U.S. Is Oligarchy, Not Republic

Comment by Julio Severo: This article, published originally by WND, addresses a very real problem in the U.S. As a pro-life and conservative Christian, I have to reach the same conclusion. Abortion was legalized in the U.S. in 1973 in the administration of President Richard Nixon, considered a conservative and of the Republican Party, also considered as generally conservative. In that time, the absolute majority of the American people was against abortion. In fact, the U.S. was then the most Protestant nation in the world. However, there were big business groups interested in the legalization of the unborn’s killing. The Supreme Court, which legalized this heinous crime, imposed it on all the U.S. states, violating the independence of each of them. In the issue of the so called gay “marriage” the same problem is happening. Most of the American people do not want this aberration. Yet, interest groups want to impose this aberration on the population. If then there is a “democracy” in the U.S., it is working just for those having more power and money. It is not working for the defense of life and family. It is in the full reality, as my definition, a “government of money, by money, for money.” Read and spread the following article:

A recent study by professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page found that the U.S. now resembles more of an oligarchy than a democratic republic.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

The author of a recent commentary about oligarchy in the 21st century, Matthew Continetti, of the Free Beacon, might even suggest that last phrase be repeated.

“Mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

In a recent interview with TPM, Gilens stated, “I’d say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups – of economic elites and of organized interests.”

“Since Reagan, every president has come from Harvard or Yale. Because these are considered the most prestigious education institutions in the United States, the graduates that they produce are funneled straight into Washington or are given positions in some of the major media outlets,” Marc E. Fitch said.

“It’s a belief that merely by attending these schools you are somehow a superior individual and deserve a position of power. You don’t see too many peanut farmers like Jimmy Carter or generals like Eisenhower even trying to go into politics anymore. Even Sarah Palin was mocked for the college she attended. I think that, in itself, could be the cause of the separation of the policy makers from the people.”

The affluent attend elite universities that are among the most fervently leftist and liberal institutions in the country. Gilens states that the affluent tend to hold more socially liberal positions than the majority.

“We’d see, perhaps ironically, less liberal policies in some domains like religious or moral issues. Affluent people tend to be more socially liberal on things like abortion or gay rights.”

Gilens cites the lack of a Worker’s Party or Socialist Party as part of the problem but Fitch says… they are often just replacing evil with a greater evil.

“You would just end up with more of the same. This is a deeper cultural issue about personal responsibility and honesty. You can throw as much money as you want at a politician but it is his or her job to put their constituency before their own pockets. That is not happening in any way. Until we consider moral character over celebrity in politics we will keep ending up in this position.”

Noted the study, “Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of U.S. citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?”

Gilens said, “Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do.”

Edited by Julio Severo from WND article: Study: U.S. is oligarchy, not republic

Via Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Recommeded Reading:

Has Obama failed to advance leftism in America?

Left Silent as Muslim Cabbies Reject Gay Games Ads

By Julio Severo

According to FoxNews, 25 Muslim drivers dispatched to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport are refusing to drive cabs adorned with advertising for the Gay Games, which will be held on Aug. 9-16 in the region.

The drivers said that their decision was based on their religious convictions.

Ann Gynn, a spokeswoman for the Gay Games, said the protest is an “isolated” case, meaning that drivers of other religions (especially Christianity, considering that this religion is still dominant in the U.S.) did not complain about making involuntary propaganda for the “gay” event. “This was a decision by those individual cab drivers. It was a personal decision,” she said.

Can you imagine 25 Christian drivers refusing to participate in “gay” propaganda with no media, government and “gay” harassment? I can imagine taxicab companies firing 25 Christian drivers for “hate” and “discrimination”!

America has a dominant cultural status and role in the world. In recent years, she has signaled that it is OK to impose the “gay” agenda on other nations. And she has given her own personal example, with Christians being punished at mere whims of gay activists and their government and media allies.

American Christians have been punished as if America were 97% homosexuals and less than 3% Christians.

American Christians have been punished just for standing up for traditional marriage. The recent case of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich losing his job because years ago he donated for traditional marriage shows that the cultural dictatorship prevalent in America today will allow no dissent — that is, Christian dissent.

A couple of gay activists want to “marry” and they chose a Christian shop to take pictures of their immoral ceremony? In America, you are not free to refuse — not if you are a Christian.

This is the (wicked) example America has set for the world see and follow.

Yet, in the case of the Muslim cab drivers, there is other example set. If you are a Muslim, there is an exception. There are “personal” and “religious” freedoms that should be respected — only in the Muslim case. In fact, I have seen no “gay”publication and website protesting the Muslim decision. No “gay” activist talked about lawsuits and the U.S. media, habitually hysterical and fiercely opposed to Christians rejecting “gay” impositions, have remained silent. No criticism at Muslims and their “personal” and “religious” decisions.

In today’s America, I cannot see a Muslim Brendan Eich losing his job because Muslim convictions reject homosexuality. I cannot see any other Muslims losing their jobs, because, in their case, there is no systematic bullying from “gay” activists and their powerful allies.

My point is this: What is America trying to teach the world? That Christians are out of luck and Muslims are entitled to exceptions?

As a Brazilian I have these worries because the socialist establishment in Brazil, usually trained in U.S. universities, and Brazilian “gay” activists, also trained in the U.S., just love to mimic American socialist trends, whereas Muslims are entitled to “personal” and “religious” decisions and Christians are worthy of unemployment and other Western cultural, social and legal maladies because of their ethical and moral convictions.

What will they — and many others around the world — learn from the American example? Convert to homosexuality or Islam to be protected from insane Western cultural, social and legal harassment?

Portuguese version of this article: Esquerda fica em silêncio enquanto taxistas muçulmanos rejeitam anúncios de Jogos Gays

Source: Barbwire

Recommended Reading:

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Rules that “Child” Includes “Unborn Child”

Commentary by Julio Severo: This is a very important development in the U.S. and can potentially bring the strike down of the evil abortion law in the once most Protestant nation in the world.

My wife and I have prayed for this wonderful fulfillment in Alabama. God is working there. Please join us to pray for the courageous justices, Tom Parker and Roy Moore. Read the victorious victory:

Alabama Supreme Court

Montgomery, AL – Today, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute applies to the born and unborn in Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks. This decision follows a similar one handed down last year by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ankrom v. State, where Alabama’s highest court also ruled that the word “child” includes the “unborn child.” In that case, Liberty Counsel’s amicus brief arguing that the protection of the unborn is in keeping with the protections afforded the born in various areas of the law.

“In an age where some judges do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or do not even care, finally the Alabama Supreme Court springs forth with a ray of light,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker are well-reasoned, grounded in history and natural law, and completely demolish the fallacies of the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions. One day soon the United States Supreme Court’s abortion opinions will come toppling down like a house of cards. Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child,” said Staver.

Abortion in America

Ex parte Sarah Janie Hicks involved the conviction, following a guilty plea, for chemical endangerment of a child. Hicks ingested cocaine while pregnant with “J.D.,” which resulted in J.D. testing positive for cocaine at the time of his birth. Hicks argued that the word “child” in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child. The trial court rejected the argument presented by Hicks. Relying on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Ankrom. v. State, the Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “the plain meaning of the word ‘child,’ as that word is used in the chemical-endangerment statute, includes an unborn child.” The opinion goes on to state that “the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development and has done so by enacting the chemical-endangerment statute.”

The concurring opinions by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker are particularly significant because they reveal the flaws in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decisions, beginning with the 1973 case of Roe. v. Wade. Excerpts of their concurring opinions are set forth below:

Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Concurring Opinion:

“Denominated in the United States Code as one of the ‘Organic Laws of the United States of America,’ the Declaration acknowledges as ‘self-evident’ the truth that all human beings are endowed with inherent dignity and the right to life as a direct result of having been created by God.”

“God, not governments and legislatures, gives persons these inherent natural rights . . . Government, in fact, has no power to abridge or destroy natural rights God directly besets to mankind and indeed no power to contravene what God declares right or wrong.”

“As the gift of God, this right to life is not subject to violation by another’s unilateral choice.”

“From local to international, all law flows from the divine source: it is the law of God. The law of nature and of nature’s God binds all nations, states, and all government officials—from Great Britain to Germany to Alabama—regardless of positive laws or orders to the contrary.”

“States have an affirmative duty to protect unborn human life under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“Any state’s discriminatory failure to provide legal protection equally to born and unborn persons under, for instance, its statutes prohibiting homicide, assault, or chemical endangerment violates, therefore, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

“Because a human life with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights encompasses the moment of conception. Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family derives ultimately from the laws of nature and nature’s God, who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: ‘Thou shall not kill.’”

Justice Tom Parker’s Concurring Opinion:

“In contrast to the reasoning of Roe and Casey, Alabama’s reliance upon objective principles has led this court to consistently recognize the inalienable right to life inherently possessed by every human being and to dispel the shroud of doubt cast by the United States Supreme Court’s violation of the law of noncontradiction.”

“Liberty will continue to find no refuge in abortion jurisprudence until courts refuse to violate the law of noncontradiction and, like Alabama, recognize an unborn child’s inalienable right to life at every point in time and in every respect.”

“[T]here is no valid basis for the viability standard.”

“[F]rom the child’s earliest stages of development, the existence of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother’s. Accordingly, Alabama has an interest not only in promoting a sustainable society and culture that appreciates life, but also in securing the blessings of liberty by protecting the right to life inherent in the new life itself.”

“The unborn child cannot logically be a separate and distinct human for the purposes of one abortion procedure but not another. Protecting the unborn child’s right to life at all stages of development would eliminate the contradictory reasoning of the Court’s abortion decisions and dispel the shroud of doubt obscuring the unborn child's right to life.”

“Why should legal protection of an individual at a particular point in time depend entirely upon his or her subjective relation to the killer? Such irrational protection defies logic. Recognition of a child’s right to life from the earliest stages of its development would dispel the shroud of doubt from this area of jurisprudence and avoid unequal protection of the two children.”

“Because an unborn child has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development, it is entitled not only to a life free from the harmful effects of chemicals at all stages of development but also to life itself at all stages of development. Treating an unborn child as a separate and distinct person in only select respects defies logic and our deepest sense of morality.”

“Courts do not have the luxury of hiding behind ipse dixit assertions. The United States Supreme Court has attempted to do so by setting the line for state protection of unborn children at viability in the area of abortion. It is in fact comforting to witness the realist that he who lives by the ipse dixit dies by the ipse dixit. But one must grieve for the Constitution. To dispel the shroud of doubt shadowing our nation’s abortion jurisprudence, courts must have the courage to allow the law of noncontradiction to dismantle the ipse dixit reasoning of Roe, Casey, and Stenberg and recognize a child’s inalienable right to life at all stages of development. Until then, our grief is not for the Constitution alone, we also grieve for the millions of children who have not been afforded equal value, love, and protection since Roe.”

On page 69 of the opinion, Justice Parker quotes from a Liberty University School of Law Review article written by a graduate of Liberty University School of Law, Martin Wishnatsky, Ph.D., J.D.. The article is The Supreme Court’s Use of the Term “Potential Life”: Verbal Engineering and the Abortion Holocaust, 6 Liberty U.L. Rev. 327, 342-43 (2012). Dr. Wishnatsky interned with Liberty Counsel during law school.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

Source: Liberty Counsel

Via Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

US Supreme Court Genocidal Law Confronted by Major Pro-Life Decision of Alabama Supreme Court

For the U.S., Jerusalem Has No Connection with Israel

By Julio Severo

A recent Jerusalem Post article notes, “Since the founding of Israel, U.S. presidents have declined to state a position on the status of Jerusalem.” For the U.S. government and its leftist Christian presidents, Jerusalem has no country. Yet, why are even U.S. conservative presidents included in this negative picture?            

For God’s Word, those born in Jerusalem are always born in Israel. But why does the United States, a nation founded on Christian principles and capable of providing great leadership to the world, choose to ignore Israel’s special place in God’s eye?

As a Brazilian, I would expect the U.S. to set a good example, because many of the U.S. presidents have been Christians and some of them have stated they are friends of Israel.

If God used powerful rulers in the ancient world who did not know Him, what about powerful U.S. Christian presidents who claim to know God? God said about Persian emperor Cyrus (c. 585 B.C. — c. 529 B.C.) in the past:

“Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: ‘I will go before you and level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.’” (Isaiah 45:1-4 ESV)

Why are U.S. Christian presidents doing less than Cyrus? What hinders them from doing as much or more than a pagan Persian emperor?

American culture has been massively imitated around the world.  If America led the way in serving Israel, other nations would certainly follow suit. In fact, if God’s Word is correct, it is strongly in America’s interest to set an example of service to Israel:

“For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.” (Isaiah 60:12 ESV)

Ancient empires served Israel.  Why should it be different with America, whose Pilgrim Founders wanted Hebrew to be the official language of the new American nation? America, which is a modern empire, and Brazil, which is a nation, exist not to be served by Israel, but to serve Israel.

America is a strange ally of Israel.  She is a nation that does not want to serve Israel. She is a nation that does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. She gives Israel limited military assistance, and at the same time she heavily arms and supports Saudi Arabia and other Islamic dictatorships that would not hesitate to destroy the Jews and their Promised Land.

How can America be an ally of Israel and its enemies? How can an ally work against the security interests of its friend? Last year, the world was shocked to learn that NSA spies on people in every nation, even Israel. No American has been imprisoned for such massive, unnecessary spying, allegedly to monitor Muslim terrorists — when current CIA director John Brennan is, according to WND.com, an American converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia.

While NSA goes unpunished for spying for suspicious political and financial interests, Jonathan Pollard has spent 27 years of an unprecedented life sentence in a U.S. federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. The typical sentence for this offense is 2 to 4 years. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for this offense.

Can you imagine a Saudi spy receiving a life sentence in the U.S.? But Pollard, who passed security information about Muslim nations to Israel, was just fulfilling a role that America herself was called to do: serve Israel and its security interests.

Increasingly, America has served the interests of Muslim dictatorships, especially Saudi Arabia. In fact, America now has a Marxist, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy president with a Muslim name.  Barack Hussein Obama is a mere reflection of America’s tilt toward Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim dictatorships.

How has America been rewarded for her service to the Muslim world?  September 11, 2001.  Even though most of the Muslim terrorists were Saudis, America did not invade Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the U.S. has an early Christian tradition and a significant evangelical population that would not hesitate to lead America to serve Israel. But they are in conflict with a modern haughty America that serves her own political and financial ambitions, which prefers just to use Israel for her interests.

Even good conservative U.S. presidents, as George W. Bush, had a foreign policy that, although not so radical as Clinton and other leftist American presidents, still refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and even pushed Israel to recognize Palestinian occupation of the Promised Land.

Bush’s State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice, was the main responsible for the Bush policies toward Israel. Considering that she was a daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, could replacement theology have influenced her policies? Replacement theology, accepted by many Presbyterians, teaches that God is finished with the Jews and their Promised Land. Also, as a “conservative” and evangelical, Rice sees herself as reluctantly or mildly pro-abortion and pro-gay “marriage,” and in a 2008 visit to Brazil, she was supportive of African witchcraft. With such “conservatives,” who need liberals? With such “conservatives,” how can America serve Israel?

If she had the political will, America could easily recognize all of the Promised Land as a Jewish state.  She has the political and military power to enforce such will, and no nation can resist her power and decisions.

Also, it is a very small thing for a powerful nation like the U.S., now the only superpower in the world, to consider people who are born in Jerusalem as having been born in Israel.

But the small thing is a very thorny issue for the superpower and its Christian presidents. By U.S. law, people who were born in Jerusalem cannot list Israel as their birthplace. That is, they have a birth city, but not birth country.

As a Brazilian, I would expect such behavior from many nations, including Brazil, which now has a socialist president who has no real respect for Israel. Sadly, even before socialism took control of the Brazilian government, Brazilian presidents had never officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

A superficial Christianity makes an individual and a nation fail to take seriously what God says in His Word about Israel and Jerusalem.

Still, I would expect much more from the U.S., especially its more conservative Christian presidents throughout its history. I would expect from them respect for the real Ruler in the world and His eternal will for Jerusalem and Israel.

In fact, His Word promises blessings to nations that bless Israel. Brazil has no interest in such blessings. But why has America, with her many Christian presidents, never had courage to tackle this small thing and receive a huge blessing?

Why do U.S. Christian presidents refuse to recognize what God recognizes?

It’s one thing for less Christian nations or Muslim countries to say that Jerusalem has no connection with Israel. It is normal, for example, for Saudi Arabia and other pagan nations to reject the legitimate Jewish connections of Jerusalem.  It’s a completely different thing for America, with her strong Christian tradition and Protestant presidents, to say the same thing as their pagan counterparts do.

Where are the real American Christians who will do what God wants for Jerusalem and Israel? At least, where is a pagan Cyrus to do what “Christian” rulers in America are not doing?

May God raise someone reading these words to be president, whether of Brazil or the U.S., and return Jerusalem to its rightful owner: Israel.

If Brazil does it under a Christian president, powerful blessings certainly will follow, even a position of superpower, because God, who overthrows big nations refusing His will, also is powerful to raise other nations to do His will, especially to help Israel.

May Jerusalem, which God established as the eternal capital of Israel, be recognized for what it is.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! “May they be secure who love you!” (Psalms 122:6 ESV)

“The LORD builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel.” (Psalms 147:2 ESV)

What hinders America and her conservative Christian presidents from recognizing Jerusalem, serve Israel and be blessed?

I wonder if the issue were recognizing Mecca as capital of Saudi Arabia, would it have been left unsolved as Jerusalem has been? No, it would have been solved many decades ago, even if its Jewish neighbor had opposed it.

I bet that Saudi Arabia, the big Muslim ally of the U.S., does not want Jerusalem recognized as the capital of Israel.

Why does America find easier to serve Saudi Arabia than Israel?

Portuguese version of this article: Para os EUA, Jerusalém não tem nenhuma conexão com Israel

Source: Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

What every Christian should know about Israel

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

Why Does The Christian Post Espouse Leftism in Brazil?

By Julio Severo

The U.S. version of The Christian Post rightly addressed the recent World Vision flap on gay “marriage” by quoting prominent evangelical leaders. Their responses were mostly conservative. The first World Vision (WV) stance favoring this faux marriage was universally disapproved among conservative Christians. Its repentance was welcome.

In no way, the Christian Post condemned these conservative leaders and their views.

In a strange twist, the Brazilian version of The Christian Post decided not only to publish nothing from its U.S. version on the WV flap, but it also addressed it from a liberal viewpoint. The only article by the Brazilian Christian Post on this issue was “Obsessão evangélica sobre homossexualidade está fora de controle, relata autora” (Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control, Says Author), by Luciano Portela.

The author is Rachel Held Evans, who in a recent CNN article said, “I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked” on gay “marriage.”

In this article, she condemned conservative evangelicals as Albert Mohler and the Assemblies of God denomination for their opposition to the initial WV pro-gay “marriage” decision.

Evans’ liberalism is obvious. In her personal blog, she said, “As I advocated for the election (and re-election) of President Obama, I confess I grew somewhat embarrassed by the pro-life cause.” Of course, Obama is an avid advocate of gay “marriage” and abortion.

Evans is a columnist in the leftist The Huffington Post. She is scheduled to be a speaker at the Festival of Faith & Writing, April 10-12, 2014. The event, which purposes to train a new generation of Christian writers, will be held by the Calvin College, which is connected with the Christian Reformed Church.

Portela, the journalist of the Brazilian Christian Post, kept quiet about the endemic liberalism among many American Calvinists in his “Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control, Says Author.”

He also kept quiet about the church affiliation of Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision. Stearns attends the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A (PCUSA).

Most Brazilian evangelicals, even Presbyterians, do not know that PCUSA is pro-sodomy, liberal, anti-Israel, pro-abortion, etc.

A time ago, a Presbyterian minister in Brazil told me that he did not know that PCUSA was so liberal.

If Portela did not quote prominent U.S. evangelical leaders and their views on the WV gay “marriage” flap because Brazilian readers are not familiar with them, so why did he choose an American liberal author who is less known?

Brazil has its own liberal problems among evangelicals, including the Brazilian branch of World Vision, whose director, Ariovaldo Ramos, said,

“Everybody who, in everyplace, fights against poverty, for the human liberation, for justice and rights available to everybody had, in Hugo Chávez, a reference of commitment to the poor and the oppressed.”

He also said,

“The best we could say of someone is that, because he lived here, the world became better! We can say this of Hugo Chávez!”

Apparently, some form of liberalism has hit the Brazilian Christian Post, which has published articles by Rev. Johnny Bernardo, who has a long history of affiliation with the Communist Party of Brazil and recently supported the decriminalization of marijuana in Brazil.

Portela’s article “Evangelical Obsession about Homosexuality Is Out of Control” is not a condemnation of a liberal American author and her radical agenda, but of conservative evangelicals who are fighting to preserve their churches of the deluge of progressive obsessions.

Cristianismo Hoje, the Brazilian version of Christianity Today, retweeted the article, increasing still more the doubts of readers who see its difficulty of clearly condemning the apostasy of those who call themselves Christian and support the so called gay “marriage.”

“This whole situation has left me feeling frustrated, heartbroken and lost. I don’t think I’ve ever been more angry at the Church, particularly the Evangelical culture in which I was raised and with which I for so long identified,” wrote Evans about evangelical leaders who opposed to the WV’s initial pro-gay “marriage” stance.

“I confess I had not realized the true extent of the disdain and stigmatization many Evangelicals have toward LGBT people, nor had I expected World Vision to yield to that disdain and stigmatization by reversing its decision under financial pressure. Honestly, it feels like a betrayal from every side.”

For a “Christian” author who is not frustrated and heartbroken over Obama and his pro-abortion and pro-sodomy agenda, it is natural for her to want World Vision to remain faithful to progressive principles, including gay “marriage.”

This is a betrayal of the true Gospel. But who said that progressives have this Gospel? Gay “marriage” will never be a betrayal of the progressive gospel.

Why is the Brazilian Christian Post siding with it?

Christian Post should do a necessary work of exposing U.S. Protestant liberalism among Brazilian audiences, and vice-versa.

Brazil needs less, not more, liberal evangelical examples.

Portuguese version of this article: Por que o Christian Post adota o esquerdismo no Brasil?

Source: Julio Severo in English

Recommended Reading:

After Pressure, World Vision Reverses Policy on Hiring Gays

Homosexual “Marriage” and the Last Days

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide

Leading the world by evil example: Obama and gay “marriage”