Sunday, May 20, 2018

Was the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle a Christian Example?


Was the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle a Christian Example?

By Julio Severo
While all the left-wing and right-wing media showed a remarkable consensus and unity in their praises for the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, there was a point that deserved special attention and worry. One of the Protestant ministers, Bishop Michael Curry, chosen by Harry and Meghan to officiate their wedding, is a known advocate of the homosexual agenda.
Curry, the first African-American to preside over the Episcopal Church, is a fighter for gay “marriage.”
Yet, advocacy of homosexuality is not an exclusive problem of Curry. Harry and Meghan also adhere to the same advocacy.
In a report titled “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: LGBT Issues Are ‘Basic Human Rights,’” the Hollywood Reporter said, “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are putting LGBT rights at the forefront of their royal agenda.”
The homosexual website Pink News said, “the royal couple will continue to proudly promote LGBT issues.”
Yet, without feminism, homosexuality cannot advance, and feminism is exactly Meghan’s turf.
According to the left-wing website Vanities, Markle has a history of activism with U.N. Women, the most pro-abortion organization within the United Nations. In a U.N. speech in 2015, she mentioned her activism began when she saw a Procter & Gamble ad that portrayed women in home work. She wrote letters to the feminist writer Gloria Allred and then First Lady Hillary Clinton complaining. After the feminist pressure, P&G changed the ad.
Feminism destroys women’s role in marriage, hindering them from being healthy wives and mothers, and homosexuality destroys men’s role, hindering them from being husbands and fathers.
Homosexuality is essentially against marriage and family.
God created man and woman to join together in marriage and have children. Or you support marriage or you support homosexuality. You cannot support both at the same time, for both are mutually antagonistic. One is normal and ordained by God, and the other is abnormal and hated by God.
God calls the sexual union between a man and a woman within marriage a blessing. But He calls the sexual union between a man and another man repugnant and detestable, according to his Word, which commands,
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22 ESV)
In marriage, man is the leader and God’s calling to a wife is to be submissive to her husband. Meghan is a known feminist. Also, she is a divorced woman. British royal traditions did not allow their royal men to marry divorced women. Royal traditions are being broken.
This in no way excuses Harry and his former sexual behavior, which was not so chaste as his alleged Christian profession requires.
The royal wedding was some sort of scheme to break old royal traditions. A marriage imprisoned by homosexual and feminist activism, including with divorce and sexual irresponsibility, is not a real marriage as God intended. It is an ideological alliance intended to bring a message and a model to the population. Intends to break its most conservative values.
Could it also be a subtle message for British white natives to intermix in marriage with non-white immigrants, who are, by coincidence, largely Muslim?
While the British royalties are playing with Christianity, marriage, family and values, Islam is advancing in the United Kingdom. London is now under Islamic control.
U.K. forgot what Winston Churchill said,
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.”
U.K., which successfully resisted Nazism, is being defeated by feminism, homosexuality and Islam, promoted often by its own royalties.
In the old times, the British people would say, “God save the Queen!” Really! May God save her and her family from their own efforts to break their old conservative values. And while they are not saved, may God save the good British people from their Queen, their royal family and their activism.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, May 14, 2018

Former Top-Secret U.S. Government Document Fueling Left-Wing Attacks and Misinformation on Brazilian Efforts against Communist Terror in the 1970s


Former Top-Secret U.S. Government Document Fueling Left-Wing Attacks and Misinformation on Brazilian Efforts against Communist Terror in the 1970s

By Julio Severo
O Globo, one of the most prominent — in a usually left-wing prominence — Brazilian newspapers, said last week:
“A memo by former CIA director William Egan Colby on April 11, 1974, and addressed to then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggests how former President [Brazilian] Ernesto Geisel learned about and authorized the execution of hundreds of political opponents during the military dictatorship in Brazil.”
Folha de S. Paulo, another Brazilian newspaper with a usually left-wing prominence, said,
“A 1974 secret document released by the United States Department of State states that former President Ernesto Geisel (1974-1979) approved the continuation of a policy of ‘summary executions’ of opponents of the military dictatorship.”
All the Brazilian left is feasting on the declassified information made available on the U.S. State Department website.
Brazilian President Ernesto Geisel
Yet, what O Globo called innocent “political opponents,” the U.S. State Department called “the most dangerous subversives and terrorists.”
So what is the problem of the Brazilian military regime executing the most dangerous subversives and terrorists?
All of these terrorists were communists. They were not engaged in innocent political activities. They were engaged in killings, bank-robbing and many other violent crimes. Above all, they were killing to establish in Brazil a communist dictatorship.
There is a massive difference. While communist regimes around the world — including in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba — were randomly killing anyone pacifically opposing their dictatorship, the Brazilian military was not randomly killing people not involved in terrorist activities.
What did the State Department document say?
“[CIA director William] Colby reported that [Brazilian] President [Ernesto] Geisel planned to continue [former Brazilian President] Médici’s policy of using extra legal means against subversives but would limit executions to the most dangerous subversives and terrorists.”
This was top secret. Why is it now freely available for left-wingers to trash an unpleasant, but necessary event?
There is no problem in limiting executions to the most dangerous subversives and terrorists. If they had not been executed, these dangerous subversives and terrorists would overthrow the Brazilian government and not limit any of their executions: they would execute everyone and anyone, including the most innocent citizens.
The violence of these terrorists was not sparing even Americans in Brazil:
* “In October 1968 the VPR [Vanguarda Popular Revolucionária, a Marxist group] raised the stakes when they assassinated U.S. Army Captain Charles [Rodney] Chandler as he stepped outside his house in São Paulo. Chandler was taking university courses (at the highly conservative Mackenzie University) as part of his training to teach Portuguese at West Point.” (Thomas E. Skidmore, The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985 [Oxford University Press, 1990], page 87.)
* Charles Burke Elbrick, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, was kidnapped and held for four days in September 1969.
So there is no point in defending the most dangerous subversives and terrorists, as the Brazilian press is doing. To treat the most dangerous subversives and terrorists as mere political opponents is to trample on the blood of their victims. As the old saying goes, he who saves the wolves sacrifices the sheep.
What else did the State Department say?
“The [State] Department informed the [U.S.] Embassy [in Brazil] that, given the rapid economic development of Brazil and congressional hostility to indefinitely continuing assistance programs, bilateral assistance (with the exception of narcotics and family-planning assistance) would be phased out.”
This was top secret. Its date was May 18, 1973.
Why was the U.S. government so intent on not phasing out its “family-planning assistance” to Brazil?
Mentioned prominently in the declassified document is Henry Kissinger, then State secretary, who was very worried about the Brazilian affairs. Kissinger was also, with the CIA, responsible for the NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200). It is also called the Kissinger Report, and it was drafted during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon.
NSSM 200’s subject was “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” and treats the growth of the Brazilian population as a threat to the U.S. access to the Brazilian natural resources.
NSSM 200 identifies Brazil as one of the primary targets of the U.S. population control policies, which included the integration of the health care services for family planning and indoctrination.
A major victory of NSSM 200 was to integrate family planning in health care services. Before NSSM 200, family planning (which is a euphemism for population control) was not health care and was not integrated in health care services. Its integration was a population control victory of the Nixon administration, a Republican administration obsessed to reduce the world population and that, not surprisingly, saw abortion being legalized under the Republican noses.
Other powerful measures implemented directly from the NSSM 200 were indoctrination that the ideal family size was 2 children and that women should be “encouraged” or even pushed to work outside home, exactly to make it hard for them to have babies.
While the Brazilian government was working to execute the most dangerous subversives and terrorists — a necessary measure that would not displease any decent man and woman —, the U.S. government was working to “execute” new Brazilian generations through stealth population control intended to reserve Brazilian natural resources not to the next generation of Brazilians, but to the next generation of Americans.
Meanwhile, the same Brazilian left-wing media that has been careful not to call communists actively engaged in violence and terrorist attacks as dangerous communist subversives and terrorists has been equally careful not to expose and attack population-control efforts from the U.S. government.
The State Department document said,
“Crimmins informed the [State] Department that the Brazil-FRG [Federal Republic of Germany] agreement on nuclear cooperation reflected Brazil’s desire for major power status. The Ambassador concluded that if Brazil became a nuclear power, it would strain its ties to the United States.”
If Brazil wants a peaceful co-existence with the United States, it cannot achieve a major power status. I know this because in 2008 U.S. prophet Chuck Pierce prophetically said to me and a group of Brazilian Christian leaders that if Brazil supported Israel, God would raise Brazil as a power and the result would be jealously and opposition from the United States. You can read my full report here. Currently, as a nation that does not respect Israel, Brazil does not deserve to become a power.
The State Department document said,
“The [U.S.] Embassy commented on the election of Geisel as President, noting that the return to representative government promised by the Médici regime had not taken place.”
I support, in the U.S. context, representative government for the US, because its institutions are strong. But in the Brazilian context of the 1970s, when the Brazilian institutions were seriously under threat from subversive and armed actions from communists funded by foreign communist dictatorships, a representative, peaceful and democratic government to fight armed communist violence and guerrilla would be national suicide. Communists themselves were demanding “representative government,” as if they wanted democracy. In the Brazilian context, representative government would be a springboard for communist chaos and revolution.
Even so, the U.S. government was worried about a lack of such representative government, even though it has never pressured in any way its great ally, the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, to have a democratic government.
The State Department document said,
* “[U.S. Ambassador to Brazil] Crimmins discussed the prospects for political liberalization in Brazil. He concluded it would be a continuing source of difficulty for the Geisel administration.”
* “Crimmins suggested possible topics for Kissinger’s prospective trip to Brazil. Specifically, the Ambassador requested that the Secretary raise with Geisel political liberalization, in particular human rights abuses.”
* “Crimmins maintained that it was unlikely that direct U.S. Government assistance programs could be used to mitigate human rights abuses, but that regional assistance efforts could be effective.”
* “Ambassador Crimmins reported on steps taken by the Embassy to impress upon Brazilian officials the U.S. Government’s concern regarding human rights abuses.”
* “The Department instructed the Embassy to deliver a démarche to [Brazilian] Foreign Minister Silveira to inform him of congressional concern over human rights abuses.”
* “In telegram 45319 to all diplomatic posts, February 25, the Department requested information and analysis regarding human rights abuses in countries receiving U.S. economic development or military assistance.”
* “The Embassy recommended that an invitation for the head of the Brazilian Army Intelligence Center to visit the United States be deferred in light of concerns over human rights and Operation Condor.”
What is striking in this communication under a Republican, conservative administration is that the whole document of the State Department contains no expression of worry about human right abuses committed by communist terrorists against Brazilian citizens. There is no such worry by Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, the CIA and the State Department.
How could the Brazilian military government deal democratically with communist terrorists, who were already committing all kinds of violence, without “abuses” on their human rights?
While the Brazilian military government was dealing with communists — who with Muslims are par excellence human-right abusers —, the U.S. government was taking the Brazilian government to task for human-right abuses against communists. Had the State Department doubts that communists sought to establish in Brazil a human-right abuse dictatorship against the Brazilian population?
I want to make it very clear that, as an evangelical, between the anti-Israel Brazilian military government and the pro-Israel U.S. government, I would prefer the U.S. government. But between revolutionary communists intent on overthrowing the Brazilian government and the Brazilian military government, what were the innocent Brazilian citizens to choose?
I can understand today the Obama administration worried about human right abuses of the Brazilian military government in the 1970s, but I cannot understand how the same Republican, conservative administration of Nixon that tolerated all kinds of terrible human right abuses in Saudi Arabia complaining about the Brazilian military government not respecting the human rights of communist terrorists.
The Republican Party and its Nixon administration were not kind and fair to Brazil in the 1970s. I am not defending everything done by the military government under General Ernesto Geisel, the Lutheran president. In fact, the was the first Protestant president of Brazil.
The State Department document also said,
“In telegram 43532 to all diplomatic posts, February 26, the Department informed posts in countries receiving U.S. security assistance that ‘human rights factors must, under existing Department of State policy, be carefully considered in planning and carrying out our Security Assistance Programs.’ (Ibid., D750069–0367) Crimmins raised the cases of Kucinski and Wright in a meeting with Araujo Castro on April 25. (Telegram 7073 from Brasília, August 14; ibid., D750281–0294).”
Probably, Crimmins meant Paulo Stuart Wright, born in Brazil to U.S. missionaries. Wright was a Brazilian politician actively engaged in socialist activities. The Brazilian military government made him “disappear.” His brother was Jaime Nelson Wright, a Presbyterian minister actively engaged in socialist propaganda, especially in the Social Gospel (known in Brazil as Theology of Integral Mission). Even though he was not involved in armed violence, his propaganda supported communists involved in such violence.
As a conservative evangelical, I do not support Wright’s left-wing political militancy and equally I do not support what the Brazilian military government did to him. Even though armed violence is fought with armed answer, bad propagandas are fought with better propagandas — especially the Gospel, which is enough to counter atheistic or “Christian” socialism. If Wright was involved only in socialist propaganda, not in armed violence, the government should have found another way to deal with him. Jaime Wright, who became a human right advocate for Brazilian socialists, was fundamental in pressuring the U.S. government to make the Brazilian government accountable for the disappearance of his brother. He was successful in such pressure only because his parents were Americans.
Both Wrights could have avoided much personal suffering if, instead getting busy with socialist activism, they had got busy only with the mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick and expelling demons in the name of Jesus.
But, again, if the U.S. government could tolerate Saudi Arabia, a champion of human right abuses, why not tolerate the lesser abuses in Brazil?
In the U.S. context, with many evangelical churches influencing the U.S. government, it was possible to fight communism with democracy. But in the Brazilian context, it was impossible to fight communism with democracy.
I understand the Democratic Party and its socialist administrations of Carter, Clinton and Obama not being kind and fair to the Brazilian fight against communist terrorists. But why were the Republican Party and its Nixon administration equally unfair?
Why were the Republican Party and its Nixon administration worried about the human right abuses of communist subversives and terrorists in Brazil?
Now, the Brazilian left is using the complaints of the Nixon administration, as made available in the State Department website, as a confirmation that the Brazilian military government committed human right abuses against communists.
This is by far one of the greatest disservices of the U.S. government to the anticommunist fight in Brazil. The other great disservice was the U.S. population control campaign, launched by a Republican administration, to target the Brazilian population for reduction and indoctrination.
I confess that I was myself a victim of this indoctrination, being taught that birth control and family planning are a human right — just as NSSM 200 teaches. But after contact with Mary Pride (especially her excellent book, “The Way Home,” published by Crossway Books in 1985) and Dr. Paul Marx, the founder of Human Life International, I understood that my pro-birth control mindset was a result of the population control indoctrination initiated long ago in Brazil by a U.S. Republican administration and its NSSM 200.
My first contact with Paul Marx was through Last Days Ministries in 1986. I had already contact with Last Days Ministries, of Keith Green, before, being much blessed by its evangelistic, devotional, inspirational and pro-life literature. By reading its pro-life literature, I became fully pro-life and I asked its help to report an illegal abortion clinic in Brazil. Because Last Days Ministries had no office in Brazil, they gave me the contact of Paul Marx, whose Human Life International had Catholic contacts in Brazil. Even though ultimately these contacts could not help me close the abortion clinic in São Paulo, my mother and I were able to do it.
By revelation of the Holy Spirit, we were divinely warned not to report to the local police, which was in some way connected with the clinic. A police station of another region was contacted.
I thank God that there are Americans fighting hard to educate people around the world about the evils that the U.S. government, under Republican and Democratic administrations, do against other nations through its stealth population control efforts.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

I understand Facebook’s censorship


I understand Facebook’s censorship

Julio Severo
Facebook’s systematic censorship of Christians makes it look like a communist platform owned by some Cuban or an Islamic platform owned by Saudi wealthy dictators. It does not appear even to be a U.S. service.
Although it is 100 percent American, Facebook follows the will of its owner, an American of Jewish extraction who likes the Left.
He does not like the use of his social media to promote conservative ideas.
If we conservatives had a large social media, would we give free space to leftist ideas and the promotion of disgusting figures like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro and Islamic dictators? Of course not. Our attempt to stop the spread of evil would be labeled “censorship” by left-wingers.
The owner of Facebook, with his leftist vision, is disgusted with conservative ideas. He condemns what he dislikes, and bars in his space the spread of “evil,” which to him are conservative views.
In his left-wing morality, he is right to censor “evil.” And in our conservative morality, we are right to censor the true evil — leftism.
What would be right for each group was that left-wingers had a leftist Facebook and conservatives had their own social media.
Disgraceful news: leftists already have their own Facebook, which is the largest social media, and we conservatives have nothing of the sort. So we occupy their spaces. This is the sad reality.
Unfortunately, all the major social networking services — Google, Facebook and Twitter — and all the big companies we conservatives need to access the internet — Microsoft, Apple, etc. — are of a leftist nature.
The largest capitalist country in the world, the United States, after divorcing capitalism from its old Protestant values, lends itself to serving any ideology that is profitable to it, be it leftism, Islam, or any other lucrative “ism.”
And we conservative Christians have to use all the leftist services and companies that are profitable for American capitalism.
If the marriage of communism to capitalism in China is disgusting, it is even more disgusting the American case where capitalism divorced itself from Protestantism and it has married any ideology making it profitable. American capitalism has become a great prostitute at the service of dangerous clients.
The most important struggle would be to return Protestant values to American capitalism.
But do we have time for this, given Jesus’s urgent call, which is to preach the Gospel, heal the sick and cast out demons among sinners, including socialists, Muslims, atheists, capitalists, Buddhists, witches and even nominal Christians who, realizing it or not, serve to Satan?
We are instructed in the Bible to preach in season and out of season, which can be translated into preaching Jesus Christ on Facebook, Twitter, Google and beyond, whether there is censorship or not, whether there is persecution or not.
The larger mission cannot be forgotten. If leftists do not forget their mission, how can we forget ours?
Portuguese version of this article: Entendo a censura do Facebook
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Dialogue of a Communist: Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire Suggests that Both Jesus and Karl Marx Deserve to Be Celebrated


Dialogue of a Communist: Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire Suggests that Both Jesus and Karl Marx Deserve to Be Celebrated

By Julio Severo
All began with the article “Don’t celebrate Karl Marx. His Communism has a death count in the millions,” which I translated from USA Today. On the 200-year anniversary of the birth of the founder of Marxism, USA Today, which is not usually conservative, urged readers not to celebrate it.
Roberto Freire
Somehow, Brazilian Congressman Roberto Freire saw this article being shared by me and he said to me on Twitter saying,
“Sorry, but that statement does not fit your intelligence. It would be the same as asking not to celebrate Jesus because his religion promoted wars and deaths in history. Not to mention the holy inquisition. Or other prophets of other peoples still today, worldwide. Hugs.”
Freire, who has a history of involvement in the Brazilian Communist Party, founded the Popular Socialist Party (PSP). Today, he is a Representative in the Brazilian House of Representatives and the president of the PSP.
Between 2016 and 2017, he was Minister of Culture in Brazil. What kind of culture can a celebrant of Marx bring to Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world? In Brazilian politics, mostly Catholic, there are many celebrants of Marx and very few celebrants of Jesus.
My response to the communist Roberto Freire was:
“The difference is cosmic. Jesus Christ preached the Gospel, which freed millions of people. In contrast, Karl Marx preached Marxism, which deceived and enslaved millions of people. Compare the Gospel with Marxism for you to see. It is incomparable. Who promoted the Inquisition was not Christ. It was the Catholic Church. Did you know that many true Christians were tortured and killed by the Inquisition? As an evangelical, I represent a part of these victims. Thousands of evangelicals were tortured and killed by the Inquisition.”
To see the conversation between me and Roberto Freire on Twitter, go to this link: http://archive.is/hH0lv
Perhaps Freire thought that every Christian defends the Inquisition and that every Christian is a Catholic. The greatest advocate of the Inquisition in Brazil is pseudo-Catholic Olavo de Carvalho, whose spiritualist movie “The Garden of Afflictions” was boycotted by filmmakers in Pernambuco. Freire strongly criticized the boycott, calling the boycotters Stalinists. Although this film was released in New York in 2017, it did not make any success and did not draw the American public.
Perhaps Freire thought that Carvalho’s advocacy of the Inquisition represents Christianity. But if he thinks that the Inquisition committed crimes (and it actually did), why did he defend Carvalho?
Freire could not distinguish that what Jesus did and what the Catholic Church did are vastly different universes. Jesus never created an inquisition to torture and kill people who did not accept the Gospel. Therefore, when the Catholic Church, which claims to represent Christ on earth, created the Inquisition, it was in disobedience to the Gospel. Whether she wanted to or not, she represented Satan on earth by torturing and killing Jews and Protestants.
However, how could Freire criticize the Catholic Church? The overwhelming majority of Brazilians who became Marxists were Catholic and were influenced in this direction within the Catholic Church. Historically, the Catholic Church in Brazil, which is a champion of Liberation Theology, is a great facilitator of Marxism.
Had it not been for Catholicism, Freire and millions of Brazilians would never have become Marxists. And to make matters worse, many Catholics who are becoming right-winger have become stridently pro-Inquisition. They go from an extreme to another and, in both cases, they are very far from Jesus.
There is an immense difference not only between Jesus and Marx, but also between Jesus, who never created the Inquisition nor facilitated Marxism, and the Catholic Church, which created the Inquisition in the past and today facilitates Marxism in Brazil and throughout Latin America.
To celebrate Marx is to celebrate slavery and death. To celebrate Jesus is to celebrate deliverance and salvation.
Recommended Reading: