Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de Carvalho


Why Call Names? An Answer to Olavo de Carvalho

By Julio Severo
Public comment by Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho in his Facebook profile (posted on November 25, 2015):
“Pope Francis may really be collaborating with globalist ambitions, but the World Council of Churches (which is Protestant) was already collaborating forty years ago. This the scoundrel Julio Severo does not tell.”
His comment was posted hours after I spread publicly in my Facebook the publication, in Barbwire, of my article “Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.
In this article, no profanity was used against the pope or the Catholic Church.
I do not like and I do not use profanity. But even though I liked it, Barbwire, where I am a columnist, has an inflexible posting policy, which says: “We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.”
Courteous behavior distinguishes conservatives from liberals. Profanity habit is proper for liberals, not Christian conservatives.
Therefore, if I called the pope, the Catholic Church or Olavo a “scoundrel,” I would rightly be rebuked or expelled from Barbwire.
My Barbwire article was based on exposés by Cliff Kincaid, a Catholic American who has already interviewed Olavo. So my main source was Kincaid. How could not Olavo perceive it if I made it clear, giving full credit to the source? If he had not perceived it, what is he going to do now? To call Kincaid a “scoundrel”?
I have publicized in Brazil some articles exposing Pope Francis’ collaboration with globalist ambitions. Some of these articles are from Catholic pro-life sources. Others are from WND (WorldNetDaily), especially the report “Vatican aligns with U.N. on ‘world governance.’” (My translation: “Vaticano se alinha com a ONU para a formação do governo mundial.”) If Olavo is displeased with this WND exposé, why revile the translator, not the original publisher?
About the World Council of Churches, the most detailed and profound exposés in Brazil against this apostate institution were translated and published by me.
In 2014, I published in Portuguese the translation of “Resurrecting Liberation Theology,” written by Mark D. Tooley and published by FrontPage.
In 2007, I published in Portuguese the translation of “Soviet Ghosts Haunt the World Council of Churches,” by the same author and magazine. In that time, Olavo’s website in Portuguese published my translation.
Both Tooley reports show that the World Council of Churches (WCC) is involved with Liberation Theology, by mentioning especially Rev. Walter Altmann, who was then the WCC Moderator.
Immediately after I published a Tooley report in Brazil (July 2007), an assistant of the WCC Moderator got in touch with me asking for “dialogue” between Altmann and me.
My answer: “What is there to dialogue? Walter Altmann needs urgently to dialogue with the Holy Spirit, repent from his many sins and change his course while there is time. God is love and mercy, but also justice. Sooner or later, Altmann is going to reap everything that he has planted, because God delays, but he does not fail.”
There are many other articles in my blog against WCC. No one of them reviles WCC or Altmann.
In America, Olavo’s name appears as president of the Inter-American Institute, a conservative institution with prominent evangelical and catholic conservative figures. Its mission is to attack the Left. But currently, its president is busy attacking, with many dirty words for weeks, a man who fights the Left and supports Ronald Reagan since the 1980s, when Olavo was still a left-winger in Brazil.
I know personally some members of the Inter-American Institute. No one of them is foul-mouthed. I have never heard, for example, evangelical John Haskins, who had a vital role in the establishment of the institute, using dirty words.
But when the president of this institute says publicly “This the scoundrel Julio Severo does not tell,” he commits two sins: 1. He reviled a conservative Christian. 2. He lied, because this same conservative has already told everything that he needed to tell on WCC.
Yet, different from the Catholic Church, where the pope rules, WCC does not rule all churches in the Protestant and Pentecostal movement. It has influence only on affiliated churches.
In my case, I have never attended a WCC-affiliated evangelical church. Even so, I have told everything about WCC that Brazil needed to know.
I only did not use to tell in the U.S. that in Brazil Olavo is publicly a foul-mouthed man who attacks conservatives.
Vulgarity and profanity are behaviors improper for conservatives, in Brazil or the U.S. Olavo, who has been reviling me since 2013 when I rejected the Catholic Inquisition, needs to understand this fact.
Portuguese version of this article: Por que xingar? Uma resposta a Olavo de Carvalho
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.


Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

By Julio Severo
The biggest beneficiaries of the immigrant invasion in the U.S. have been Islam — and the Catholic Church, according to a Catholic writer. If he is right about the major involvement of the Catholic Church in the immigrant invasion in the U.S., his report could be an important clue for his fellow Catholics to understand the Islamic invasion in Europe.
Though the Islamic gain is obvious, especially in demographic and religious expansion in Europe and America, the Catholic gain, which has been not so evident, has been mainly financial.
The source of this information is Cliff Kincaid, an American Catholic who usually sees Russian conspiracy and culpability in every problem in the universe, but who has been incredibly able to spot this massive problem in his own church.
Kincaid said, “According to their financial statement for 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops received over $79 million in government grants to provide benefits to refugees.”
He adds that the U.S. government gave more than $1.5 billion to Catholic organizations over the past two years. These figures include an increase from just over $440 million (2008) to more than $554 million (2010) just to one Catholic organization: Catholic Charities USA.
According to Kincaid, only the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops receives over $70 million a year of taxpayer dollars to resettle thousands of immigrants, including a large number of Muslims, in unsuspecting U.S. towns and cities. Catholic Charities throughout the U.S. get many millions more to do this same kind of work as well.
Has the Catholic Church in the U.S. become a mere arm of the U.S. Welfare State?
During his visit to the U.S., Pope Francis praised the Obama administration’s pro-immigration policies. And in response to the recent wave of Muslims fleeing the Middle East, Francis has appealed to Europe’s Catholics, calling on every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary to take in one refugee family. Certainly, this appeal will benefit Islamic invaders. But how much money, in partnerships with European governments, will the Catholic Church receive it in all of this?
About America, Kincaid said, “The Catholic Church in America would clearly prefer to bring immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America, where Catholicism is still strong, and have them join Catholic churches in the U.S. The Catholic Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that 40 percent of all growth in registered parishioners in Catholic parishes between 2005 and 2010 was from Hispanic or Latino Catholics. But even with the massive immigration from Latin America, Catholic churches around the U.S. are still being closed down. A group called Future Church reports that hundreds of parishes have been merged or closed in New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland and many other urban and rural places. ‘Recently,’ the group reported, ‘the Archdiocese of New York merged or closed more than 70 parishes.’”
“James Simpson’s book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, notes that the Catholic Church has been a major component of the open borders movement,” said Kincaid. It is obvious that more immigrants in the U.S. means millions more from tax money to the Catholic Church.
Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch website notes that Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was closed down by the Catholic Church and has been leased to an Islamic society which renamed it Mosque Of Jesus The Son Of Mary.
It’s the Catholic Church’s role, in collaboration with the federal government, in bringing thousands of “refugees” to the U.S. that caused Corcoran to leave the Catholic Church. She said, “In 2002, having been raised in a protestant faith, I became a Catholic. For a few years I loved being a Catholic.” All of that changed beginning in 2007 when she learned that the Catholic Church, largely being funded and directed by the U.S. State Department, was resettling mostly Muslim “refugees” in the U.S.
How could I have difficulty to believe the Kincaid report on the Catholic Church facilitating Islamic immigration? In 2002, I attended a hearing on abortion in the Brazilian Congress, where a prominent pro-abortion House member of the Workers’ Party said that his political career had begun in the ecclesial communities of the Catholic Church. These communities, which were obsessed about Liberation Theology, were facilitating and even instigating Marxist revolutions in Brazil.
In 2008, when I attended a pro-life conference at the headquarters of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, a Catholic pro-life leader said to me:  “Workers’ Party was born here.” Workers’ Party is the ruling socialist party in Brazil. So the Catholic Church in Brazil greatly facilitated the Marxist disaster in Brazil. My only doubt is if the Catholic Church in Brazil received government money for this facilitation.
I thought that the Catholic Church in America was in better shape. And Kincaid had also thought that the situation in Brazil, which is the largest Catholic nation in the world, was better than in the U.S., because he had written a report earlier this year suggesting that there was an “anti-Marxist revolution” in Brazil. No, there was not. But such revolution is extremely necessary at the Brazilian Catholic Church, especially its National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, founded by Marxist Cardinal Helder Camara, who is in process of sainthood.
Kincaid misunderstood the Brazilian scenario, but he apparently is right about the Catholic situation in America.
After I read the Kincaid report, I concluded that the Catholic Church does not seem to care about the fact that the thousands of mostly Muslim “refugees” from Syria, the Middle East and North Africa who have been invading Europe and U.S. are going to change the religious and cultural landscape of the U.S. and Europe. But she seems to care much about the millions of taxpayer dollars being funneled through her “charities” to “help” Muslim immigrants.
Ironically, while the Catholic bishops are bringing Muslim immigrants to the U.S., Catholic churches are being closed down and often becoming mosques. Arabic is now fastest-growing language in U.S.
The situation is even worse in Europe, where more Christian churches are being closed down and becoming mosques. Islam is replacing Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe.
According to Kincaid, reporters have been reluctant to investigate the millions of federal dollars going to the Catholic Church in America. What is the source of this reluctance or fear?
Charity is a beautiful Christian virtue. But to receive millions from the government to bring thousands of Muslim immigrants is not charity. It is suicide.
Miraculously, Kincaid did not say that the Kremlin or Putin induced the Catholic Church to receive money from the U.S. government.
While all of us thought the Catholic Church did charity with money from her own pockets, it is indeed millions, millions and millions of government money.
But real Christian charity has nothing to do with government dependency or partnership.
Besides, the supreme mission of Christians is not to receive government money or bring thousands of Muslim immigrants to Christian nations. Their mission is to take Christ to Muslims and other people. It is to send Christian missionaries to Muslim nations.
But where government money is involved, Christian purpose and mission are corrupted and debased.
I wonder how many Protestant groups are equally receiving tax money to facilitate Islamic immigration. This perverted charity is normal among liberal Protestants.
At least in the Catholic Church in America, it seems that her problems, especially love of government money, began long before Pope Francis and other popes.
If it is distressing to see Europe and America being islamized by thousands of Muslim immigrants, it is more pathetic to see the Catholic Church being paid to facilitate it.
With information from Accuracy in Media. 
Recommended Reading:
Articles about Cliff Kincaid:

Friday, November 20, 2015

Gay “Marriage”: Alabama Fights Against Judicial Activism from the U.S. Supreme Court


Gay “Marriage”: Alabama Fights Against Judicial Activism from the U.S. Supreme Court

By Julio Severo
The U.S. Supreme Court created homosexual “marriage” for Americans, virtually imposing this fake marriage and real gay tyranny on America last June.
U.S. Supreme Court
And, as Franklin Graham said about Obama’s reaction to this creation, “Right after the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, he had the gall to disgrace the White House by lighting it up with the gay pride rainbow colors to celebrate. This is arrogantly flaunting sinful behavior in the face of Almighty God.” Graham is the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, said there is “a growing number of voices calling for resistance to the lawless marriage opinion.”
“Supreme Court justices swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not invent a new one,” he said. “When they put their personal opinions in writing without one shred of constitutional support, the people have a right to question their authority.”
When the Supreme Court decision was announced in June, Alabama did not, like other states, declare the issue resolved. The Alabama Supreme Court justices are resisting the judicial activism from the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a law restricting marriage to opposite sex partners. For more information, read the WND report “Alabama gets serious in fight against ‘gay’ marriage,” by Bob Unruh.
Resistance has been a hallmark of Alabama justices. Last year, pro-abortion activist Nina Martin labeled Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker as a man who “has figured out how to dismantle Roe v. Wade.” According to her criticism, Parker is the biggest threat to abortion in this generation.
Abortion was granted federal legal acceptance, through the U.S. Supreme Court, under the administration of Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973. Since then, abortion has been allowed in the U.S. in all nine months of pregnancy and it has legally murdered over 60 million innocent Americans. Nixon did not fight fiercely against this judicial activism imposing capital punishment on the unborn. But he was the first U.S. president to resign because of political scandals.
Nixon’s biggest scandal was that he was not the biggest threat to abortion in his generation. But now God has raised Justice Parker as a better resistance to abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court.
And now God is also raising Parker and his worthy company of Alabama justices as a better resistance to gay “marriage” in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Roy Moore, the current Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is famous for not following orders from federal judges to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in 2003. Both Moore and the monuments were removed from the building. But today he is again in the resistance.
Moore passionately embraces conservatism. Last July, he reacted when Facebook launched an app called “Let’s Celebrate Pride,” which allowed users to overlay an image of the homosexual rainbow over their profile picture. The Facebook celebration was in honor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision creating gay “marriage.”
The strongest resistance came from conservative Russians, as reported by me in my article “Conservative Russians Give Moral Lesson to Facebook’s Homosexual Propaganda,” published in Barbwire.
As a good conservative, Justice Moore spread my article on his Facebook profile. His message was clear: He was against the pro-sodomy judicial activism from the U.S. Supreme Court. He was supportive of the Russian resistance to this activism and to the Facebook celebration.
I support the conservative resistance of the Alabama Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court in its liberal measures to kill the unborn and the real marriage.
With information from WND.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, November 08, 2015

Putin, the Most Powerful Man in the World


Putin, the Most Powerful Man in the World

By Julio Severo
Forbes has named Vladimir Putin (Russia), Angela Merkel (Germany), Barack Obama (U.S.) and Pope Francis (the Vatican) in its latest “World’s Most Powerful People” list.
According to WND (WorldNetDaily),
“Putin was named the world’s most powerful last year, and the year before as well. To compile the list, Forbes considered four areas: whether the person had power over lots of people; the level of financial resources the person controlled; whether the person was powerful in more than one area; and whether the person actively used his or her power. A panel of editors ranked the candidates separately, and then those with the highest scores were placed on the list. ‘Putin emerged as the world’s most powerful person for the third year running,’ the news outlet wrote.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin had huge disadvantages to take the top spot on Forbes. He has been vilified in the Western world because he has gone against the homosexual tsunami promoted by Obama and his administration. In fact, the Western culture seems obsessed about promoting homosexual propaganda, especially about how to impose it on children.
Conversely, Putin has passed a ban against homosexual propaganda on children — a ban praised by Rev. Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, but condemned by Obama and other Western leaders. So it is no wonder that Putin was named “Person of the Year” in 2014 by The Advocate, the oldest homosexual magazine in the U.S. He was portrayed as the number 1 enemy of homosexual militants around the world just because he protected Russian children from homosexualists and their harmful propaganda.
The Russian opposition to the gay agenda has been a powerful motivation for Obama and his allies to fight Putin. In fact, Rev. Scott Lively has warned: “Obama Orchestrated Ukraine Coup to Re-Start Cold War and Prevent Russia from Leading Global Revolt Against LGBT Agenda.”
The Ukrainian crisis, ignited by George Soros and U.S. neocons, has been a convenient U.S. tool against Putin and his international image.
So how did Putin manage to reach the top stop on Forbes?
One reason, I suspect, is his warm relationship with Israel and the Jews. While Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s new media chief has called Obama anti-Semitic (a characterization denied by the Netanyahu administration, not because it is false, but because he does not want problems with the haughty emperor Obama and his empire), Putin’s attitude toward Israel and the Jews have been far away from anti-Semitism.
Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu
Writing in the Israel newspaper Jerusalem Post, Isi Leibler said about Putin:
There are no rational explanations for Putin’s extraordinary attitude toward Jews, which some have gone as far as to describe as being motivated by philo-Semitism. Some say he was influenced as a youngster by his Jewish German teacher, Mina Yuditskaya, now living in Israel and whom Putin invited for a social chat to the King David Hotel during his last visit.
He may also be highly sophisticated and pragmatic, and having seen the outcome of Soviet anti-Semitism, may have come to a realization that Jewish support would represent an asset at many levels.
Putin has ruthlessly suppressed violent anti-Semitism. He has gone out of his way to attend Jewish functions, such as the opening of a Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, to which he contributed $50 million of state funds and even symbolically personally donated a month’s salary.
He also attended Hanukka celebrations and conveyed warm messages of praise and goodwill to Jews on the advent of the Jewish New Year – utterly unprecedented, especially from a nationalist Russian leader.
It is also astonishing that, despite his strategic involvement and alliance with the Syrians and Iranians, Putin has determinedly kept the channels to Israel open, making a point to personally visit Israel. In fact, in June 2012, Israel was the first country he visited after his election. He frequently speaks warmly about the Jewish state, expressing pride that it contains the largest diaspora of former Russian citizens. At the Western Wall, accompanied by Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, he donned a kippa, which undoubtedly made his Bolshevik predecessors turn in their graves. He also seemed quite indifferent to the rage this created among his Arab allies.
Immediately after announcing Russia’s intervention [in Syria], Putin agreed to a three-hour summit meeting with Netanyahu, who flew to Moscow where parameters were drawn up in order to minimize any possible military overlap and try to protect some of Israel’s security concerns.
Coordination has been maintained at the very highest military levels between both countries, with Russia operating a direct hotline with Yossi Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser, informing him in advance of Russia bombing targets in Syria.
Furthermore, according to Ehud Ya’ari of Channel 2, the Russians have allocated a future role for Israel in their area of influence by offering to buy a substantial chunk of Israel’s newly discovered gas fields and provide military guarantees against Hezbollah attacks on the offshore locations. It is also proposing to export this gas to Europe.
Isi Leibler also included negative expectations about Putin. Yet, even Ronald Reagan, who was considered a friend of Israel, was not spared criticism by Jews regarding his sincerity on his pro-Israel stances. Israeli journalist Chemi Shale has written about the Jewish suspicions on Reagan. Some of his negative remarks were well based, because the U.S., which has considered Israel a strategic military ally in the Middle East, has never recognized Jerusalem as Jewish. In contrast, the U.S. has never failed to recognize Riyadh, the Saudi capital, as Saudi. Saudi Arabia is also a U.S. ally in the Middle East and a major global terror sponsor.
Notwithstanding Jewish criticism over Reagan’s and Putin’s sincerity on Israel, my view is that Reagan and Putin are commendable for their pro-Israel stances and conservatism.
Putin’s positive attitudes toward Israel and the Jews, as described by Leibler, can explain his international success and top spot on Forbes, in spite of massive opposition and hostility from Obama and other Western leaders intent on fighting against Putin’s staunch effort to protect Russian children from the gay agenda.
Other Putin’s positive attitudes are toward persecuted Christians. Last April, when Armenia remembered the Armenian genocide that happened 100 years ago, where over 1.5 million Christian Armenians were slaughtered by Turkish Muslims, U.S. President Barack Obama, who represents the largest Protestant nation in the world, did not attend the ceremony. Pope Francis, who represents Catholics, did not attend it too. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who represents the largest Catholic nation in the world, did not attend it too. But Putin, representing the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world, attended it.
In the Syrian war, where ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim groups have been raping, torturing and slaughtering Christians, while America under Obama has sided with anti-Christian Muslim groups, Russia under Putin has sided with pro-Christian groups.
Pro-Christian attitudes are good for Putin and Russia.
Pro-Israel attitudes are good for Putin and Russia.
God said that he would bless those who bless Abraham’s descendants — Israel and the Jews.
God is blessing Putin. If he wants more blessings, he should bless Israel and the Jews more. He should also bless persecuted Christians and their values more. If he wants less blessings and more curses, he should imitate Obama.
Portuguese version of this article: Putin, o homem mais poderoso do mundo
Recommended Reading: