Mackenzie Presbyterian University and Its Pro-Abortion Professor

By Julio Severo

Abortion legalization in Brazil was discussed in a Senate hearing on August 6, 2015. Among the debaters were pro-abortion feminists. The big surprise was that the Senate introduced one of them as “Márcia Tiburi, professor at the Mackenzie Presbyterian University.” Mackenzie is the highest Calvinist educational institution in Brazil.

Tiburi’s pro-abortion discourse, recorded by TV Senado (the official TV of the Brazilian Senate), began by saying that whenever she travels throughout Brazil in her pro-abortion activism she takes the name Mackenzie with her, stressing that she is not the only pro-abortion activist at Mackenzie. To watch the video in Portuguese, use this link: https://youtu.be/DLxm7U0OEes

In the hearing, the Mackenzie professor said, “To vociferate against abortion is just a biopolitical way to control women’s lives… and above all to recruit adherents for authoritarian causes… What is achieved by it and who wins by achieving it? Antiabortion priests promote a speech by which ignorant masses are convinced. In a nation of illiterate individuals, including women, and of excessive corruption in moral terms, votes, tithes and general consumption are infallible. Therefore, abortion legalization is a fundamental part of a socially responsible democratic process.”

According to her curriculum, she is directly connected to Mackenzie since 2008. Her specialty is to teach philosophy and ethics. But the words that she vociferated against the unborn life at the Senate demonstrate just the opposite: a total lack of ethics. Any philosophy that despises the most innocent life despises ethics itself.

Tiburi, who in her pro-abortion feminist activism has been praised even by the Communist Party of Brazil, has been exposing her lack of ethics since before 2008. Before becoming a Mackenzie professor, she defended abortion in the official website of the Communist Party of Brazil. If the contractor (Mackenzie—Presbyterian Church of Brazil) had been careful to make a basic investigation, it would have easily found, even by a simple Google search, that it was contracting not a mere and innocent professor, but a radical activist thirsty for the legal shedding of innocent blood.

How, in these 7 years of Tiburi at Mackenzie, there was no problem and scandal? The hired individual is directly connected to the pro-abortion movement. The contractor is directly connected to the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (PCB).

Tiburi’s sheer presence as professor at a Protestant university is a sign of victory for pro-abortion militants and defeat for evangelicals, who should evangelize, not contract, propagandists of baby-killing.

When Tiburi chose the designation at the Senate of “Mackenzie professor,” she fatally compromised the institution, which, because it is openly confessional (Mackenzie PRESBYTERIAN University), chose to contract a professor who is a pro-abortion feminist militant. The case is not that she deserves to be fired from Mackenzie. She never deserved to be contracted.

The hired individual is not to blame. The contractor, which has poorly chosen its job applicants, is to blame.

If a Pentecostal televangelist had committed the error of hiring a pro-abortion feminist activist for one of its confessional institutions, the self-appointed Calvinist apologists (“defenders of faith” and of “Sola Theologia”) would certainly beating them with their Calvinist sticks and damning them to hell.

In Mackenzie’s case and its pro-abortion professor, all the Calvinist apologists are in deathly silence, as if they were under monastic oaths never to expose anything of the Presbyterian university. In this scandal, no pro-abortion feminist, or her contractor, is going to be “burned” at the fire of the Holy Calvinist Inquisition. If the case were about some Pentecostal minister, he would already have become ashes at the condemnation stake.

Nevertheless, Mackenzie issued in the same day an official release saying:

Clarification Release

August 6, 2015 Chancellery Rectory

On August 6, 2015, the Mackenzie Presbyterian University president issued a release read at the Senate Human Rights Committee by Representative Leonardo Quintão to the attendees of the debate whose subject dealt with abortion. Below, the full text:

Dear Rep. Leonardo Quintão

Mackenzie Presbyterian University, based on its principles and values, rejects any attempt on life and affirms that the views expressed by its professors are products of free speech inherent to the human being and the intellectual life. Therefore, it reaffirms the stance of its supporting institution, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, which rejects both abortion legalization, except for therapeutic abortion, when there is no other way to save the life of a pregnant woman, and the use of abortifacient contraceptives.

Benedito Guimarães Aguiar Neto
Mackenzie Presbyterian University President

Evidently, Mackenzie is not to blame for the insane views of its professors. But cannot a Protestant-professing institution make a selection and hire only morally fit professors and according to basic Christian and moral principles? Is there so big shortage of competent Calvinist applicants for jobs in the Calvinist institution that was necessary to hire an advocate of baby-killing? Why did not Mackenzie choose a pro-family Calvinist? Is there, in the whole PCB, no Calvinist able, in the place of the pro-abortion feminist, to teach philosophy and ethics at Mackenzie?

And now does Mackenzie want to dissociate itself from the hired activist by invoking, in a cynically democratic nod, a defense of an alleged “product of free speech”?

In this point, I am shocked! Is defense of abortion “free speech”? What about the defense of the Holocaust? What about the defense of Nazism? What about the defense of the Inquisition, which slaughtered Jews and Protestants?

Is lack of ethics “free speech”?

What about if instead of the pro-abortion professor, Mackenzie had a Julio Severo who, in his life outside Mackenzie, voiced views against the cessationist heresy, the Marxist Theology of Integral Mission and Freemasonry? Would Mackenzie then defend the stances of Julio Severo as “products of free speech”?

Mackenzie president’s release made it clear that the Presbyterian Church of Brazil “rejects abortion legalization, except for therapeutic abortion.” He had to quote the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (PCB), because the Mackenzie Presbyterian University is subordinate to PCB — thereby making, in a sense, pro-abortion Tiburi strangely connected to PCB.

Yet, why does not PCB also reject the so called therapeutic abortion? Dr. Brian Clowes, in his massive work “The Facts of Life,” says,

Therapeutic abortion: The current medical literature equates “legal abortion” with “therapeutic abortion.” The definition of the word “therapeutic,” however, mean “treatment of disease.” The use of the term “therapeutic” is another pro-abortion attempt to sanitize a repulsive act, and it also implies that pregnancy is a disease — an assertion many pro-abortionists have made directly.

Dr. Roy Heffernan of Tufts University Medical School has said that “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion is either ignorant of modern medical methods or unwilling to take the time and effort to apply them.”

If Mackenzie is really filled with activists with the same mindset as Márcia Tiburi, as she alleged at the Senate herself, I am going to receive a deluge of boos and complaints. And perhaps even lawsuits. I can hardly wait the headlines: “Pro-Abortion Professors at the Mackenzie Presbyterian University Sue Pro-Lifer Julio Severo!”

Be it as it may, no Christian-professing institution is forced to hire feminist militants whose lack of ethics leads them to advocate the legal slaughter of the unborn. If they do it, they have to take the consequences of a bad Christian testimony.

Portuguese version of this article: O Mackenzie e sua professora abortista

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Gay militant Jean Wyllys at Brazilian Presbyterian University

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

John Perkins and His Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

By Julio Severo

Economist John Perkins said, “Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM.”

Other revelations by Perkins are equally impressive. According to him, in his 2004 book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” Saudi Arabia has a very special relationship with the U.S. since mid-1970s. He says,

“The evidence was indisputable: Saudi Arabia, America’s longtime ally and the world’s largest oil producer, had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, ‘the epicenter’ of terrorist financing… Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries…”

Perkins came to get such knowledge not only because he was a respected economist, but also because of his involvement, decades ago, with NSA (National Security Agency) and even designing massive projects in Saudi Arabia.

In the 1960s and 1970s, NSA was not internationally known, but today, because of the leaks of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, NSA’s stealthy activities comprising surveillance and espionage have been exposed. Yet, ten years before Snowden, John Perkins had already made a significant exposé, which remained largely unnoticed, because apparently no one was willing to believe that the mysterious NSA was a malignant octopus.

How did Perkins come to know NSA? In 1967 he married to a woman whose uncle was a top echelon executive at NSA. In 1968 he was profiled by the NSA as an ideal economic hit man (EHM).

He had been deliberately hired by NSA because of his non-conservative qualities and a lack of moral values. A truly conservative, moral man would never do what he was hired to do.

In 1981 he married to another woman whose father was chief architect at Bechtel Corporation and was in charge of designing and building cities in Saudi Arabia — work financed through the 1974 EHM deal.

About his NSA training, Perkins said,

“First, I was to justify huge international loans that would funnel money back to MAIN and other U.S. companies (such as Bechtel, Halliburton, Stone & Webster, and Brown & Root) through massive engineering and construction projects. Second, I would work to bankrupt the countries that received those loans (after they had paid MAIN and the other U.S. contractors, of course) so that they would be forever beholden to their creditors, and so they would present easy targets when we needed favors, including military bases, UN votes, or access to oil and other natural resources. My job, [NSA agent] said, was to forecast the effects of investing billions of dollars in a country. Specifically, I would produce studies that projected economic growth twenty to twenty-five years into the future and that evaluated the impacts of a variety of projects. For example, if a decision was made to lend a country $1 billion to persuade its leaders not to align with the Soviet Union, I would compare the benefits of investing that money in power plants with the benefits of investing in a new national railroad network or a telecommunications system. Or I might be told that the country was being offered the opportunity to receive a modern electric utility system, and it would be up to me to demonstrate that such a system would result in sufficient economic growth to justify the loan. The critical factor, in every case, was gross national product. The project that resulted in the highest average annual growth of GNP won. If only one project was under consideration, I would need to demonstrate that developing it would bring superior benefits to the GNP. The unspoken aspect of every one of these projects was that they were intended to create large profits for the contractors, and to make a handful of wealthy and influential families in the receiving countries very happy, while assuring the long-term financial dependence and therefore the political loyalty of governments around the world. The larger the loan, the better.”

This was in the 1970s. I remembered Brazil, my country. In the 1970s, the military government in Brazil kept up massive investments in infrastructure — highways, telecommunications, hydroelectric dams, etc. The military rule, under President Ernesto Geisel, borrowed billions of dollars. Brazil was enjoying an investment boom that had pushed annual GDP growth to over ten percent. Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the Itaipu and Tucuruí hydroelectric dams, fueled growth, and Brazil emerged as the undisputed industrial leader in Latin America, earning the title “the Brazilian miracle.” But the boom fell apart. By 1982, Brazil halted payment of its main foreign debt, which is among the world’s biggest.

Brazil was apparently the perfect field for EHMs’ activities. The Brazilian military government, which made investments of billions of dollars in infrastructure, ended with loans and massive debts. And these debts had no relation with corruption, because the military government was corruption-free. Probably, in the modern history of Brazil, Brazilians never had a so corruption-free government as the military government was.

If the job of EHMs (and their colleagues) was to persuade countries to take out loans worth billions of dollars, often to pay for infrastructure projects that the EHMs themselves recommend, as John Perkins wrote in his book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” then Brazil was probably a big victim.

As Brazil, many of the nations put into debt in the 1970s and 1980s were ruled by right-wing militarists and their debts were used by their socialist enemies as a reason to put their nations into a socialist route. The economic explorations made these military allies of the U.S. vulnerable before socialists.

The Brazilian military rule in the 1980s was plagued by inflation, recession and massive foreign debt. The International Monetary Fund was a daily subject in the Brazilian news. Socialist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who in 2002 was elected president of Brazil, agitated against the Brazilian government. His main weapon was the economic crisis, which made the Brazilian people discontent with the military presidents.

I cannot imagine the military rule in Brazil running into massive debt because of corruption. I only can imagine, by all the clues pointed by Perkins, that there is a possibility that they fell into an economic hit man’s trap.

John Perkins’ book was recommended to me by a U.S. conservative leader.

By reading his book, you see NSA and other U.S. agencies as machines of economic exploitation of nations. But often such exploitation is facilitated by political leaders of these nations who also exploited economically their own people. I do not believe that this was the case in Brazil, because the Brazilian military rule was hard-working. When socialists overthrew U.S. allies in Latin America — an overthrow facilitated by U.S. economic hit men —, they themselves became exploiters, economically and also socially and religiously, because socialism severely stifles speech and religious freedom.

Perkins saw so much corruption among his professional peers in America exploiting the poor in Third-World nations that he began to see favorably socialist ideas, thinking that socialism was the only answer to the massive capitalist corruption he saw coming from his own nation. Of course, he did not know the Gospel, which is the only real answer to socialism and capitalist corruption.

The human nature is wicked. If it occupies a high post, it explores people under its control.

People without the Gospel should be capable of not exploring other people, because they have a conscience.

People who have the Gospel are under a double responsibility not to explore, because they have God’s conscience available to them (the Gospel) and their own conscience.

It not a sin to be wealthy. But God commands the rich to be also wealthy in generosity. Yet, socialism sees all wealth (except for the wealthy socialist establishment) as exploitation. The Bible does not see all rich as exploiters. There are rich and there are exploiters. And there are wealthy exploiters.

In his book, Perkins writes,

“‘We’re a small, exclusive club,’ [NSA agent] said. ‘We’re paid—well paid—to cheat countries around the globe out of billions of dollars. A large part of your job is to encourage world leaders to become part of a vast network that promotes U.S. commercial interests. In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty. We can draw on them whenever we desire—to satisfy our political, economic, or military needs. In turn, these leaders bolster their political positions by bringing industrial parks, power plants, and airports to their people. Meanwhile, the owners of U.S. engineering and construction companies become very wealthy… [NSA special agent] described how throughout most of history, empires were built largely through military force or the threat of it. But with the end of World War II, the emergence of the Soviet Union, and the specter of nuclear holocaust, the military solution became just too risky.”

Perkins also shows how the U.S. changed profoundly Iran through stealthy economic actions. He said,

“The decisive moment occurred in 1951, when Iran rebelled against a British oil company that was exploiting Iranian natural resources and its people. The company was the forerunner of British Petroleum, today’s BP. In response, the highly popular, democratically elected Iranian prime minister (and TIME magazine’s Man of the Year in 1951), Mohammad Mossadegh, nationalized all Iranian petroleum assets. An outraged England sought the help of her World War II ally, the United States. However, both countries feared that military retaliation would provoke the Soviet Union into taking action on behalf of Iran. Instead of sending in the Marines, therefore, Washington dispatched CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (Theodore’s grandson). He performed brilliantly, winning people over through payoffs and threats. He then enlisted them to organize a series of street riots and violent demonstrations, which created the impression that Mossadegh was both unpopular and inept. In the end, Mossadegh went down, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The pro-American Mohammad Reza Shah became the unchallenged dictator. Kermit Roosevelt had set the stage for a new profession, the one whose ranks I was joining.”

Of course, the U.S. strategy in Iran eventually backfired, and today Iran has a mortal hatred of America.

Perkins also said,

“By 1968, the year I interviewed with the NSA, it had become clear that if the United States wanted to realize its dream of global empire (as envisioned by men like presidents Johnson and Nixon), it would have to employ strategies modeled on Roosevelt’s Iranian example. This was the only way to beat the Soviets without the threat of nuclear war. There was one problem, however. Kermit Roosevelt was a CIA employee. Had he been caught, the consequences would have been dire. He had orchestrated the first U.S. operation to overthrow a foreign government, and it was likely that many more would follow, but it was important to find an approach that would not directly implicate Washington. Fortunately for the strategists, the 1960s also witnessed another type of revolution: the empowerment of international corporations and of multinational organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF. The latter were financed primarily by the United States and our sister empire builders in Europe. A symbiotic relationship developed between governments, corporations, and multinational organizations.”

Perkins explains more about their dirty work:

“Roosevelt-as-CIA-agent problem had already been worked out. U.S. intelligence agencies—including the NSA—would identify prospective EHMs, who could then be hired by international corporations. These EHMs would never be paid by the government; instead, they would draw their salaries from the private sector. As a result, their dirty work, if exposed, would be chalked up to corporate greed rather than to government policy. In addition, the corporations that hired them, although paid by government agencies and their multinational banking counterparts (with taxpayer money), would be insulated from congressional oversight and public scrutiny, shielded by a growing body of legal initiatives, including trademark, international trade, and Freedom of Information laws.”

Saudi Arabia is “lucky.” Billions of its dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries to U.S. officials have protected the Islamic nation from dark consequences of EHMs.

Perkins was related to Tom Paine (1737-1809), the American revolutionary leader who fought for the U.S. independence from England. With his conscience, Perkins had a motivation to write his book against the exploitations from NSA and other U.S. agencies. He said,

“I only had to return to the American Revolution and Tom Paine for a model. I recalled that Britain justified its taxes by claiming that England was providing aid to the colonies in the form of military protection against the French and the Indians. The colonists had a very different interpretation.”

With information of Foreign Affairs and BBC.

Portuguese version of this article: John Perkins e Suas Confissões de um Assassino Econômico

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

War between Christian Nations and Muslim Nations: A Table Talk between an American Economist and Young Muslims in Indonesia

“1984” Live! US Surveillance Scandal Is The Biggest Story Of Your Lifetime

The Pope and the Vatican Should Be Confronted about Traditional Catholic Stances against Israel

Instead of rejecting Israel as the Vatican does, evangelical leaders should do what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did

By Julio Severo

WorldNetDaily chief Joseph Farah accurately pointed the latest Vatican tragedy against Israel by saying that it is a “one-sided hostile action against Israel.” He said,

Pope Francis announced an agreement had been reached with the barbaric leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization recognizing “Palestine.”

It’s a barbarous act of political and historical tone deafness by the pope that puts the beleaguered Jewish state, the only reliable refuge for outnumbered, forgotten and abandoned Middle East Christians, deeper into the cross-hairs of international busybodies.

The Vatican’s deal was brokered with Mahmoud Abbas, the organizer of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack on Israeli athletes, a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust – and still denies the Jewish death toll to this day.

The Vatican’s statement calls for the new Palestinian state to have its capital in Jerusalem – Israel’s capital since the time of King David. It calls for the Palestinian state, run by the same people who have overseen the destruction of Jewish religious and historical sites in its own territories, to be responsible for holy sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

What the Vatican did here was declare its unilateral and unconditional support of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization founded by Yasser Arafat.

There’s no other way to interpret this except as a one-sided hostile action against Israel.

Yet, this is not the first Catholic hostility against Israel. Jewish writer Janet Levy reports a number of anti-Jewish cases from the Vatican in her review of the book “The Vatican Against Israel: J’Accuse,” written by Catholic writer Giulio Meotti, who explores the theological foundation for 1,700 years of Catholic enmity toward Jews that led to manifold persecutory actions and atrocities through the centuries and how it continues to play out in the Catholic Church policy toward the Jewish State today.

Mr. Meotti explains how the Catholic Church has continued to undermine Jews through its politics, statements, and contemptuous relationship with the state of Israel. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the Vatican has consistently worked against the best interests of the Jewish state and aided and abetted its enemies.

This extensive, historical Vatican enmity toward the Jews and the attendant atrocities have led to today’s shocking alliance with Islam and, even more surprisingly, has prevented the Catholic Church from aiding persecuted Catholics throughout the Muslim world. By disavowing Jewish roots and forging a strategic Muslim-Catholic alliance, the Catholic Church has embarked on a precarious path for the future of Christendom.

In “The Vatican Against Israel,” the author examines how the Catholic Church has continued to be a willing and eager partner in the destruction of the Jewish people in the modern era.

The Catholic Church helped promulgate the anti-Semitic hoax of a Jewish plan for global domination as set forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, largely used by Nazis to justify their crimes against the Jews. The first translation of this damaging blood libel was translated by Arab Catholics and published by a periodical of the Catholic Community in Jerusalem in 1926.

When Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany, the Vatican was the first state to formally recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich and it maintained diplomatic relations with the Nazi government through the very end of the war.

Pope John Paul II granted several audiences to Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism and the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), who had ordered and carried out attacks against Jewish civilians and was seeking publicity and legitimacy on the world stage. While openly proclaiming hatred of the Jews and plans to annihilate Israel, Arafat and his henchman were granted respectability by the Catholic Church.

In 1974, the Vatican formally recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It wasn’t until 1993, almost 20 years later, that the Catholic Church recognized the State of Israel.

When PLO Chairman Arafat died in 2004, the Pope John Paul II eulogized the terrorist as a great leader in this “hour of sadness” and spoke fondly of his closeness to the Arafat family.

Even today, many Vatican Catholic pilgrimage and tourist tour maps fail to mention Israel. Instead, the area is labeled “Holy Land” or “Palestine.”

To make things worse, evangelical leaders show that they deserve when the leftist media lump them together with the old Catholic hostility against Israel, even suggesting anti-Jewish Inquisition was not distinctively Catholic, but “Christian,” as if all Christians were equally involved in torturing and slaughtering Jews.

Even though U.S. evangelical leaders in the early America embraced the Jews and condemned the Vatican, times have changed. Today, mainline Protestant churches in U.S. embrace the Vatican and condemn Israel.

U.S. evangelicals have increasingly lost their prophetic voice about Israel and against enemies of the Jews, especially Muslims. So it is no wonder that when they meet the pope, they fail to voice their condemnation about the historic and current Catholic hostility against Israel. They also fail to condemn the Vatican alliances with Islam.

The only courageous attitude in a meeting with a pope came not from Protestants, but from a Jewish leader. In 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Pope Francis at the Vatican, and gave the leader of the Catholic Church “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,” a book that largely revolves about Spanish Catholics questioning, torturing, and punishing Jewish converts to Catholicism, exposing how thousands of Jews were expelled from Spain or burned at the stake. Worse still, the inquisition of Catholic converts (and the use of torture to discover “heretics”) was first legally sanctioned by Pope Innocent IV, according to the Business Insider.

The Jewish Journal says that “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain,” a scholarly magnum opus and in-depth tome on the Spanish Inquisition, describes how the Catholic Church persecuted, and often executed, masses of Jewish converts to Catholicism who were accused of secretly practicing Judaism.

The Business Insider notes that “it is important to think of the context of the book, which is written by Netanyahu's father Ben-Zion Netanyahu, a well-regarded historian who worked at both Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University.”

CBS News says, “Netanyahu’s father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, was an Israeli historian… A Zionist activist who opposed partitioning Palestine between Arabs and Jews, he was best known in academic circles for his research into the Catholic Church's medieval inquisition against the Jews of Spain.”

The Business Insider said that “the book argues, the persecution of the Jews was not truly based on religious grounds, but on a racial prejudice and financial envy that would be echoed years later in the Holocaust.”

This “envy” has been too expensive for the Catholic Church. In a fascinating piece titled “Jews prove critical to founding of America,” WorldNetDaily shows how Jews had a fundamental role in the early America’s building. Most Jews in the early America had fled Brazil, expelled, under death threats from the Inquisition and from the Catholic government. Eventually, they founded the early banking system in America. If Catholic Brazil, or even the Vatican, had embraced these Jews, they would be living today the financial hegemony enjoyed by the U.S.

But anti-Jewish Catholic culture hindered them from it. This culture was predominant in Catholic nations even recently.

As a Brazilian, I remember a boy who was ostracized by other students at a public school in São Paulo. He was a Jew and other students talked about him as some kind of “plague.” I could empathize with him. As an evangelical, I was often taunted because I did not get involved with Catholic celebrations or other inappropriate behavior at the school. So probably I was the only student that could keep a normal contact with the Jewish student.

The anti-Jewish feeling from the other students came from the culture of Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world. In contrast, respect for Catholicism was supreme.

I do not know what could be done to change the Catholic culture against Israel, but U.S. and Brazilian evangelicals should follow the courageous example of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who confronted an anti-Jewish Catholic culture just with weapon: a book on the Inquisition.

Every evangelical leader should embrace Israel and its exclusive right to the Promised Land. They should not reject Israel for the sake of the Vatican and its traditions.

And they should also give the pope books on the Inquisition and remind him that it is past time for the Catholic Church to stop being against Israel.

Yet, if they keep embracing the Vatican at the expense of Israel, all of them should also be given books on the Inquisition by courageous Netanyahus.

Without perceiving, Netanyahu became a prophetic inspiration for evangelicals in their relationship with the Vatican.

With information from the WorldNetDaily, Business Insider, Israel National News, Janet Levy, CBS News and the Jewish Journal.

Portuguese version of this article: O papa e o Vaticano precisam ser confrontados acerca de posturas católicas tradicionais contra Israel

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Jewish Issues: A Clarification to Christians about Their Perception on the Jews

Benjamin Netanyahu Under Fire for Not Bowing Down to Mythical Idol Nelson Mandela

Portugal approves citizenship plan for Sephardic Jews persecuted by the Inquisition

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

What Chuck Pierce saw about the U.S. and Brazil

By Julio Severo

In 2008, I met Chuck Pierce. He told me and a group of evangelical leaders in Brazil that God had removed his national anointing from the U.S. in 2008. For me, the confirmation came next year, when Obama (a pro-Islam, pro-sodomy and pro-abortion creature) became the U.S. president. Under his presidency, the U.S. has become the biggest exporter of the homosexual ideology in the world.

Pierce also said that God was looking for another nation to grant this anointing. He told that if Brazil got closer to Israel, God was going to give the anointing to Brazil. Then he had a vision about what would happen if Brazil began to develop into an international power: He saw the U.S. government encircling and stifling Brazil economically and militarily. He saw the U.S. filled with envy. He saw the U.S. totally determined to hinder Brazil’s economic rise.

What I understood from his vision is that the U.S., as the only superpower today, will not accept the rise of any other nation to rival its hegemony. The development of every nation is to be under the submission of U.S. interests, and these are wicked interests, because the U.S. government has abandoned the Lord long ago. The U.S. sees the economic rise of other nations as competing with its power.

I highly doubt that God is going to give his special national anointing to Brazil, my nation, because Brazil has not gotten closer to Israel. But I do not doubt that the U.S. has lost, or rejected, this anointing. As the anointing-less Saul, it will try, moved by envy, to do everything in its power to hinder and weaken any nation resembling an emergent, anointed David.

If Pierce’s prophecy is correct, God will look for another nation, not Brazil. Yet, if Brazil really changes its ways and gets closer to Israel, honoring the Jewish nation, which has always been the most honored nation by God, Brazil will prosper and rise to a superpower status, not to smash nations for economic ambitions, but to protect and honor Israel.

Probably, God will have to raise another nation, because currently Brazil is a strong moral ally of the U.S., always supporting the U.S. in every anti-family agenda in the UN system. Sadly, on abortion and sodomy, the U.S. can always count on Brazilian support. If over these reasons the U.S. lost its anointing, Brazil will not need to worry about losing what it has never gotten.

As Mary, Jesus’ mother, I kept Pierce’s vision and words in my heart, wondering if he was right about Brazil, about a U.S. envy against a possible future Brazilian rise in the global power stage, etc. Then, in 2011, George Friedman launched his book “The Next Decade: What the World Will Look Like,” by Knopf Doubleday.

Friedman is the founder of Stratfor, a Texas-based global intelligence company whose members have intelligence and military experience. With such experience, Stratfor makes strategic forecasting.

While Pierce saw America’s and Brazil’s future and their turbulences (America as an envious superpower and Brazil being stifled by her) by spiritual revelation, Friedman “saw” the future by sheer technical analysis of current events and behaviors, with U.S. intelligence data.

Pierce saw the U.S. feeling threatened by Brazil as an emerging a global superpower. Friedman saw the U.S. need to contain the rise of Brazil as a regional power.

Friedman saw no need to forecast about Brazil rising as a global superpower, because, in this respect, Brazil represents no immediate threat to U.S. interests.

Actually, only God can raise Brazil as a global superpower.

So, as forecasted by Friedman, if the U.S. should get prepared against just a regional power, what would the U.S. be capable of doing against an emerging global superpower?

Friedman’s strategic forecasting vindicates Pierce’s prophecy. Therefore, I mention several excerpts of Friedman’s book, where he says:

What happens in Latin America is of marginal importance to the United States, and the region has rarely held a significant place in American thinking.

During the Cold War, the United States became genuinely concerned about Soviet influence in the region and intervened on occasion to block it. But neither the Germans nor the Soviets made a serious strategic effort to dominate South America, because they understood that in most senses the continent was irrelevant to U.S. interests. Instead, their efforts were designed merely to irritate Washington and divert American resources.

There is only one Latin American country with the potential to emerge as a competitor to the United States in its own right, and that is Brazil. It is the first significant, independent economic and potentially global power to develop in the history of Latin America,

Right now Brazil is not a power that is particularly threatening or important to the United States, nor does the United States represent a challenge to Brazil. There is minimal economic friction, and geography prevents Brazil from easily challenging the United States.

The only challenge that Brazil could pose to the United States would be if its economic expansion continued enough for it to develop sufficient air and naval power to dominate the Atlantic between its coast and West Africa, a region not heavily patrolled by the United States.

Even though Brazil is not yet in any way a threat to American interests, the underlying American strategy of creating and maintaining balances of power in all areas requires that the United States begin working now to create a countervailing power. There is no rush in completing the strategy, but there is an interest in beginning it. In the next decade, while maintaining friendly relations with Brazil, the United States should also do everything it can to strengthen Argentina, the one country that could serve as a counterweight.

The American goal should be to slowly strengthen Argentina’s economic and political capabilities so that over the next twenty to thirty years, should Brazil begin to emerge as a potential threat to the United States, Argentina’s growth rivals Brazil’s.

The United States also should be prepared to draw the American military closer to the Argentine military, but through the civilian government, so as not to incite fears that the U.S. is favoring the Argentine military as a force in the country’s domestic politics. The American president must be careful not to show his true intentions in this, and not to rush. A unique program for Argentina could generate a premature Brazilian response, so Brazil should be included in any American program, if it wishes to participate. If necessary, this entire goodwill effort can be presented as an attempt to contain [socialist bolivarianism] in Venezuela. It will all cost money, but it will be much cheaper, in every sense, than confronting Brazil in the 2030s or 2040s over control of the South Atlantic.

The American relation with the hemisphere divides into three parts: Brazil, Canada, and Mexico. Brazil is far away and isolated. The United States can shape a long-term strategy of containment, but it is not pressing.

The United States has a secure position in the hemisphere. The sign of an empire is its security in its region, with conflicts occurring far away without threat to the homeland. The United States has, on the whole, achieved this.

Above all else, hemispheric governments must not perceive the United States as meddling in their affairs, a perception that sets in motion anti-American sentiment, which can be troublesome. Of course the United States will be engaged in meddling in Latin American affairs, particularly in Argentina. But this must be embedded in an endless discussion of human rights and social progress. In fact, particularly in the case of Argentina, both will be promoted. It is the motive vis-à-vis Brazil that needs to be hidden. But then, all presidents must in all things hide their true motives and vigorously deny the truth when someone recognizes what they are up to.

Brazil must be worked with and long-term plans for containment must, if necessary, be laid.

By Friedman’s analysis, Latin America represents no threat to U.S. interests today. By his forecasting, Brazil could, in the long run, represent some threat. Yet, by Pierce’s prophecy, it is certain that if God raises Brazil after Brazilian leaders embrace Israel, the U.S. will see Brazil as a threat to be immediately contained.

Israel is very important to God. When Bush was insisting in a two-state plan against Israel (the illegal and immoral division of the Promised Land), Pierce was guided by God’s voice to go to Louisiana and release God’s judgment. After a few months, came Hurricane Katrina, with devastating consequences.

Those, even superpowers, who confront God’s plan for Israel suffer the consequences.

Those who embrace and honor Israel are blessed, even with a superpower status blessing.

I envision a nation getting this status after its leaders fully recognize Israel and Jerusalem as its capital, make many friendship agreements with Israel, reject the two-state plan against Israel and, officially, recognize “Palestine” as a terrorist entity putting in peril the Jewish state.

Portuguese version of this article: Brasil, a próxima ameaça (regional ou global) à supremacia econômica dos EUA?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Homosexual “Marriage” Will Affect Other Countries

Manifest Destiny in the Bible? America Is Modern Babylon, Said David Wilkerson

Justin Peters in Brazil: God Does Not Speak to You Today Through Prophecy and Revelation

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

Conservative Russians Give Moral Lesson to Facebook’s Homosexual Propaganda

By Julio Severo

In celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling favoring homosexual “marriage” last week, Facebook launched an app called “Let’s Celebrate Pride,” which allowed users to overlay an image of the homosexual rainbow over their profile picture.

Facebook expected many millions of its users to celebrate, but from its 1.44 billion users, just 26 million did — less than 2 per cent. The fact is, the absolute majority of Facebook users did not want to get involved in the Facebook’s homosexual propaganda.

Compounding the failure, there was an international reaction to this propaganda.

The strongest reaction came from conservative Russians who overlaid an image of the colors of their country’s flag — white, blue and red — over their profile picture.

Russian users have also countered the homosexual #LoveWins hashtag with #pridetobestraight and #pridetoberussian.

In recent years, Russia has had a strong stance in defense of traditional family values. In June 2013, Russia passed the federal law for the “Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values,” or what is commonly referred to as the law against gay propaganda. It bans homosexual groups and individuals from giving children information about homosexuality. Violators face hefty fines and arrest. The government has also banned LGBT pride events and public rallies. And it regularly jails insolent demonstrators.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been particularly outspoken on the issue. Vsevolod Chaplin, a spokesperson for the church, called the Supreme Court’s ruling last week “godless and sinful.”

“People who like ‘American-style democracy’ and try to reconcile it with traditional values need to have a long, hard think after this decision,” he said. In part, he is right. Yet, the original American democracy was not made for homosexuality and its ideological activism.

John Adams (1735-1826), second U.S. president, wisely said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” America under Adams had a largely Protestant and moral population. Today, America has a government and big companies (Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) that totally hate Protestantism and morality and totally love immorality and homosexuality.

Some Americans answered Facebook’s homosexual propaganda by overlaying an image of the American flag over their profile picture.

With information from HuffingtonPost, Mashable and Mirror.

Portuguese version of this article: Conservadores russos dão lição de moral para a propaganda homossexual do Facebook

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

U.S. Homosexual “Marriage” Will Affect Other Countries

In the Leftist Black List, Again

In the Leftist Black List, Again

By Julio Severo

Right Wing Watch, a major American socialist group, has again “exposed” me to its U.S. leftist audience for politically incorrect views. 

Right Wing Watch “exposed”:

Julio Severo warns that “homosexuality brought destruction to Sodom, and it will bring destruction to any city or superpower embracing it. A remnant of Christians faithful to God should warn about the danger of sodomy and support efforts to protect children and their families from it.” (June 30, 2015)

Right Wing Watch exposed, at the same time, Glenn Beck, Mychal Massie, Michael Peroutka and Jim Bakker just for expressing conservative views hated by the U.S. left.

They read my view on Barbwire, a major U.S. conservative website, where I am a columnist.

Recently, in June 18, Right Wing Watch again “exposed” me by saying:

Finally, Julio Severo wants to see Scott Lively appointed “as a U.S. Special Envoy for the Human Rights of Children and their Protection against the LGBT Agenda.”

Again, Right Wing Watch read my politically incorrect view on Barbwire.

Named in the “exposé” are also the Southern Baptist Convention and Phyllis Schlafly for their conservatism.

What does Right Wing Watch, which is owned by People for the American Way, want?

According to WND, People for the American Way (PFAW) is “an atheist socialist organization which, through publications like its ‘Right Wing Watch,’ dedicates itself to the destruction of conservatives in general.”

According to its website, Right Wing Watch has a special mission to attack conservatives opposed to the gay agenda, abortion and Muslim ideology.

Right Wing Watch has “exposed” my view other times too, and I answered here: “People for the American Way’s Leftist Diatribe Against a Brazilian Conservative.”

And here: “American Left Hates Julio Severo!”

What do they intend to do?

In 2011, WND had reported on surveillance by the Homeland Security Department against my blog. What did they intend to do?

In the same year, WND reported in a headline on PayPal cutting my account after a campaign by a U.S. homosexual organization.

Why is Goliath (Right Wing Watch, Homeland Security Department, etc.) monitoring and worried about a small David?

Portuguese version of this article: Na lista negra da esquerda, de novo

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Atheist Ed Brayton: Julio Severo is a Brazilian ‘wingnut’