Sunday, May 15, 2016

Is Trump a KGB Agent?


Is Trump a KGB Agent?

By Julio Severo
Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic who sees widespread Russian conspiracies in every crisis and problem in this world and outside it, has written a number of articles against what he sees as a Trump-Putin “romance.” He consistently denounces Putin and now he denounces the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump too.
Last year, Kincaid published an article suggesting that evangelical author Don Hank was receiving Russian money to support Putin. His Brazilian friend Olavo de Carvalho fully agreed, and published the Kincaid piece in Portuguese at his Brazilian website Mídia Sem Mascara, and I ventured to publish my answer here: Neocons, the Inquisition, Russophobia and Lies.
Perhaps, according to their reasoning, Hank could be a KGB agent. They could also charge that Hank is a “Trump agent” or that he receives money from Trump, because Hank is an enthusiastic Trump supporter.
In this point, I disagree with Hank. Even though I support Trump’s views on Russia and NATO, and I strongly back his stance that Muslim immigrants should be banned, I am not comfortable with his “conservative” and “pro-life” history and flip-flops.
Kincaid has had a consistent view on Putin and Trump (Putin is pure evil and anyone supporting him is wicked too). But what is his Brazilian friend, who was interviewed by him some time ago, doing backing Trump? Carvalho, who equally sees widespread Russian conspiracies in every crisis and problem and fully supported an attack on pro-Putin and pro-Trump Hank, has publicly endorsed pro-Putin Trump.
If this is not hypocrisy, what is it?
Kincaid in America and Carvalho in Brazil have made it the hallmark of their work to charge Russia with every possible evil and charge that its supporters as equally wicked. Are Angela Merkel and Pope Francis opening the European doors for an Islamic invasion? Kincaid and Carvalho have a very simple answer: A Russian conspiracy, especially the KGB, is behind it!
What is the point or honesty in Carvalho supporting Trump? If his reasoning were sincere, why not back Don Hank for president too?
Kincaid and Carvalho both have a problem with pro-Putin Hank and pro-Putin Pat Buchanan. But why has Carvalho no problem with pro-Putin Trump?
Buchanan supports Trump, and he has many reasons to do so, because traditionally Buchanan opposes the neocon establishment and Trump has taken a stance against it. Similarly, Hank is opposed to the neocon establishment.
Carvalho has many reasons to charge Trump with being a “KGB agent.” If to defend Putin is enough reason to make such charge (and he and his Brazilian website have made abundant use of such charges against pro-Russia conservative writers), why spare only Trump?
By the way, Carvalho is opposed to Buchanan, who has the same stance on Russia and NATO as Trump does. But while Buchanan has a solid conservative history (traditionalist Catholic, pro-life, former Republican presidential candidate, former Reagan adviser, WND columnist), Carvalho has a nebulous esoteric history, in particular, following the “conservatism” of the Traditionalist or Perennial Philosophy of René Guénon, an Islamic sorcerer who used to predict political trends and events. The first translation into Portuguese of a Guénon book was made by Carvalho.
The reason Carvalho has to support Trump seems to be his potty mouth. If you think Trump uses foul language, you did not see Carvalho blogging in Portuguese. He makes abundant and constant public use of such language, always in Portuguese and never in English. Possibly, he hopes that a Trump victory will give him more freedom to use in the American conservative culture the same leftist dirty and offensive language he uses day by day, hour by hour, to communicate to his Brazilian audience, especially through Facebook.
He excuses his foul mouth as a “strategy” because, according to him, Vladimir Lenin used it successfully to spread Soviet Marxism, and he hopes to achieve the same success by employing the same dirty tricks and language to spread his “conservatism.” In fact, foul-mouthed “conservatism” is his hallmark in Brazil. But his “strategy,” allegedly a weapon against socialists, is also used to attack Brazilian conservatives that he feels threaten his views. When I, a conservative evangelical, disagreed with him about the Catholic Inquisition, which he says did not torture Jews and Protestants for the “crime” of different views, his potty mouth did not spare me any public abuse, insult and revilement.
Any individual disagreeing with his foul mouth and views (including about an alleged anesthetic Inquisition) is seen and treated by him as a mortal enemy.
Even though he charges that the Inquisition is an invention of U.S. Protestants, he lives in the U.S. He left Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, over 10 years ago.
Will a Trump victory reveal to America the real foul-mouthed Carvalho that he is in Portuguese? I do not know.
Perhaps he is supporting Trump because he foresaw a Trump victory. Before choosing to present himself as a conservative philosopher who predicts political trends and events, he was a famous astrologer (and founder and director of the first Brazilian school of astrologers) who predicted political trends and events. So it is very common for his foul-mouthed followers to say today that “Master Olavo predicted this and that political trend and event.”
But does this excuse the fact that he is not charging Trump with being a “KGB agent”?
I do not know if Cliff Kincaid is a foul-mouthed Catholic. I only know that he is consistent about his opposition to Putin, Russia and pro-Putin Trump. It is because of his consistency that he could never support Don Hank for president. But I do not know where is Carvalho’s consistency when he condemns pro-Putin and pro-Trump Buchanan and Hank and at the same time endorses pro-Putin Trump.
I do not know if neocons are potty-mouthed, but certainly they are potty-minded, and obsessively anti-Russia.
Carvalho’s two hallmarks both align him and alienate him from Trump. His strident anti-Russian views alienate him from Trump. His strident foul mouth aligns him with Trump.
If a leftist dirty and offensive language were not so important for him, he would certainly be charging Trump with being a “KGB agent.”
Portuguese version of this article: Trump é um agente da KGB?
Recommended Reading about Olavo de Carvalho:
Recommended Reading about Donald Trump:

Friday, May 13, 2016

Methodist Hillary Clinton Defends Israel because of Shared Socialist Values


Methodist Hillary Clinton Defends Israel because of Shared Socialist Values

By Julio Severo
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has been very open about her lifelong affiliation with the United Methodist Church, but she has been in conflict with the leaders of her denomination because she opposes the anti-Israel stances officially advocated by the United Methodist Church.
In response to a letter from the Jewish Federations of North America calling on her to denounce the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) Movement, she wrote:
More than three decades ago, my husband, Bill, and I took our first trip to Israel, walked the ancient streets of Jerusalem's Old City, and fell in love with the country and its people. Israel became a special place for us, and I am lucky to have had many opportunities to return and to make many dear friends there over the years.
As Senator and Secretary of State, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N., the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the biased Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the U.N. to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter the venue, I have made it clear that America will always stand up for Israel. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel's security.
It is because of my longstanding commitment to the Israeli people and to the security of Israel that I am writing to express my opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement, or "BDS," the global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges. I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority, and that we need to work together—across party lines and with a diverse array of voices—to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else. The Jewish state is a modern day miracle—a vibrant bloom in the middle of a desert—and we must nurture and protect it.
I believe that BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace. I remain convinced that Israel's long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. But that can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians; it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions. As Secretary of State, I convened the last round of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders; I know how hard this will be, but it is an effort to which I would be committed as president.
Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Fighting for Israel isn't just about policy; it is a personal commitment to the friendship between our peoples and our vision for peace and security. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society—not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere. We must never tire in defending Israel's legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, and taking our alliance to the next level.
Please know that I am grateful for your work, and that I stand ready to be your partner as we engage all people of good faith—regardless of their political persuasion or their views on policy specifics—in explaining why the BDS campaign is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and harmful to Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Clinton has been very vocal about her support for Israel and her opposition to BDS. But her United Methodist Church opposes Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It also opposes the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which it calls “illegal.” Now her denomination wants to embrace BDS.
The BDS Movement has received the support of a number of mainline denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Clinton’s support for Israel is good, but her stance of two states as a solution — the same solution followed by pro-life conservative Republican George W. Bush — for Israel and “Palestine” in the Promised Land for the Jews is nonsense, from a biblical perspective.
But why left-wing Clinton differs from other left-wingers and also from her leftist denomination? It is a fact that not all leftists are equal. For example, many pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality socialists around the world opposing Israel seem to be ignorant of the fact that socialism is welcome in Israel, which has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Besides, Israel is the only Middle East nation having homosexual parades and privileges.
So it is just natural that Clinton, who is pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality, is a supporter Israel. Her socialism is not different from the socialism of most U.S. Jews, who prefer any socialist candidate over conservative candidates.
In his first election in 1980, Ronald Reagan earned 39% of the Jewish vote. In his 1984 reelection, he managed to garner just 31%. In comparison, socialist Barack Obama earned an astonishing 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008, even though Obama is more pro-Islam and anti-Israel than Reagan.
Sadly, Clinton will probably get massive support from U.S. Jewish voters, because they identify themselves with her socialism, including her abortion and homosexuality stances.
This socialist alliance is not always good. In the Soviet Union, until the end of his life Vladimir Lenin was supportive of the Jews, who in turn supported him. Josef Stalin also supported the Jews, including by leading his Soviet Union to be the first nation to recognize officially the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. But later he began to harass and persecute them.
Clinton may be a kind of female Lenin, willing to impose abortion and sodomy around the world and to support the socialist apostasy of the Jews. In fact, when a woman considers herself as a Methodist Christian, but she supports abortion and sodomy, she is in the same socialist apostasy herself.
With information from Charisma.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, May 09, 2016

Fast Islamization of Europe, with Christian Assistance


Fast Islamization of Europe, with Christian Assistance

By Julio Severo
A liberal Muslim who backs homosexual “marriage” was elected the first Islamic mayor of London, the capital of England and one of the most important cities in the West.
Sadiq Khan, the first Islamic mayor of London
Sadiq Khan, the new Muslim mayor of London, said, “This election was not without controversy and I’m so proud that Londoners have today chosen hope over fear and unity over division.”
A Muslim teaching “unity” to a nation with a Christian past and majority?
His election victory was celebrated in a multi-denominational ceremony at an Anglican cathedral accompanied by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders.
G.M. Davis, a PhD from Stanford University and the author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World,” called Khan’s victory historic in a WND (WorldNetDaily) report. And he warned about Khan’s supposedly liberal views:
“While Khan advertises himself as a liberal and eschews orthodox Islamic positions such as Shariah law, he nonetheless represents the thin end of the wedge in the mounting political presence of Islam in Europe both within and without conventional political channels. A liberal Muslim candidate will in time give way to more orthodox candidates advocating Islam and all it stands for: polygamy, brutality against women and homosexuals, repression of non-Muslim religious groups, and all the hallmarks of Shariah that have marred Islamic history through the ages.”
The 2011 census reported one in eight residents in London is a Muslim and more than a third of the city’s population was immigrant.
These numbers do not include those born to non-white or Muslim immigrants. To explain this special case, I have interviewed Professor Rodney Atkinson, a British conservative leader who has given speeches in universities and public meetings in England and throughout Europe. He has written a number of books and been an occasional adviser to ministers and MPs, since 1981. Atkinson, whose brother is actor Rowan Atkinson (the famous “Mr. Bean”), runs the conservative British website Free Nations: http://freenations.net/
He said:
The main reason why Khan won in London was demography. London is no longer a British city. The non-white “British” make up about 53% of the population of London. Khan (standing for the Labour Party that have been buying the votes of immigrants by making the rest of us pay for their mass immigration) got 57% of the vote.
First, we lost London demographically. Now we have lost it politically. Next, we will lose it culturally. Then by language.
Muslims alone make up 6% of the population (officially) [of England. But] Muslim gangs have raped, and sexually assaulted thousands of white British children in Rotherham, Oxford and other places over at least 2 decades. As one Pakistani abuser of children said to a mother of one of the girls abused: “They are white trash. That’s all they are good for.” (BBC Radio 4 Today programme 19th September 2014.)
And the former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw said that Muslim gangs found white children “easy meat.”
Tony Blair’s government and the Labour local authorities in those areas deliberately covered up the abuse.
In 2001 a Home Office researcher in Rotherham was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity awareness course” and told that she must “never, ever” repeat her findings that child molestation on a massive scale was being perpetrated in the town and the culprits were mainly gangs of Muslim men.
Obviously one could write a book on this evil. But never in the history of the world has a country — and a political party, mainly the Labour Party — presided over the cultural and demographic destruction of their own capital city.
G.M. Davis said Western politicians can continue to ignore the immigrant issue, but such sweeping demographic changes will revolutionize politics across the European Continent.
Khan’s victory comes at a time when his Labour Party is gripped in a crisis over anti-Semitism. Several of its members have been suspended for anti-Jewish posts on social media. Former London mayor Kevin Livingstone, a fiery member of the Labour Party nicknamed “Red Ken,” was recently suspended after he alleged Adolf Hitler was a supporter of Zionism before the Holocaust.
“Islam itself is profoundly anti-Jewish,” Davis charged.
While Khan is celebrating his Islamic victory in London, in Saudi Arabia Christians have no reason to celebrate. A Christian mayor of Mecca in a ceremony at its biggest mosque? This is completely out of question. Christians and Jews are not allowed to live in Saudi Arabia.
Why choose then as the mayor of London the representative of a religious ideology championing the worldwide persecution and murder of Christians and Jews?
Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith said that Khan and his socialist Labour Party considered Muslim terrorists their friends and would handicap police efforts to prevent another attack on London, 11 years after 52 Londoners died in suicide blasts on three subway trains and a bus committed by Muslims. Goldsmith’s appeal, accompanied by a picture of the bomb-ravaged bus, was ignored.
Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said that London’s security would be jeopardized by Khan. His warning was also ignored and even despised by the mass media.
Even Prime Minister David Cameron, a conservative with liberal stances, decried Khan’s links with Islamic extremists on the floor of the British Parliament. His warnings were ignored.
The politically correct insanity is so widespread in the English culture that even the Conservative Party is not so conservative and much less Christian. Leading Muslim activists in this party expressed anger over conservative Goldsmith, saying his attacks on Khan were “racist” and “intolerant.”
Sadiq Khan, who legally defended a 9/11 Muslim terrorist who confessed to being a member of Al Qaeda, becomes as the mayor of London one of the most powerful Muslims in the Western world.
So to choose a Muslim is to choose “unity over division,” a victory against “racism” and “intolerance”?
That union, which is non-existent in Islamic nations, has been also championed by Pope Francis, who accepted the prestigious International Charlemagne Prize for promoting European unity with Muslim immigrant invaders.
Echoing the famous “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King, Francis offered his vision of a Europe that welcomes Muslim immigrants.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised Francis for sending “very clear messages.”
The pope said the Roman Catholic Church can play a role in “the rebirth of a Europe” with a larger Muslim presence.
Before the ceremony, Francis met privately with Merkel, as well as with European parliament president Martin Schulz, a previous Charlemagne Prize recipient, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and EU Council President Donald Tusk.
Juncker praised the pope for taking Muslim refugees to Rome with him at the end of his recent visit to Greece, making it clear that the pope gave the example for Europe to follow.
The Charlemagne Prize, consisting of a medal and a citation, is awarded annually for contributions to European unity. Previous winners include former U.S. President Bill Clinton, a notorious pro-abortion activist, and Pope John Paul II, a famous pro-life activist.
In his book “And Into The Fire: Fascist Elements in Post War Europe and the Development of the EU,” Rodney Atkinson says the Charlemagne Prize has original connections with Nazis and their efforts to unify Europe. Nazis, who were united with anti-Semite Muslims, were also anti-Semite. A Europe unified with a larger Muslim population will be a much more anti-Semitic Europe, a Nazi dreaming coming true.
Charlemagne (742-814 A.D.) was a European emperor who to keep Europe united made many wars, including against Muslims. If the pope and even Londoners were following his European unity, they would be fighting, not backing, Muslim invaders.
A true defense and unity of Europe could perhaps be accomplished by NATO, but it has been too busy fighting the fantasy of a communist Soviet Union that does not exists any longer, while multitudes of Muslims invade Europe, win the pope’s heart, get elected as mayor in one of the most important capitals in Europe and change its cultural and religious landscape.
This is the price of a pope, Europe and NATO chasing fantasies.
With pope’s blessing, Europe is under Islamization. Europe does not know what it is any longer and what it will be. But Islamic invaders know their mission, regardless if Europeans care or not.
With information from WorldNetDaily, DailyMail, Associated Press and Middle East Forum.
Portuguese version of this article: Rápida islamização da Europa, com ajuda cristã
Recommended Reading:

Monday, May 02, 2016

The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America


The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America

How the U.S. Supported the Protestant Advance against the Liberation Theology Promoted by Catholic Bishops and KGB

By Julio Severo
The information and disinformation war by the Soviet Union and the United States in the Cold War days was not limited only to the political sphere in Latin America. According to two Catholic bloggers, while the Soviet Union supported the advance of Liberation Theology, the U.S. supported the advance of evangelicals and Pentecostals.
The Soviet Union saw the Catholic Church in Latin America as a natural ally of Marxism and the U.S. saw Protestant and Pentecostal churches, which have always resisted Marxism, as natural allies of the U.S. government.
In his article entitled “La Expansión del Protestantismo Fue Parte del Plan de Guerra de la CIA para América del Sur” (The Expansion of Protestantism Was Part of CIA War Plan for South America), Catholic blogger Jorge Rondón Santos mentions a 1969 memorandum addressed to President Richard Nixon. Drafted by Republican Nelson Rockefeller, Baptist and U.S. vice-president, it said about Latin America: “the Catholic church has ceased to be an ally in whom the U.S. can have confidence.” It is confirmed by Wade Clark Roof, in the page 84 of his book “World Order and Religion” (1991 SUNY Press). Roof was Professor of Religion and Society in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santos said that Rockefeller and the U.S. government supported the Protestant advance in Latin America. Their strategy was to counter Liberation Theology by promoting Protestant churches that were rivals to the Catholic Church.
Santos uses as special example Guatemala, which according to him will be the first mostly Protestant nation in Latin America. He declares that to counter a devotional revolutionary Catholicism, the U.S. government’s plan was to stimulate Protestant missions, “which with a ‘bread and dollar’ speech drew to themselves thousands of poor people in the countryside and cities who sought spiritual power.”
Former general and former Guatemala President José Efraín Ríos Montt used, during his administration, the national broadcasting network on Sundays to preach and say that the Guatemalan people were the “elected people” and accusing the Catholic Church of being a “collaborator of Marxism,” Santos complained. Montt was a member of a Pentecostal church.
The connection between Protestant missions and CIA was more exposed in the 1980s, when several Latin American military governments expelled the Summer Institute of Linguistics (connected to Wycliffe Bible Translators), accusing its missionaries of being CIA operatives. Nevertheless its anti-Marxism and its pro-U.S. position, the Brazilian military government did not want such intrusion of missionary spies, especially in the Amazonian region, suspecting that these missionaries, funded by the Rockefeller family (unprincipled capitalist executives), were spying on the natural resources of Amazon.
In that time, I thought it was greatly unfair for the Brazilian military government to expel the U.S. missionaries and I wrote a supporting letter to the Summer Institute of Linguistics. I still support their work, but only years later I learnt, through U.S. and Brazilian sources, that actually there were and there are in Brazil American missionaries connected to CIA.
Even though it was very helpful the financial, strategic and logistic support of Nelson Rockefeller for the Protestant and Pentecostal advance in Latin America to counter the religious leftist advance from the Catholic Church, it should not go unnoticed that he was also behind the infamous NSSM 200, or the Kissinger Report, a confidential document written by the U.S. government in 1974 addressing the keeping of resources of other nations for the U.S. interests having as a focus the population reduction of those nations. The purpose of this reduction was to weaken opposition to the U.S. interests.
The harmful effect of Rockefeller’s strategy in NSSM 200 is that the goal of population reduction did not hit only leftist Catholics, but also Protestants and Pentecostals he said that he was supporting and who became equally victims of population reduction propaganda and politics disguised as “family planning.”
Rockefeller’s only success was to identify Liberation Theology as a threat. According to the American leftist Catholic blogger Mike Rivage-Seul, in his article “The First Religious War of the 21st Century”: “The Rockefeller Report of 1969 already identified liberation theology as a threat to the national security of the United States… The [Reagan] administration heeded the advice, and responded both militarily and ideologically.”
According to Rivage-Seul, there was an agreement in which Ronald Reagan would help Pope John Paul II in the campaign against communism in Poland and, in return, the pope would remain silent about U.S. campaigns against Latin American leftist Catholics. The papal collaboration happened also through the gradual replacement of pro-Liberation Theology bishops for conservative bishops. But over three decades later, huge is the number of pro-Liberation Theology Catholic bishops. The substitutions were not enough.
The anticommunist fight itself of John Paul II was imperfect, because he was a great supporter of Yasser Arafat, the founder of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist Islamic group fighting the State of Israel. In this fight, the Vatican was more comfortable with PLO, which promoted a Palestine version of Liberation Theology.
Today, the Vatican under Pope Francis is much more aligned with the leftist ideology, having approved the sainthood process for Helder Camara, the founder of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil and patron of the Brazilian Catholic Left.
As if the Brazilian Catholicism were not plagued enough by the leftist ideology, U.S. Catholic missionaries coming to Brazil brought the same ideology. In 2005, U.S. nun Dorothy Stang, who was a Liberation Theology adherent, was murdered in Brazil. She was allegedly killed for political and environmental activities in Brazil since the 1970s.
With the picture of religious war during the Cold War in which the Soviet Union used Catholics and the U.S. used Protestants and Pentecostals, I am surprised then that a Brazilian Catholic blogger said that “Marxism is a Protestant product,” when the reality is that the most Catholic region in the world, Latin America, has been mostly a garner and ally of Marxism, while Protestantism, especially its Pentecostal variants, has mostly resisted Marxism.
Another Brazilian Catholic says that the first totalitarian society (of a Marxist kind) in the Modern Age was Protestantism in Geneva under Calvin.
Yet, by considering the Latin American population growth, especially in Brazil, as a threat to the U.S. national security, Nelson Rockefeller and the U.S. government, as made evident by NSSM 200, harmed both pro-Marxism Catholics and anti-Marxism evangelicals.
NSSM 200 was produced by a U.S. Republican administration, the Richard Nixon administration, in which abortion was nationally legalized from conception until childbirth in 1973. In fact, Rockefeller was also a member of the Republican Party, which supposedly is conservative and does not want to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
Even though it has brought huge benefits to Protestants and Pentecostals in Latin America (not in the population control issue), the fight of those worldly-minded Republicans helped in no way to change the fate of the U.S., which has as its current president Barack Obama, raised up as a Muslim and posteriorly mentored in a Liberation Theology Black Protestant church.
Besides, the U.S. government gave support not only to anti-Marxist Protestants (and also Catholics). In the administration of Jimmy Carter, who as a progressive (leftist) Baptist, great was the U.S. support for the World Council of Churches (constituted by leftist Protestants) and Brazilian Catholic bishops. Papers gathered by the Carter administration against the Brazilian military government were used two years ago by the Obama administration to help Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to strengthen her socialist administration against military attempts to destabilize it. But the destabilization, and especially her impeachment, is coming exactly from Pentecostals, traditional enemies of Marxism and friends and allies of U.S. administrations that are honestly conservative.
In fact, Pentecostals can be friends and allies of any government, regardless it is American or not, that are honestly conservative. If a today’s ruler is brave to resist the politically correct trends of valuing abortions and homosexual “marriages,” he will receive support from conservative Christians, especially Pentecostals.
Today’s religious war is not any longer between CIA and KGB. It is not any longer between the Soviet Union and the U.S. Now, it is between pro-life values and pro-abortion impositions; pro-family values and homosexual “marriage” impositions. Pentecostals are more than willing to support the right side in this war.
Yet, Catholics in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, remain confused by being led for decades by mostly Liberation Theology bishops.
Times have changed. There is no longer a Soviet Union. But the U.S. government, under Obama, could be more than wiling to take advantage of their confusion, a confusion that is engulfing also Pentecostals increasingly mesmerized by the Protestant versions of Liberation Theology.
Portuguese version of this article: A guerra religiosa entre CIA e KGB na América Latina
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil


President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

CBN News
Comment by Julio Severo: Last year, the most significant position paper of the ruling socialist Workers’ Party in Brazil declared that Eduardo Cunha, a Pentecostal leader, is the most dangerous man in the Brazilian Congress, because Cunha has been advancing, as no one else, a conservative agenda. Under his leadership, the pro-abortion and homosexualist agendas are being weakened and pro-family and pro-life interests are a priority. Above all, Cunha is the man behind the impeachment. Read now the CBN report:
Dilma Rousseff
The impeachment of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff is being led by a Pentecostal Christian and the speaker of Brazil's lower legislative house, Eduardo Cunha.
Some say it shows evangelical influence is rising inside the traditionally Catholic country.
Brazilian historian Karina Bellotti told the Christian Science Monitor that "during the last roll call vote for the continuation of the process of impeachment in the lower house, several politicians dedicated their vote 'for God.'" 
"Some of them were Catholic, but most were evangelical, from the Pentecostal churches," she added.
Estimates put the number of Pentecostals in Brazil at about 45 million.
"Brazil is at the vanguard of the global trend of the Pentecostalization of Christianity," as well as "the epicenter of world Christianity, with the largest Pentecostal population," Andrew Chesnut, author of Born Again in Brazil, told CSM.
The impeachment proceedings against Rousseff stem from allegations that illegal accounting tricks allowed her administration to maintain government spending to shore up flagging support.
Her critics contend that she also hid deficits that contributed to the country's worst recession since the 1930s.
Rousseff has defended such fiscal maneuvers as common practice in Brazil. She insists the accusations are a flimsy excuse by the traditional ruling elite to grab power back from her left-leaning Workers' Party, which has governed for 13 years.
The lower Chamber of Deputies didn't agree. On Sunday, the body voted in favor of impeachment. The measure is now in the Senate, which is expected to decide by mid-May whether to put the president on trial.
A simple majority vote by senators is needed to approve a trial, and Rousseff would be suspended for up to 180 days while it was conducted.
During that time, Vice President Michel Temer, a Lebanese-Brazilian Maronite Christian, would take over.
But the impeachment leader, Cunha, is also under a cloud after his name appeared in the recently disclosed Panama Papers. An opinion poll showed 77 percent of people believe he too should be impeached.
Source: CBN News
Divulgation: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, April 07, 2016

The Hypocrisy of PayPal


The Hypocrisy of PayPal

By Julio Severo
PayPal has vowed to discontinue the expansion of its services in North Carolina after its governor passed a law to protect women and children against homosexual predators by not allowing biological men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
In answer to the PayPal boycott, on Facebook Franklin Graham, son of the legendary evangelist Billy Graham, said, “PayPal gets the hypocrite of the year award!… PayPal operates in countries including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Yemen for Pete’s sake. Just last month PayPal announced they would be expanding in Cuba, a country in which homosexuals and transgender people have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed.”
PayPal’s boycott against North Carolina, the land of Billy Graham, makes no sense, since PayPal has no boycott policy against Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations that arrest, torture and kill homosexuals.
A “small” hypocrisy eventually leads to bigger hypocrisy. The PayPal hypocrisy began in 2011, after an international campaign against ten pro-family activists, including me, Julio Severo. The campaign accused us of “homophobia,” PayPal accepted its lies and closed my account definitively. The campaign was orchestrated by U.S. homosexualist group AllOut, denounced by WND (WorldNetDaily), which run this headline: PayPal blacklists Christian writer.
PayPal has never discontinued its services to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations in a boycott against their “homophobia.” I was targeted exclusively because of my Christian values and stances.
The official PayPal answer to my case was very hypocritical. To me, PayPal explained that I am ineligible to receive donations from my friends and readers because “you are not a registered non-profit organization.” To AllOut, PayPal explained that it closed my account because “We take very seriously any cases where a user has incited hatred, violence or intolerance because of a person’s sexual orientation”.
Since 2011, I have been hindered from receiving donations from my friends through PayPal.
In a listing of the top ten anti-Christian acts in 2011, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission ranked the gay pressure on PayPal as fourth top anti-Christian act, as reported by Charisma magazine.
Portuguese version of this article: A hipocrisia do PayPal
Recommended Reading:

Monday, April 04, 2016

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis


Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

By Julio Severo
Protests against a corrupt president? A population calling for the impeachment of the corrupt president? This is what Brazil is living right now. And this is what Guatemala lived last year.
But there is a huge difference between the presidents of both nations. While Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was a Marxist terrorist who fought the military rule in Brazil in the 1960s, Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina was a general who fought communists in the past. In fact, he was trained for such fight.
Molina was a graduate of the U.S. Army School of the Americas, an institution whose specific goal was to teach “anti-communist counterinsurgency training.” He was also a graduate of the Washington DC-based Inter-American Defense College. He is one of the distinguished alumni of this college.
As a retired general, Molina founded in 2001 the Patriotic Party (Spanish: Partido Patriota, PP), which is conservative and right-wing.
The past political activism of Molina and Rousseff is opposed and antagonistic. She is an atheist with a perfect Marxist history. He is a Catholic with a perfect anti-Marxist history. But their presidencies were equally plagued by massive corruption, and massive protests.
In spite of their irreconcilable ideological differences, they equally suffered protests from contrary political forces. Molina, from left-wing forces; Rousseff, from right-wing forces.
Rousseff may be impeached or deposed in 2016, while Molina, whose opposition wanted to impeach him, resigned due to fraud and corruption in 2015.
But in Guatemala, a corrupt Left was not victorious against a corrupt right-wing president. The Guatemalan Church had been active throughout the process of political crisis, holding prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.
“God put His hand in Guatemala, it’s a miracle what happened,” prayer participant Marco Antonio Ruiz said. “We came together as Church and cried out with one voice. The effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. God heard the voice of all those who joined us in prayer.”
After Molina’s resignation, Guatemala held new elections, and Jimmy Morales, who is a conservative evangelical Christian and has studied theology, was elected in an election process equally marked by prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting. Morales supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and gay “marriage.”
About laws promoting these evils, which are plaguing Brazil and especially the U.S., Morales said, “According to my belief, my ideology, I would have to veto such laws. I think in Guatemala we will not have this because of conservative thinking. In case Congress approves such laws, my position would be against them.”
Many Guatemalan Christians believe President Morales is an answer to their prayers. Because of prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting, the transition from a corrupt right-wing president to a conservative evangelical president was very peaceful.
Is there a more powerful lesson to Brazil than the Guatemala example in this time of intense Brazilian crisis?
The answer is not in leftist politicians, including Marina Silva.
Many Brazilians see anti-communist Army officials as the only hope for Brazil.
But the ultimate answer is not in them.
The answer is in God, who answers prayers.
Perhaps the Brazilian Church should invite the Guatemalan Church to teach her about prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.
If God gave a real conservative president to Guatemala, what hinders him from giving the same blessing to Brazil?
With information from ChristianHeadLines.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Spotlight: Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church


Spotlight: Exposing Pedophilia Scandals and Hiding Homosexual Scandals in the Catholic Church

By Julio Severo
Recently, I watched Spotlight, a 2015 movie that exposes abundant cases of pedophilia in the Boston archdiocese. The profile of most victims, male children, is indicative of abundant cases of homosexuality, but the word homosexuality was mildly and rarely used in the movie.
Spotlight
What is the reason for such mild and frivolous treatment? You can watch a trailer here: http://spotlightthefilm.com/
The scandals in the Boston archdiocese were exposed when American Jew Marty Baron, a new editor of The Boston Globe, led an investigative team of journalists who began, in 2001, to research and publish about pedophile priests covered by their superiors.
Baron discovered that bishops in the Boston area moved abusers from parish to parish instead of defrocking them or letting police and courts take charge of these cases. Similar scandals have since been discovered around the world.
According to the Associated Press, Australian Cardinal George Pell, the highest-ranking Vatican official to testify on systemic sexual abuse of children by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, said senior clergy lied to him to cover up abuse in the 1970s. He said that he was deceived about why abusive priests were moved from parish to parish.
Spotlight, a movie based on actual events, reports that “249 priests and brothers were publicly accused of sexual abuse within the Boston Archdiocese.”
“The number of survivors in Boston is estimated to be well over 1,000,” says Spotlight.
The Boston cardinal responsible for overseeing these cases and for moving abusive priests from parish to parish was, according to Spotlight, promoted to Rome in 2002, right in the midst of the public scandal, to lead one of the high-ranking Roman Catholic churches in the world.
The candid movie reports that similar major abuse scandals have been uncovered in many other U.S. cities.
Officially, the Catholic Church has never said that the exposed scandals by Spotlight are lies.
There is no doubt that the way bishops and other overseers have managed the cases of pedophile (especially pederast) priests was a monumental disaster.
Yet, it is an equally monumental disaster to cover up the homosexual connection. Since The Boston Globe and its talented Jewish editor had no interest to investigate this connection, perhaps the pro-life movement, which is a significant force in the U.S. Catholicism, could research and publish about it, firstly in the Catholic setting.
The pro-life movement has had a high ability to record and expose abortion clinic scandals through undercover agents. They do it because they love children and they want to protect them.
Many Catholic pro-life groups focus their attacks on gender ideology, which harms children. But pedophilia (especially pederasty) in the church equally harms children, particularly because it is committed in a place that should offer protection and high spiritual and moral authority.
Pro-life groups and leaders, not the secular media as The Boston Globe, should be the first to expose crimes against children. Not only abortion and gender ideology are a threat to children, but pedophilia (especially pederasty) too.
Hollywood, abortion clinics and homosexual groups are places of rampant depravity. Depravity and cover-up are expected from them. But Christian institutions should have a higher standard and transparency, which is light, according to Christian ethics.
The Boston Globe did a necessary job by exposing pedophile priests and superiors covering them up. But the missing link was tritely treated. Pedophilia is the broad term for rape of female and male children. The proper term for rapists of male children, pederast, was never mentioned in Spotlight. This omission is troubling.
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus (2009 Kindle edition) defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse esp. with a boy,” explaining the original Greek term, paiderastēs, literally means “lover of boys.”
The Oxford Dictionary (2010 Kindle edition) defines “pederasty” as “sexual activity involving a man and a boy.”
The 1913 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “pederasty” as sodomy and “pederast” as sodomite, a term traditionally used to designate homosexuals.
So where there is pederasty, there is always homosexuality, and where there is homosexuality, pederasty is inevitable. It is included in the packet.
Yet, the audiences would have the impression, by watching Spotlight, that boys are usually abused by priests, not homosexuals.
The Spotlight movie should have included the missing link. Yet, what to expect from liberals? They want to promote the gender agenda to children and protect them not from homosexuality but from Christianity, which, thanks to the Catholic leadership’s failure, they are pairing with pederasty, a term that is being separated from its only natural and traditional partner: homosexuality.
Why the Catholic Church has been so negligent in this matter, I do not know. Why during decades or more she gave no harsh treatment to homosexuals and their scandals in the clergy, protecting them from prosecution and jail, I do not know.
The pro-life movement, a protector of children, should have under its spotlight not only abortion and the gender agenda but also the massive scandal of homosexual, pederastic priests. This would give them moral authority to expose covered pederastic scandals of leaders and groups that treat Christian values in the same sewer of sexual perversion they live or tolerate in their midst. They would have authority to say the obvious: pederasty and homosexuality walk together wherever they are, whether in a church, school or other place.
Perverted priests should be denounced and jailed, even though only jail is a very small punishment to child-rapists. If pro-life Catholics do not move fast to protect children from perverts in their own Catholic midst, Hollywood and other liberal forces will continue to use the Catholic Church’s homosexual scandals to disparage all the conservative Christians and their values.
Recommended Reading: