimed at “children between the ages of 7 and 12 years, were designed to encourage acceptance of homosexuality. The kits reportedly include a DVD with a story about a fourteen-year-old who goes to the bathroom, and becomes sexually aroused while watching another student urinate in the stall next to him”.

Several members of the Brazilian Congress said the sex education packs encourage homosexual behavior. Even Reinaldo Azevedo, a prominent Catholic social columnist favoring gay “marriage” and child adoption by gays, said that “the gay kit aims to promote sexual harassment against heterosexual children”.

In response, ABGLT has launched a fierce campaign to defend its kits, calling its oppnents “homophobic”.

With information from BBC and LifeSiteNews.

Source: Julio Severo in English:

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

More information on ABGLT, the NGO that made the gay kit:

ABGLT Files “Hate” Charges Against Julio Severo and Other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT is denounced in the US media for persecution against Julio Severo and other Brazilian Christians

ABGLT Launches Multiple Lawsuits to Silence Christian Opposition

ABGLT ask reforms in the children’s “rights” in Brazil

ABGLT is favored by former Brazilian President Lula

With the assistance of Hillary Clinton, UN Approves ABGLT, Drops Christian Charity

From Julio:

Wow! Some US websites are covering what has happened in Brazil about the kit gay:

Police officer sacrificed on the altar of ‘integration’

Nothing new here. Just another good American life thrown away to bolster world government.

by Don Hank

Kevin Will, a Houston area traffic cop, was run down and killed yesterday in the Houston area for the sake of the North American Union.

That’s right. In plain words, his life was sacrificed so that the US, Mexico and Canada can all be integrated into a single nation for the purposes of “security” and “prosperity,” or in other words to create a supranational unit based on the EU model, which is now proving to be a disaster in Europe and has led to an unaccountable supreme government – a de facto dictatorship, that has supplanted democracy throughout Europe. The US government wants this disaster for you and is cheerfully sacrificing your safety and your lives to achieve it.

In official statements, the US government pays lip service to protecting our borders and keeping us safe from the bad guys. Janet Napolitano says our borders are “safer than ever.” But even long before the savage killing of rancher Robert Krentz in March of 2010, most people living along the border have felt unsafe, and the fear is only getting worse. Prior to that, for example, in July of 2009, border patrol agent Robert Rosas was shot and killed by illegal aliens in San Diego County, CA. Following Krentz’s murder, Pinal Country Sheriff Paul Babeu said in an interview that several of his agents had been killed by illegal aliens. In August of 2010, the hit-and-run killing of a nun by an illegal alien drew attention to the fact that federal authorities were failing to properly detain alien criminals. Years earlier, in June of 2007, in an article showing how the federal government promotes alien criminals while discouraging honest visa applicants, I became the first to report that our government had built a visa processing center on the grounds of a federal prison used to house alien criminals, thereby inviting criminal types to stay in the US.

In October of 2010, US citizen David Hartley was shot to death by Mexican pirates while fishing in a border lake. Border patrol agent Brian Terry was then killed in December of 2010.

Back in 2006, US Rep. Steve King had reported that, based on government statistics, 25 Americans die daily at the hands of illegal aliens, and that number can only have increased. And yet, the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to lament that returning illegal aliens to their home countries would cause an undue hardship to them. But what about us?

However, American civilians and law enforcement officers aren’t the only ones sacrificed for the sake of putting the entire world under one government run by a small group of extraordinarily rich white men. I have shown how our US military is now sacrificing the lives of young men to support the UN, the EU and NATO in waging undeclared and illegal wars in the name of “democracy” in the Middle East, supporting groups of Islamic radical thugs, including known terrorists, whose ultimate aim is to destroy Israel and eliminate Christianity in their countries, all in the name of “democracy.”

From a Texas based contact, here is an amazing report on the illegal alien who killed Kevin Will in Houston:

The 5 pm news is now on here in my part of TX.

The Fox affiliate described finding federal documents verifying that this most recent illegal alien perpetrator was previously arrested and deported, in one incident, claiming to be a Texas citizen by producing a TDL, and convicted, sentenced to time served, and released with a $10 fine, only to return.

It also described his rantings on his facebook page, and in particular, a description of how to dispose of a firearm used in a crime.

Nice guy.

 

FWIW:

This is almost a mirror of the incident with HPD Officer Rodney Johnson, there, shot and killed by an illegal alien during a traffic stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Joseph_Johnson

 

[end quote]

In addition, one of my readers just wrote and wondered why our politicians almost all seem to welcome the invasion from Mexico. He said he couldn’t figure out how in the world any of our politicians want the illegals here and speculated it was because they have no conscience and are only concerned about re-election.

Here is my response to this reader:

I think it is much worse than that. It is beyond political. Our politicians follow the mandates of the New World Order, which wants to eliminate the borders of the US and create a North American Union.

When Bush tried to meet with the Canadian and Mexican leaders near the end of his last term, he was caught in the act and forced to back down. That project was the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), as you may recall.

That name was never used again because of the failure to keep it secret.

So they are going with plan B, namely, behaving as if there are no borders by allowing an almost unlimited number of aliens to cross without papers and making a huge stink about how families are being torn apart by sending some back. Any politician who fails to go along with this NWO agenda is threatened by the establishment. The GOP is 100% pro-invasion at the highest levels.

In reality, almost none are sent back, and when the most hardened felons among them are, as in the case of cop killer Johoan Rodriguez, they just cross the border illegally and wind up back here anyway.

Every American needs to know this.

Every candidate needs to be drilled on his/her stand on illegal immigration, although in most cases, we know they are for the invasion based on their past actions and on their immigration grades issued by NumbersUSA. Around 90% are for it and apparently are unwilling to send back any Mexicans who have entered the country illegally.

That goes for ex-cons, as I had shown here:

http://laiglesforum.com/wanted-a-few-bad-men/98.htm

 

Of course, you may ask: who the heck is Don Hank and why should we listen to him?

Good question, and many people don’t listen to me. But there are a few excellent reasons why you should:

For years I have been watching the way the New World Order operates on both sides of the Atlantic. I was one of the first Americans to warn of the de facto EU dictatorship and how it seized power by stealth. Every day I receive emails from activists in Germany and the UK, telling me about how the EU is destroying their nations.

I correlate what happens there to what is happening here and see the same identical behavior, eg, destruction of the banking system through disastrous lending policies obviously aimed at destroying the entire system; the importation of millions upon millions of Muslims who refuse to integrate and who have increased the crime rates in their adopted homelands exponentially over time; blatantly anti-Christian policies.

The excuse for importing Muslims and giving them special treatment is the same as our excuse for supporting illegal Mexican “immigration”: humanitarian reasons. In the US, exponents of unlimited immigration evoke images of innocents suffering at the hands of the cartel. In Europe, the image is one of masses escaping tyranny. The media in both regions ignore the untold suffering of the benefactors of these often hostile immigrants, including major crime increases and school children being literally driven from their schools by hordes of hostile Muslim kids mercilessly persecuting them.

Excuse me, Folks, but you need to know that this commentary is still under construction. New details are coming in. Here, for example, are 2 emails from radio host Dave Levine:

email #1:

I fully agree! Excellent points by you. While the SPP was dropped, the NAU has gone full speed ahead with Soetoro-Obama’s meetings with Canada’s PM and Presidente Calderon. The TTC–the NAFTA Superhighway under Bush and the prime plan under Governor Perry–has been renamed The I-35 Corridor and The I-69 Corridor plans. These are also with the Spanish conglomerate CINTRA (also renamed, I’m told) and I’m sure with RINO Rudy Giuliani’s law firm backing them. Instead of just one I-35 TTC, the plan now is for TWO superhighways carving up Texas and bringing not only a port to Mexico in Kansas City but also truckloads of illegals and drugs via these two planned, private superhighways.

We’re not hearing enough cries against these roads. The anti-TTC folks haven’t been vocal enough lately. Time to re-contact them!

 

email #2:

Here’s Jerome Corsi’s report on the TTC’s rebirth as the I-35 and I-69 Corridor Plans:

http://jeromecorsi.com/article.php?id=72

….

Please send this out to all who may have missed it.

Here are some anti-TTC sites, this one not updated since March:

http://transtexascorridor.blogspot.com

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9329-Trans-national-Corridor-I-69-Cutting-Through-the-U.S.

 

Thanks to everyone who helped with this article. Please help keep it going.

The narrative will not be over until we either are slaves to the NAU or have succeeded in turning public opinion against it.

We – a tiny few of us — have only just begun to fight.

New:

http://www.khou.com/home/Officer-struck-killed-by-suspected-drunk-driver-in-north-Houston-122797274.html

Update: This was the 6th death of a Houston officer at the hands of an illegal alien!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTRg2jxPXXw&feature=player_embedded

How Western powers abet Christian persecution

Blatantly anti-Christian Western foreign policy: support of anti-Christian dictators, war against Christian supporters 

by Don Hank

Recently, it was reported that Chinese Catholics will defy their government’s ban  on observing the International Day of Prayer.

But how can there be a government ban on this, since prayer is speech, which is, to quote Barack Obama, a “universal right.” Obama said that in a speech warning Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak not to step on the human rights of Egyptian protesters, who were destroying government property and burning cars in the streets.

So what did our courageous White House resident have to say about the blatant human rights violations in China?

Nothing. Neither did any other Western “leader.”

In fact, no president has complained about any human rights violations in China, where Christianity is strictly regulated, and in North Korea, where North Korea, where Christians are reportedly jailed, beaten, executed and, in one case, pulverized with steam rollers, and where Kim Jong Il reportedly starved 2 million people to death.

The official Western response to inhumane dictators is always the same:

1–ignore any human rights violations against Christians anywhere

2–support groups hostile to Christians

As I showed in a previous article, in every conflict involving Muslims, the West’s intervention  has led to the persecution of Christians, and for the most part, has eliminated the indigenous Christian population.  Every single one of our interventions has had this same kind of outcome.

Saddam, though a tyrant,  protected Christians during his reign. Once he was toppled, the persecution of Christians was immediate. The US government under Bush/Obama did nothing and did not protest. The Assyrian Christians there were quietly deported to Sweden, which granted them asylum. Think about it: a country under American control persecuting its Christians with the tacit permission of the Americans (who now go to war to protect “human rights”).

Mubarak held the line as best he could against anti-Christian actions. He didn’t do a great job of it, mind you, but tried his best in view of the anti-Christian atmosphere among the populace. But the day he was forced out of office — under pressure from Obama — the Egyptian military fired on monks and workers at a Coptic monastery.

The Ivory Coast had a Christian president, Laurent Gbagbo, who claimed election fraud in his re-election bid. Indeed, there was strong evidence that there was fraud and that the Muslim candidate who claimed victory had in fact lost on number of votes (as I reported before, I read this in a French paper that had the chutzpah to report it, showing photos of altered ballots). The UN kicked out the Christian and declared the Muslim president without investigating the claims of fraud. In one area under UN control, 1000 Christians were murdered. There was no meaningful protest from any Western powers, which months prior to this had investigated reports of human rights violations by the Christian president.

Next in line is Syria. Obama has drawn a bead on President Basher Assad. Now, you may be wondering about Syria’s record on Christianity. A few years back a Syrian pastor visited our church and told us that, amazingly, Syria, at least at that time, was so Christian-friendly that the government there actually donated construction materials for the building of Christian churches. I believe this was true. The leadership has not changes since then, so we are talking about another Christian-friendly country that may soon fall into the hands of violent, brutal Islamists. No wonder the Christian-hostile Western powers are eager to see Syria fall. God protect the Christians there should that happen!

Anyone who wishes to learn the details of brutal Chinese and N. Korean persecution of Christians can go to sites like Voice of Martyrs and read gut-wrenching horror stories of abuse. Yet what do we do about China? Why we practice “free” trade with them of such magnitude that we destroy Western industry and make them the second richest nation on earth, and Obama fetes Hu Jintao in the White House, even as Chinese dissidents, including Nobel prize winner Liu Xiaobao sit in Chinese prisons for speaking their minds. Apparently, freedom of speech is only a “universal right” in Muslim countries where dissidents seek to topple Christian-friendly governments. Go ahead, tell me I am exaggerating.

Question for the reader:

Does anyone here think the West, which wages war at the drop of a hat over “human rights,” will ever do anything to protect Christians outside the West and do you expect these same Western powers never to persecute Western Christians once they think the coast is clear? 

It is constantly suggested in the media that the purpose of “separation of church and state” is to protect non-Christians from human rights violations by theocratically minded Christians.

But here is what most of us have been lulled into forgetting:

It is one thing — and quite a bad thing — for the government to favor the majority religion over another or set up a theocracy. But it is quite another for a government to promote, through its foreign policies, groups that persecute people of any religion because of their religion.

It is time the West woke up to see what is really going on under our very noses.

It is time we the people took back the West.

In a very real way, we are under a hostile foreign occupation, by a Right-Left coalition of Democrats and GOP in America and by the UN, NATO and the EU in Europe, whose actions consistently run counter to the will of the people. We the people have a sovereign right to our own culture and do not have to be manipulated into abandoning it in favor of a foreign one.

Of course, we also have the right to continue committing national suicide if that is what we really want.

It is up to us.

Does the West have the will to survive?

Since the writing of this article, our friend in Christ Berit Kjos added a link to it at her site. She added some information in a yellow box at the top. Please check it out:

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/011/hank/anti-christian.htm

Further reading:

World Day of Prayer banned in China:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/pray_for_the_persecuted_church/2011/05/chinese-catholics-decide-to-defy-day-of-prayer-ban.html?source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=11&ppc=&utm_campaign=Bible&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=verizon.net

Obama to Mubarak (Jan.): “Free speech is a human right.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/463135-President_Obama_To_Mubarak_Free_Speech_Is_Human_Right.php

Executed in N Korea for not renouncing faith in Christ:

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/FirsthandTestimoniesOfChristianCourageAmid.htm

Kim Jong Il starved 2 million to death:

http://persecution.net/northkorea.htm

N. Korea inters, beats to death Christians

http://www.persecution.org/2011/03/16/campaign-to-end-persecution-of-christians-in-north-korea/

Christians pulverized with steam rollers in North Korea:

http://northkoreanchristians.com/

1,000 Christians murdered in Ivory Coast under UN watch:

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

Western hypocrisy in Muslim conflicts

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

The recompense of their error

This may be the most politically incorrect article you will ever read.

by Don Hank

 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:27 

 

A group that wants “recognition for gay and lesbian communities” has introduced the International Day Against Homophobia, and has set May 17 for that celebration. That’s tomorrow.

These homosexual activists claim to be protesting homophobia. But what is homophobia?

Webster’s definition is irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. But is all fear of homosexuality irrational?

Well, according to the homosexual activists, it is.

However, it is known that over 70% of AIDS sufferers are male homosexuals. Is it homophobic to report that? Or can we admit that there can be rational fears of homosexual sex? Medical doctors, particularly proctologists, say that there are diseases associated with homosexual sex. Is it homophobic for them to say that? Are all proctologists homophobes simply because they know the truth and may at some point be obliged to tell it to a homosexual?

What can health practitioners do to help homosexuals protect themselves if telling the truth is taboo? Can they warn them of the dangers of their lifestyle? Or should they pretend there is no risk in what they do?

When smokers with respiratory disease see a doctor – at least one who is worth his salt – they are told to quit, or at least cut back on their smoking habit.

Did you ever hear of a group of smokers demanding “recognition for the smoking community”?

Why do professionals march in lock step to oppose people with one kind of unhealthy lifestyle (smokers) while endorsing another group with another unhealthy lifestyle (practicing homosexuals).

It is because of something called political correctness. The smoker group has little or no political clout.

But “gays” are a potential treasure trove for unscrupulous politicians, who only want to exploit them for votes and care not a fig that many are headed to an early grave.

Thus we are confronted by the myth that the Left and unscrupulous “conservative” political groups, which exploit homosexuals, are friendly to the “gay” community, while conservatives, who warn of the dangers of their lifestyle, are “homophobic.” This is a complete reversal of human logic, but that is normal for the Left and their foot soldiers.

They wanna celebrate this? (DO NOT open the link if you have a weak stomach or about to sit down to a meal!)

Knowing that physicians, particularly proctologists, are familiar with diseases of the anus that are common among practicing homosexuals, I scoured the web for medical sites dedicated to sexually transmitted diseases caused by anal sex.

I was amazed to find no English language site that actually showed photos of such conditions. Nor did I find much in other languages. I suspect this is because such graphic illustrations of the devastating power of same-sex sex would be “offensive” to its practitioners. However, one brave specialist in these diseases did put up such photos in his Spanish language site and he may be the only one (look for this site to go down soon). Now, I do not recommend that you just blithely open this link without at least preparing yourself for a shock to your psyche. These are some of the most horrible, sickening pictures you will ever see.

On the other hand, if you are not sure whether to believe the PC propaganda that homosexuality is something noble or romantic and deserving of special recognition, then you may wish to open these and have a look to satisfy yourself that there is a very important aspect to homosexuality that you are not being told. That the true face of the homosexual lifestyle is anything but glamorous and not necessarily something worthy of protection or “recognition.”

Here is the link to the very graphic site  that you can peruse to evaluate the claims that homosexuality is a viable lifestyle that you can support (it is in Spanish, but the diseases are anal-sex related, as you can see). But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Now, homosexual activists demanding recognition for the activity undeniably causing the above-illustrated diseases claim that a homophobe is someone who calls their lifestyle unhealthy. Yet, every medical practitioner who has seen these diseases knows that this lifestyle is unhealthy.

If a physician said smoking is a worthwhile lifestyle, he would meet with vehement protests on that part of the media and politicians. No one would defend him. They would say he is irresponsibly enabling people with bad habits to harm themselves. That would be true.

Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, we apply a glaring double standard. Any physician who dared to suggest to one of his homosexual patients that he “lay off” homosexual activity would be opening himself up to a lawsuit. And any media outlet suggesting this would be the object of vehement protests.

Our hypocritical government, with the backing of hypocritical media, educators, professionals, and even many members of the clergy, does nothing to curb the clearly dangerous homosexual lifestyle and even does all it can to promote it, thereby promoting these horrible diseases.

And, in keeping with its habit of reversing all traditional values and commons sense, the PC media and leftist politicians insist that anyone pointing out the obvious dangers of homosexual sex is a benighted homophobe, while people who celebrate this lifestyle are homo-friendly and enlightened.

So to recap:

If you don’t mind seeing homosexuals trapped in a dangerous and filthy lifestyle, you are ok in today’s West. But if you care about them and dare to suggest that they need to beware of the obvious pitfalls, then you are a homophobe.

They have gotten it exactly backwards. Anyone promoting the “gay” agenda is actually a homophobe and is harming the “gay” community, just as anyone promoting smoking would be harming smokers.

That’s why you if you want to celebrate the International Day Against Homophobia, you need to do it by sending this article to as many of your “gay” friends as possible. It could save a life.

But don’t expect any thanks from the “gay” community.

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/teen-suicide-and-homosexuality/1928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/would-you-believe-genocide-against-homosexuals/2188.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/is-gay-marriage-a-historical-imperative/1626.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/did-paul-mean-homosxual-or-man-ogler/1292.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/307/307.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/category/gay-agenda

The power of a single blogger and his faith

The bill sought to give government the power to exercise out and out thought control and would have criminalized any speech construed as ‘antigay.’ It amounted to nothing less than a direct ban on biblical Christianity.”

Friends, the Western world is falling into the hands of the wicked. I solicit your prayers for our brother Julio, who has suffered great persecution and is still in hiding. At the end of this article are some links to his site. Check it out. Keep in mind that Julio and his family are fugitives because of the stand he takes and the cold-blooded viciousness of gay activists and their minions in the Brazilian government. Imagine being hunted like an animal for your beliefs. Please give as you are led.

Blogs as tools to express the voice of God’s Kingdom

By Julio Severo

A few days ago I received a message from a visitor who recently became acquainted with my blog:

Julio, how are you?

Last Tuesday (26/April/2011) I was having a nap at lunch time and  a name came to me in a dream. I am not in the habit of writing down my dreams, but the name was very clear. I woke up and wrote down the name: JULIO SEVERO.

I had never heard your name before and when I got home I googled it and saw that you are also a Christian and that you fight to preserve Gospel principles from corruption.

Well, I do not believe in coincidences…

I do not believe in coincidences either, at least not this kind.

In my interview with Christianismo Hoje* (the Brazilian version of the magazine Christiany Today) I said,

Early in 1995 I clearly felt God directing me to write a book about the threat posed by the homosexual movement. For weeks, I hesitated, because the homosexual issue was a formidable taboo. There were no gay parades in Brazil, and none of the homosexual obsession we see everywhere today, in the schools, the media, etc. After some time, I overcame my fears, accepted the calling of the Spirit, and began to research the homosexual movement. When, by mid-1995, the first international conference of ILGA in the South Hemisphere was held in Brazil, I understood God’s plan to call me into the battle, because after the conference, Brazilian gay groups made an extraordinary push to advance their agenda. God anticipated this spiritual assault from hell with an action of the agenda of God’s Kingdom. Thus my book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), was born and was published by Editora Betânia, the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers, in1998.

When my book “O Movimento Homossexual” was published in 1998, many thought it was an exaggeration and said that forecasts would never come true. Sadly, they eventually did. And today its readers call me a prophet. The exaggerater of yesterday is today’s prophet.

In 1999, on receiving an autographed copy of my book “O Movimento Homossexual,” Bishop Robson Rodovalho said that he had received the revelation that in the future I would be severely persecuted because of the message of my book, and be forced to flee from place to place. It was an accurate prophecy, but I am sad that the one who delivered it eventually joined the political system that spawned PLC 122 and other absurdities. PLC 122 is the most threatening anti-“homophobia” bill in the Brazilian Congress.

In 2002, even without a blog, I began to warn against an electoral victory for socialist Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva. In 2003, with just a page of articles in the Brazilian Christian website JesusSite, I revealed to Brazil for the first time that the Lula administration had introduced in the United Nations (UN) a resolution classifying homosexuality as an inalienable human right. This was the first time this kind of initiative had come before the UN.

After I reported on this, a Representative in the Brazilian Congress requested an accounting from the Brazilian government because Brazilian representatives at the UN were taking actions without the knowledge of the Brazilian people and Congress. There was also a petition against the Lula administration’s resolution.  JesusSite suffered an attack by hackers and went down. Despite many threats it received pressuring me to remove my articles, JesusSite* stayed firm.

The pioneering resolution from the Lula administration in the UN never advanced, and ILGA, the largest homosexual organization in the world, complained that grass-roots resistance in Brazil stemming from “extremist” websites was helping to deter the resolution. Who said that today there are no little Davids to take down  massive Goliaths?

With the Lula administration’s obsessive pro-sodomy policies, the message of my book, which had been seen as exaggerated, was now coming into focus. Even congressmen were making references to my book in their official speeches in the Congress.

At the inspired insistence of a brother in the Mid-Night Call Ministry, I eventually created a blog at the beginning of 2005, with this brother guiding me in the first steps. The first year, I published very little.

Only later did I begin issung warnings to Brazil more regularly. And God honored me. At the same time, philosopher and Reformed theologian Harold O. J. Brown invited me to write the leading article in his academic periodical The Religion & Society Report. The essay was published in August 2006 and is available in an online version. This was the first time my watch dog ministry was acknowledged by a respectable international publication.

Through my blog, my still small voice was now showing the United States and the world the homosexualist face of Lula and his socialist ideology. Brown told me he did not realize that Lula was so radical, and he wanted to help people outside Brazil learn the truth.

In 2007, I was interviewed by LifeSiteNews, the largest Catholic pro-life news website in the world. It was my small voice echoing with immutable values that transcend frontiers.

Yet, as far as the performance of my simple blog is concerned, the most remarkable aspect in 2007 was the awareness effort against PLC 122, the anti-“homophobia” bill introduced by a member of PT (Lula’s party) in the Brazilian Congress. The bill sought to give government the power to exercise out and out thought control and would have criminalized any speech construed as “antigay.” It amounted to nothing less than a direct ban on biblical Christianity. In February 2007, a group of influential conservative Catholics contacted me to launch an awareness effort. They had read my writings on homosexuality, prepared a paper based on my articles and wanted me just to put my signature in it. Their role would be to spread the message. My role would be to lend my name.

The campaign made great strides. After March 2007, the awareness movement grew like wildfire and was soon unstoppable, having struck the consciences of many people. But there was a price to pay. The same year the campaign was launched, gay activists, in their effort to thwart me, managed to convince Google in Brazil to shut down my blog. With the intervention of Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, in an article in the paper Jornal do Brasil denouncing attacks against me, and protests from several lawyers, including an attorney who called Google, my blog came back online.  

Before February 2007, I had already intended to  oppose PLC 122. Yet, in the months of November and December 2006 and January 2007, I was hiding in a refuge with my family, because of persecution.

Before this persecution, God had used a former homosexual to warn me that the devil was trying to destroy me. November happened to be the month that PLC 122 was approved in the House of Representatives in Brazil. Lacking the means to act, I dunned Dr. Zenóbio Fonseca for several weeks to write an article against the anti-“homophobia” bill, because his special legal knowledge was vital. His consulting work allowed him little time, but eventually he managed to write the article. Next, the Catholic message* to mobilize Brazilians was ready, and it was sent to countless thousands of email addresses and other media.

The sequel was that hundreds of blogs, not to mention thousands of people forwarding e-mails against PLC 122, became such a strong chain that the passage of this bill, which was taken for granted because of the influential and imposing support of government and media, eventually became uncertain, because of the resistance, particularly from Evangelical and Catholic blogs.

Catholic and Evangelical magazines — with a shallow Christianity and deep-rooted political ideologies — either ignored the story or gave it short shrift. Had it been up to them, Brazil would today be in thrall to the Kingdom of the Workers’ Party, of Dilma Rousseff and her antecessor Lula, with the passage of PLC 122 hovering like a sword over the heads of prophetic Christians.

Yet, blogs speaking with the voice of God’s Kingdom are having a major impact in opposing the massive power of magazines, papers and TV channels that mirror — and are paid to mirror — the voice representing the ideology and system of state idolatry.

And unlike evangelical TV shows, which ignore or fail to denounce the government’s promotion of aberrations like PLC 122, pro-family blogs are not afraid to speak out against state threats.

The strong resistance to PLC 122 today is a symbol of what can happen when humble little blogs serve as a vehicle for the voice of God’s Kingdom. If one blog makes a lot of people uncomfortable, a host of blogs united in the same effort much more effectively spread the uncomfortable truth that shakes people into action.

In the wilderness of disinformation from magazines, newspapers and blogs that reflect the voice of the political machine and its ideology, God can lead, even through dreams, those who need to know the truth.

This is the value God assigns to blogs that carry His voice.

Do you want be used by God through a blog? Hear and mirror His voice.

PS:

Dear Donhttp://acapa.virgula.uol.com.br/blogs/cindy-butterfly/fanatismo-religioso-um-dia-de-furia!/100/13513/

Let me tell you something important, which perhaps your readers would like to know. Today, as the articles I sent you today show, the Brazilian Senate would vote PLC 122, the anti-“homophobia” bill, but I encouraged Brazil to resist and in the afternoon today the largest gay website in Brazil reported that because of me and another evangelical, who is a televangelist, the anti-“homophobia” bill was not voted today!! See here:

Praise God!

Julio

Reviewed by Don Hank.

* These are Portuguese links. Links without an asterisk are English links.

Portuguese version of this article: Blogagem profética

Spanish version of this article: Blogging profético

Source: Julio Severo in English

www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Other articles by Julio Severo:

Why I am not a socialist

Brazil to send troops to EU for “military intervention”?

EU now eyes both North Africa and Latin America as possible new territories for their empire.

by Don Hank

The German language part of online journal German Foreign Policy reported today that Brazil is interested in sending troops to support EU “military interventions” in Europe.

It also said that Germany and Brazil, as “hegemonial powers” in their respective continents, are interested in forming an alliance.

This has numerous implications:

For one thing, EU foreign secretary William Hague said last week he is interested in “deepening and broadening” ties to North Africa. Such statements regularly precede inclusion of new states in the EU. 

Further, it looks like Germany is “temporarily” shutting down its nuclear power facilities in view of the Fukushima disaster. If Germany retreats from nuclear power, that would undoubtedly make it impossible for her to maintain her status as the number 2 (after China) exporter. She would be obliged to relocate her manufacturing overseas, and cheap-labor Brazil would be a prime destination. This would be catastrophic for the job market in Germany.

But the EU has tended to weaken rich nations at the expense of poorer ones — rather than provide labor markets for its own people, as it did, for example, by closing the Corus Redcar steel plant in the UK and selling it to Tata Steel of India, making 1,700 UK workers jobless. The scheme flew under the flag of “less carbon emissions.” Now India gets the carbon and the jobs, and the UK gets to breathe air containing Indian carbon instead of EU carbon.

The German site says (my translation):  

“Federal President Christian Wulff [Tr. note: not as high a rank as that of Chancellor Angela Merkel] announced a strengthening of the strategic partnership of Germany with Brazil. As Wulff stated during his visit to the South American country, which he visited last week, Berlin wants to further develop its relations with Brasilia. Germany and Brazil have been struggling jointly for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.”

and later:

“According to German plans, Brazil would provide troops for EU military interventions in the future. Experts warn that the Brazilian military has not abandoned its intention to build atomic bombs.”

The article said Brazil is interested in gaining greater independence from the US.

There are a lot of implications here, but William Hague said last week he wants to “broaden and deepen” relations with N. Africa in hopes of expanding the EU empire to that continent. Germany, as an EU leader, particularly in foreign affairs, now seems interested in including Brazil in the EU as well, to include 3 continents. The EU already has free trade agreements with various Latin American countries, including Panama, where I reside.

Brazil is a hard-left nation whose president Dilma Rousseff was once linked to a terror plot (as was Bill Ayers in the US) that killed at least one American. She was acquitted for political reasons. Various known terrorists operate freely there.

Don Hank

US bans offshore drilling in US, supports it in Brazil:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

Full German language text cited above:

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/42508

An older article from the site, in English:

Cooperative Leading Powers

14.04.2004

BERLIN/BRASILIA/RESENDE

Berlin is considering closer cooperation with the Brazilian military and armaments elites. The Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP – German Institute for International and Security Affairs) refers to ,,Brazil’s rise from a discrete regional to a cooperative leading power”. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, closely associated with the SPD, debates over the South American State as ,,a player and troublemaker in international politics”. In the meantime, Brasilia advances a nuclear program, developed with German assistance, and arouses suspicions of intentions to produce nuclear arms.

Brazil is not only a ,,South American regional power”, it also develops more and more into a ,,spokesman for the fast developing nations,”according to Berlin’s SWP. ,,Under President Lula, Brazil once again, became aware of its size and its enormous economic potential,”according to the foreign policy think tank, which refers to the leadership role taken on by Brasilia at the WTO Conference of Ministers at Cancun last Fall. At that time, Brazil, together with India and China, led a group of over 20 states which resisted the agrarian policies of the United States of America and, particularly, of the European Union. 1)

Common Defense Policy?

Evidently Berlin looks to utilize Brasilia’s more offensive foreign policy for its own ambitions for world power. According to the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which is considering increased military cooperation of the two nations, ,,Germany and Brazil have the largest populations and are economically the strongest countries in their regions.” ,,A common agenda regarding crisis prevention and international defense”is the subject of a ,,public debate”between Gernot Erler, SPD’s foreign policy representative, and Luiz Dulci, secretary general of the Brazilian presidential office, which will be conducted by the foundation in Berlin in May.

Nuclear Program…

In the meantime, Brasilia advances a uranium enrichment program and arouses suspicions of planning to produce nuclear arms. Announcements to that effect had been made, last year by the recently dismissed minister of technology, Roberto Amaral. Critics warn that the country’s armed forces, supposedly, are developing a nuclear program on their own, which is not under control of the Brazilian parliament. During the military dictatorships (1964-85), the Brazilian military had attempted to come into the possession of nuclear arms.

… with German technology

At that time and with German assistance, the military successfully created the essential prerequisites for atom bombs. In 1975, the social-liberal Bonn government concluded the German-Brazilian nuclear treaty with Brasilia which, in fierce competition with US corporations which normally consider Brazil as part of their immediate sphere of influence, gave the contract to the German Siemens-KWU to build the nuclear power plant Angra II. Shortly afterwards, and with German assistance, Brazil succeeded in enriching uranium. Fernando Gabeira, member of the Brazilian parliament, ,,does not preclude”that German technology is also utilized during the current attempts to enrich uranium in Resende, near Rio de Janeiro. 2)

1) See also earlier article ,,Augean Stables”
2) Klaus Hart: Antioekologische Tauschangebote. Lula-Regierung will Siemens-AKW Angra III fertig stellen; ila. Zeitschrift der Informationsstelle Lateinamerika, Februar 2004

See also earlier article Berlin: EU must assert itself against the USA in Latin America

Sources:

Die Aussenpolitik der Regierung Lula. Brasiliens Aufstieg von einer diskreten Regional- zu einer kooperativen Fuehrungsmacht; SWP-Studie Maerz 2004

Brasilien und die friedliche Urananreicherung; www.heise.de/tp

Original text portions quoted in my commentary above:

Bundespräsident Christian Wulff kündigt eine Stärkung der strategischen Partnerschaft
Deutschlands mit Brasilien an. Wie Wulff bei seinem Aufenthalt in dem
südamerikanischen Land erklärte, das er letzte Woche besuchte, will
Berlin seine Beziehungen zu Brasilia weiter ausbauen. Deutschland und
Brasilien kämpfen bereits seit Jahren gemeinsam um einen ständigen
Sitz im UNO-Sicherheitsrat

Nach deutschen
Plänen soll Brasilien zukünftig Truppen für EU-Militärinterventionen
stellen. Fachleute warnen, das brasilianische Militär habe seine
Absicht, Atombomben zu bauen, bis heute nicht aufgegeben.

Never the twain shall meet

Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

Rudyard Kipling (the Ballad of East and West)

 

by Don Hank

Recently, a quiet philosophical debate took place without media fanfare between Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho and Alexandr Dugin, Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical strategist and leading organizer of the Eurasian Movement  – considered to be the most influential Russian thinker in the Post-Soviet era. It was a classic clash of East and West.

Both submitted photos of themselves, and no reader could help but be charmed by the kneeling de Carvalho posing with his hunting dogs and shotgun, in contrast to the stern figure of Dugin standing in front of a Russian tank holding a machine gun. One prepared to kill human opponents and the other simply prepared to hunt rabbits or quail.

De Carvalho’s opening remarks are as disarming as the picture:

“I am just a philosopher, writer, and professor, committed to the quest for what seems to me to be the truth and to educating a group of people who are so kind as to pay attention to what I say.  Neither these people nor I hold any public job.  We do not have any influence on national or international politics. We do not even have the ambition – much less an explicit project – for changing the course of history, whatever it may be.  Our only hope is to know reality to the utmost degree of our power and one day leave this life aware that we did not live in illusions and self-delusion, that we did not let ourselves be misled and corrupted by the Prince of this World and by the promises of the ideologues, his servants.  In the current power hierarchy of my native country, my opinion is worthless, except maybe as a negative example and an incarnation of absolute evil[1], which is a source of great satisfaction to me.  In the country where I live, the government considers me at worst an inoffensive eccentric.

“No political party, mass movement, government institution, church or religious sect considers me its mentor. So I can give my opinion as I wish, and change my opinion as many times as it seems right to me, with no devastating practical consequences beyond the modest circle of my personal existence.”

Incredibly, rather than try to assert that he too is writing as an individual and has a personal standpoint of his own, Dugin, in his response, argues against the whole notion of individual thought, saying:

“I accept it fully and agree to recognise the fact that our Russian (Eurasian) individuation consists in the desire to manifest something more general than our individual features. So, being a collective entity … for me is rather an honour. The more holistic is my position, the better it is.”

Now it may be acceptable, even noble, that Russian leaders are willing to sacrifice their own “individual features” for the good of the fatherland, but de Carvalho wasn’t talking about “features.” He was talking about a viewpoint on the nature of vital philosophical issues of government and social thought. Though he doesn’t mention this, the debate actually centers around whether one can think as an individual or only as a collective entity—a notion with overtones of science fiction, evoking dark images of Brave New World and 1984, for example. Just as importantly, Dugin’s unvarnished preference for group think as opposed to individuality touches on the very nature of thought (or cognition) and what it is.

For de Carvalho, thought is modern (as opposed to postmodern) and concrete. Truth can be known and is objective, ie, something that exists on its own outside the self (the debater in this case) and outside the collective. For Dugin, truth is what his powerful autocrat friends decide it is and say it is.  What you or I think is of no consequence.  One of his arguments in a later round was that Olavo de Carvalho was on the losing side, not because his reasoning was faulty, but because his side lacks power in both the East and the West. Unfortunately, he is right. But in a fair debate, which of the two debaters has the most power is irrelevant. His reasoning amounts to bullying, pure and simple.

Aside from all the deeper philosophical arguments presented here, this debate boils down to a confrontation of freedom vs. serfdom, individual rights vs. rule by an independent oligarchy.

If Dugin has his way, the world would be ruled by a technocracy. If de Carvalho has his way, you and I can live in a relatively free world where individuals could use the observations and logic to draw our own conclusions about the world and issues that are vital to us. If Dugin has his way, the powerful decide for you. Whether Dugin considers himself a postmodernist or not, he in fact defends an important aspect of that philosophy. For while the postmodernist believes that truth cannot be known, the Eastern philosopher like Dugin believes that — if it exists at all — it is irrelevant and only power matters.

What’s more, he doesn’t seem to understand that the fight of de Carvalho and all free people is not only against the Eurasian viewpoint Dugin represents but also against the Ruling Elite in the West (as de Carvalho later contends). Thus, in terms of power, the fight is unbalanced, favoring Dugin and the vast majority of influential Western thinkers – a true David vs Goliath bout if there ever was one.

The whole notion behind our post-modern way of “thinking” is that the scientific method, consisting of

1— the formulation of a hypothesis through observations (inductive reasoning)

2— the testing of this hypothesis (experimentation)

3— the establishment of a conclusion (deductively) based on the results of that experimentation

4— Subsequent ongoing verification of the results and conclusion by independent researchers

has outlived its usefulness in areas such as philosophy, economics, political science, government, and social thought, no longer applies and must be replaced by a system based on consensus. Note that this conclusion itself was reached by fiat, not by use of a scientific method, but since that method is declared obsolete it supposedly no longer applies. Hence, this is circular thinking as the more astute reader will have observed. I need to point out that Dugin does not admit that he is a postmodernist and probably, he would reject my mentioning that issue, but the commonality lies in the fact that postmodernism in politics does in fact rely on consensus and denies the individual’s ability to reach valid conclusions on his own. That, by inference, is a denial of the scientific method, without which the truth cannot be apprehended.

Despite the abandonment of the above-described scientific method in vital areas that affect our lives, but that fall outside the “natural sciences[2],” these 4 steps remain unquestioned as the requisite procedures by which we infer knowledge in the field of natural science. Thus, researchers in the areas of all natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and medicine, are required to use this method, and aside from out and out cheating and falsification of results, such as that observed  at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and aside from the area of origin of life research, most researchers stick to this rigorous method, out of necessity.

As an aside, it is more than intriguing that, in the non-exact sciences, the scientific method was replaced by those who are opposed to a society based on biblical principles. The Left’s age-old notion that Christianity has been an obstacle to scientific thought would seem, a priori, incompatible with the abolition of the scientific method.

Yet it is the Left that wants to abolish it. Also beyond intriguing is the fact that one of the key links in the philosopher chain that led to the development of the scientific method was a monk named Roger Bacon, who was able to publish his three tomes outlining the method (Opus Majus, Opus Minus and Opus Tertium) thanks to a commission granted by Pope Clement in 1265.

None of this movement to eliminate the scientific method in the interpretation of our world is comprehensible without an understanding of the Left’s desire to replace Christianity with their own religion, which could be called “Historicity.” Though never enunciated specifically by anyone, this is the religion whereby History would be God. When the Democrats say “we are on the side of history,” what they mean is that History (I use the capital H because it is their god) is tending toward all the progressive goals they are working toward, such as homosexual marriage, drug legalization, abolition of the words father and mother, abolition of the traditional family, wealth redistribution, abolition of borders, abolition of all immigration laws in rich countries and enforcement of Draconian environmental regulations in rich countries but not in the Third World, abolition of petroleum use, strict China-like population control, and in short, abolition of the traditional concept of law and order and the establishment of a Global Oligarchy with the “progressives” in charge. And to the Left, these agendas are sacred missions.

Though they would never admit it, in an effort to implement these long-term goals, their short-term goal is to eliminate thought, or cognition, as it is traditionally construed, and replace it with the notion of consensus, as reflected by Dugin’s statements quoted above. But what that means specifically is a consensus formed by a majority whose thoughts and attitudes are controlled by the Oligarchs through psychological control techniques designed to make the members of the target group believe that they arrived at their conclusions independently and that, therefore, they are free.

Which leads us to the thorny task of defining freedom.

Most of us derive our own definition of freedom simply by evaluating each individual situation and asking ourselves essentially “do I feel free or do I feel coerced in this situation?”

But, while that cognitive habit is useful in everyday situations, it is fatally flawed when we consider how easy it is, through thought control techniques, to induce the majority to arrive at predetermined conclusions and to convince them that they have arrived at these conclusions independently on an individual basis.

So that definition is a non-starter.

But post-modern “philosophers” have been saying, roughly since Nietzsche, that truth cannot be known. Now, by extension, freedom could not be defined if that were so. This claim, however, negates itself, because if it is true that truth cannot be known, then this statement itself obviously cannot be called the truth and is of no epistemological value.

More indicting of postmodernism is the fact that the scientific method is still used in the exact sciences, not because it is accepted by academics by consensus, but because it is indispensable and because the best minds have not only accepted its use but have not been able to successfully disprove its usefulness or get by without it.

All successful new drugs and new scientific discoveries are tested, verified and authenticated by this method. Any that are disqualified by the method are discarded. Patent specifications routinely contain hypotheses, test results and conclusions.

The claim that this method does not apply to other areas of vital national, global or personal interest would require overcoming a huge cognitive hurdle, and it would fail, because to say the scientific method no longer applies or that truth cannot be known would be analogous to saying that a glass is no longer necessary to hold drinking water. That would be sophism, pure and simple, and would in no way affect our lives because people would continue to use glasses to drink water regardless – not because consensus had made that the accepted method to drink water but because without a drinking glass it would be impossible or unnecessarily difficult to drink water. The musings of idle minds on this subject would be of no consequence in the real world.

Like the drinking glass, sound objective thinking based on the tried-and-true method generally going by the name “scientific method” is nothing but a tool and is not subject to sophist argumentation.

Therefore, by extension, Alexandr Dugin’s argument that consensus (“being a collective entity” and hence thinking collectively) is superior to the individual’s own thought processes, based (by implication) on the scientific method (even though neither debater uses this term), should also be rejected by anyone of sound mind. That is, if the free world itself is to survive.

Yet, the fact that fantasy-based Keynesian economics continues to be the dominant orientation in Western universities, and the fact that banks are allowed to gamble fraudulently with their clients’ money and then receive unconstitutional bailouts instead of a jail sentence, is a reminder that, in spite of a sovereign debt that threatens our dollar and our children’s future, Western society has yet to acknowledge the usefulness of practical tools – common sense and free market economics – as vital to our welfare as the common drinking glass.

I think even Alexandr Dugin would agree with me on that.

The author is a technical translator who has translated, since 1971, over 10,000 scientific and medical documents and patents.


[1] Olavo de Carvalho has been a thorn in the side of the leftist government in Brazil, which sides with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and imprisons or fines Christians, for example, who stick to biblical teachings on homosexuality.

[2] By natural sciences I mean sciences involving observable regularly behaving phenomena whose regular behavior can be used to derive laws by observation and experimentation.

The debate:

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/98-olavo-de-carvalho/247-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-aleksandr-dugin-i.html

Will Muslim Africa join the EU?

Millions of Muslims  live in Europe but refuse to integrate. The EU wants even more. And now, Muslims countries to join the EU?

by Don Hank

There has been much speculation as to the reasons for the US and NATO interfering in the internal affairs of Libya, the US and the rest of the West interfering in Egypt, the UN taking sides in an election dispute in the Ivory Coast and using deadly force to install the Muslim candidate, while doing nothing to stop the slaughter of 1,000 Christians, etc.

There is the old knee-jerk accusation that it is all about oil. Yet Egypt has almost no oil. Neither does the Ivory Coast.

Remember that the EU has been importing Muslims into Europe at the rate of almost a million a year and a realistic estimate forecasts a Muslim majority in about 15-25 years in that continent.

Also recall that the Fabian Society (of which Bush pal Tony Blair is a member) was founded in the 1880s for the purpose of spreading socialism worldwide, and one of their immediate goals was to eliminate Christianity. Now do you suppose engineering a Muslim majority may help achieve that goal?

Also recall that every major conflict in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion has resulted in the murder, exile and/or persecution of indigenous Christian populations that were protected until the West got involved!

This is all circumstantial evidence, you say.

But for many years, an expansion of the EU into Africa has been in the works, and now a high-ranking EU official is recommending “deep and broad” integration with Africa, ostensibly to expand the EU “market.” This means, long-term, that African nations are now to be integrated into the EU. Which in turn means that eventually the Schengen agreement (open borders) would be extended to Islamic Africa.

Remember that the EU started out as an innocent little agreement (the EEC, European Economic Community – with the emphasis ostensibly on the market), then morphed into the EC (European Community — note that “economic” is no longer the focus, not even part of the name), and now is a supranational government whose top ranking officers (the European Commission) are not even elected. We used to call that kind of arrangement a dictatorship. We also used to call the kind of wealth redistribution policies this government practices communism.

My, how times have changed. Good thing communism is “dead.”

The EU’s William Hague wants to “broaden and deepen” ties with N. Africa:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/william-hague-argues-for-broad-and-deep-economic-integration-between-the-middle-east-and-the-eu.html

Sarkozy has wanted Mediterranean Union:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/europe/10iht-france.4.5656114.html

They’re still catching up to Laigle’s Forum

by Don Hank

As I have said before, the world is slowly catching up to Laigle’s Forum.

I have written a fair amount about the hypocrisy of US policies that coddle Mexican illegal aliens and treat the corrupt Mexican government with exaggerated respect instead of standing up to it as it should.

It is therefore always gratifying to see at least the alternate media focusing on this hidden issue.

COPS magazine is the latest to show such courage, and I include the following link for those who do not regularly read Laigle’s Forum, and for whom this COPS report will therefore seem like news:

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/mexican-military-police-brutalize-illegal-aliens-from-central-america

Having been in the Peace Corps in El Salvador in the late 60s, I have come into contact with enough Central Americans to know that Mexican police are practically an arm of the cartel they purport to oppose, and Central Americans passing through their country fear them with good reason.

It is well known in the US Central American community that male illegal immigrants in Mexico are routinely robbed and female illegal immigrants are almost routinely raped by these defenders of law and order.

I have reported on this before and have posted a commentary on the condemnation of the Mexican authorities by the Mexican Diocese, which had the cojones to stand up and condemn them shortly after the massacre of over 70 immigrants:

http://laiglesforum.com/mexican-church-confirms-immigrant-abuse-by-authorities/1754.htm

Ironically, our government’s coddling of Mexican “immigrants” and its refusal to confront the Mexican government over gross human rights abuses is perhaps the prime factor in the perpetuation of this abuse. Victims of abuse by Mexican authorities have no voice and in fact, feel betrayed by us. To state it plainly, the US government is the best friend of Mexican criminals and the most fearsome foe of law-abiding Mexicans and Central Americans. 

Our open borders policy and tendency to want to grant amnesty to all Mexicans, regardless of any criminal past they may have is harming America to a great extent but Mexico and Central America even more.

The Mexican and Central American people desperately need a US government policy with guts — or as they say, cojones.

Instead, they get mush brains in Washington tripping all over each other to please the far left, and hence the criminal element, in the Mexican community, opening up our country to increasingly dangerous criminals, while encouraging the cartels in Mexico, even supplying them with guns.

Finally, let me point out that a recent online exchange I had with a group of libertarians (Sons of Liberty) and an opinion expressed by the chairman of the Utah LP (“there is not such thing as an illegal”) demonstrate to me that libertarians are running with the progressives in this issue (and also in many others).

Ron Paul identifies with the libertarians and, sadly, he too apparently does not believe in protecting our borders and making immigrants present documents.

Conservatives must stand up and be different, even if it means standing alone at times. We are truly the only ones who insist that right is right and wrong is wrong, an insistence on absolutism that has held America together since the very beginning.

More on Libertarians:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/probe-the-progressive-libertarians/