Saturday, July 07, 2018

Boston: Once Upon a Time a Calvinist Fortress…


Boston: Once Upon a Time a Calvinist Fortress…

By Julio Severo
Calvinists, Calvinists, Calvinists! According to Catholic historian Paul Johnson, the American city of Boston was a Calvinist fortress in the eighteenth century. Calvinists dominated Boston demographically and religiously.
Boston today
And who dominates it today? According to the Pew Research Center, 57% of Boston consider themselves Christians, with 25% identifying themselves as Protestants and slightly more (29%) identifying themselves as Catholics. Those who attend no church make up 33% of the population and Muslims and Hindus make up almost 10%.
Today Boston is most notorious for Catholicism, which became famous all over the world for the huge scandals of pedophile homosexual priests. “Spotlight,” an Oscar-winning movie based on actual events, reports that “249 priests and brothers were publicly accused of sexual abuse within the Boston Archdiocese,” making this former Calvinist fortress the American Catholic cover-up center of crimes of homosexual pedophilia.
The “Calvinist fortress” died, buried in the distant past.
Lacking revival, but with cessationism and liberalism (pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality stances) prevailing in many American Calvinist churches, all that is left of Calvinism in Boston is the memory of a distant past.
The way Muslims multiply like rabbits, it will be a miracle if in a few decades Boston do not become an Islamic stronghold — with Islamic pedophilia without the need for cover-up. And woe to Hollywood if it tries to launch a “Spotlight” on Islamic pedophilia!
Pedophilia has been a reality in Islam since the time of Muhammad, who was also a pedophile, but he was never condemned as a criminal.
However, when Boston was a Calvinist fortress, pedophilia was a crime and its Calvinist population would not need to be moved by a Spotlight to lynch a homosexual pedophile. To have a mosque in this city, no way. But past is past and without a revival, if even the present is not well, the future will be much worse.
Portuguese version of this article: Boston: Era uma vez uma fortaleza calvinista…
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Evangelicals Blast Trump Administration for Admitting to U.S. Only 21 Christian Refugees from Middle East in 2018


Evangelicals Blast Trump Administration for Admitting to U.S. Only 21 Christian Refugees from Middle East in 2018

By Julio Severo
“After pledging that it would help Christians facing genocide by the Islamic State and other Muslim groups in the Middle East, figures show the Trump administration has resettled only 21 Christian refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia so far this year,” said CBN News in a recent report.
The report added that the Trump administration “has all but abandoned Christians who face death and suffering in the Middle East.”
CBN said that “The Christian population in the Middle East region is believed to have fallen by two-thirds since 2011 because of Muslim persecution and genocide” — largely fueled by direct and indirect military interventions from the U.S. government under Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“Despite claims that the Obama White House was shutting out Christian refugees, the Refugee Processing Center database shows that the Obama administration resettled a total of 1,315 Christians from the Middle East from Jan. 1, 2016 until June 19, 2016,” said CBN.
Even though 1,315 Christian refugees are a small number if compared to the 38,901 Islamic “refugees” that the Obama administration admitted to the U.S. in 2016, the number of Christian refugees admitted under Obama is vastly bigger than the insignificant number of 21 Christian refugees admitted by the Trump administration.
Apparently, such unofficial harsh ban on Christian refugees was not President Donald Trump’s original plan.
In an exclusive interview with CBN last year, Trump explained his immigration priority.
CBN host David Brody asked Trump during the interview: “As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?”
Trump replied: “Yes.”
When Brody asked again, “You do?” the president continued: “They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”
It was pretty clear: It was very tough for persecuted Christians to get into the United States and Trump was going to help. This help is especially necessary and even compulsory because the Islamic genocide of Christians has come on the trail of the disastrous U.S. foreign policy.
In his report in the New American titled “Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Alex Newman said, “It has been claimed that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East could not be intentionally designed to do a better job of liquidating Christians than is happening nowadays.”
Newman also said,
After trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives were sacrificed by the U.S. government over the last decade intervening in the Middle East — the birthplace of Jesus Christ and Christianity — Christian communities are facing unprecedented struggles across most of the region. More than a few analysts have even called the systematic and growing persecution of Christians throughout much of the Muslim world an ongoing example of genocide.
One of the most frequent excuses offered to justify the persecution of Christians by murderous regimes and the anti-Christian fanatics they enable is that believers in Christ are somehow acting as surrogates or proxies for Western interests — especially the U.S. government. After decades of meddling in the internal affairs of nations around the world — backing dictators, sparking revolutions, imposing sanctions, and more — America is widely perceived as hostile and dangerous. Plus, as tyrants throughout history have learned, minorities make good scapegoats.
U.S. government intervention in the region has been justified using a broad array of issues: supposed “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs), the terror war, regional security, trade, and vaguely defined “national interests.” But increasingly, American policymakers have been meddling in the Middle East under the guise of “spreading democracy.” And as analysts have noted, when the overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim, so-called “democracy” — or majority rule — does not generally bode well for Christians and other minorities.
As predicted by innumerable experts, imposing “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries has been a disaster for Christians. Asked for an example of U.S. foreign policy benefiting Christians, a senior official with the USCIRF could not name one. Christianity has managed to survive in the Middle East for 2,000 years without U.S. government intervention. But if current trends continue, the religion of Christ could very well be eradicated in the region of its birth within the next few decades. And unfortunately, America will bear at least part of the responsibility.
The Trump administration is not helping persecuted Christians, according to the latest CBN report. In fact, Christians fleeing the Islamic oppression in the Middle East have not been given top priority for entrance into the U.S. Instead, the Trump administration is admitting to the U.S. many fewer persecuted Christians than the Obama administration did.
According to CBN, when Trump signed an immigration ban last year (which hit largely Islamic nations not aligned with Saudi Arabia), Christian leaders voiced their concerns about Christians being unfairly affected by his ban.
Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, was not pleased with Trump’s immigration ban.
“There’s a dire need for President Trump to issue a separate executive order — one specifically aimed to help ISIS genocide survivors in Iraq and Syria,” she said in a statement.
“For three years, the Christians, Yazidis and others of the smallest religious minorities have been targeted by ISIS with beheadings, crucifixions, rape, torture and sexual enslavement,” she continued. “One year ago, on March 17, 2016, ISIS was officially designated as responsible for this ‘genocide’ by the State Department.”
As far as persecuted Christians are concerned, the Trump administration has failed Christians fleeing Islamic persecution and genocide in the Middle East and, incredibly, it has been much less open to them than the left-wing Obama administration was.
The only openness of the Trump administration to persecuted Christians has been “to help” Iraqi Christians through USAID, which is the U.S. population control agency. This is, during decades U.S. left-wing and right-wing administrations opened wide the immigration doors to Muslims. Now Trump, who had personally voiced concern for suffering Christians, seems to be closing the door on them.
Trump has perpetuated the same blunders of Obama and other administrations by privileging Saudi Arabia and exempting it from his ban. Saudi Arabia is the leader of the global Sunni Islam, which is the main responsible for Islamic terror, including ISIS, and the genocide of Christians around the world. So Trump’s ban — Saudis in, and persecuted Christians out — is a contradiction of his promises in 2016. His current policy is making Saudi Arabia great and making persecuted Christians virtually ineligible to enter the U.S.
Saudis have oil and no innocence. Persecuted Christians have innocence, but no oil.
Some conservatives could think that Trump’s unofficial ban on persecuted Christians is “fake news.”
There was a cursed vice among left-wingers that all negative news — especially when coming from the conservative media — about Obama was fake news. Now the cursed vice can be seen among right-wingers, who treat all negative news about Trump as fake news. This may be true when the negative news comes from the left-wing media. But CBN is conservative and evangelical Christian — the same profile responsible for Trump’s election.
There is a conflict between fake news from the left-wing media and exaggerated news from the right-wing media.
Fake news is the effort of the massive left-wing to portray consistently Trump in a negative way. Exaggerated news is the effort of the right-wing media to portray consistently Trump in a positive way through an exaggerated defense of him, even when he is clearly wrong. The same extremism happened in the Bush era: There was the massive fake news from the left-wing media attacking Bush, and exaggerated news from the right-wing media defending him in everything, including the Iraq War. But guess what? Since 2016 Trump has attacked Bush for the Iraq War, including by using the same accusation the left-wing media used against him: Bush lied.
Certainly, some future conservative president will criticize today’s blunders of Trump, in the same way Trump did to Bush. I am just dealing with it in advance.
A conservative movement can develop and grow in a healthy way only though responsible criticism of external threats (Islam, feminism, homosexualism, witchcraft and Marxism) and self-criticism. Because Evangelicals were fundamental for Trump’s election, they have a duty to hold him accountable for his stated commitment to help persecuted Christians, by fighting for their immigration to the U.S. If hordes of Muslims were granted entry to the U.S. for decades, why not give Christians a bigger chance? Yet, Trump has drastically reduced even the small number of Christian immigrants allowed under Obama.
As an Evangelical Christian, I am compelled to defend the defenseless, and urge Trump to keep his promise to persecuted Christians.
U.S. evangelicals can and should voice their concerns directly to Trump. If Obama could admit to the U.S. 1,315 Christian refugees in 2016, Trump can and should do much more than admitting just 21.
It is pretty clear: It was very tough for persecuted Christians to get into the United States under Obama. Now, under Trump is virtually impossible.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Swimming and Driving Is Dangerous… for Those Who Cannot Swim and Drive


Swimming and Driving Is Dangerous… for Those Who Cannot Swim and Drive

By Julio Severo
A man who does not have the swimming experience sees extreme danger in swimming in waterfalls and other places. His basis is his own experience — if he tries to swim in these places, he drowns.
He can also use the example of people drowning in seas, lakes, waterfalls and rivers to show that swimming is dangerous. In fact, there are plenty of examples of drowning deaths. He has plenty of examples to discourage people from swimming.
Does this mean that there should be a cessation of all swimming?
The same is true of the steering wheel. Every year a very significant number of people die from car accidents. Those who do not know how to drive can use the numerous traffic accident cases as evidence that people should be banned from driving.
Does that mean that humans were not meant to drive? Does this mean that there should be a cessation of drivers and cars?
No way. Even if swimming and driving involve risks, the correct attitude is for the swimmer and the driver to perfect themselves in the experience of swimming and driving. Banishing does not solve the problem; it only removes necessary options.
I apply the example of a ban on swimming and driving to the cessationist theology, which seeks to ban from the Christian life the experiences of supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just as is ridiculous for someone who does not know how to swim and drive to impose laws and banish people from swimming and driving, even with theories against swimming and driving, so it is ridiculous for theologians who have no experience of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit to impose human doctrines and ban Christians from having these gifts, including with surprising theological theories against these gifts.
Like everything else in life that is necessary and important, the use of gifts may involve risks, just as swimming and driving always involve risks. But the right way is not to avoid swimming, driving, and having supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. The right way is to learn right and perfect yourself in these necessary experiences.
If the supernatural gifts were not needed to equip the church, Jesus would not have given them to his first apostles and he would not give them today.
To deny that Jesus gives these gifts today on the basis of the lack of this experience among critics or by using the bizarre cases is the same thing as criticizing the experience of swimming and driving based on the lack of experience among critics and by using horrendous cases of drownings and accidents of transits.
Banning people from swimming and driving is sure to avoid nearly 100 percent of deaths from drowning and traffic accidents, but it will bring numerous other problems.
Prohibiting experiences of supernatural gifts, including revelation and prophecy, in the church will certainly avoid bizarre cases, but will bring numerous other problems, including spiritual disability.
Only the immature, the fearful and the cowardly forbid people to drive, swim, and have supernatural gifts.
Learn to drive very well.
Learn to swim very well in the River of the Holy Spirit.
Learn to swim very well in your gift.
Learn to let the Holy Spirit guide and direct your experience of supernatural gifts.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, June 25, 2018

Who Is Nikki Haley?


Who Is Nikki Haley?

By Julio Severo
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley withdrew the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Her argument is that this council has an anti-Israel bias. Her decision was absolutely correct. In fact, the United State should have made this decision many decades ago.
Nikki Haley
But Haley was not correct to add Syria to her argument by saying that this council has passed more resolutions this year condemning Israel than Syria — meaning that Syria deserves to be especially targeted for attacks in the United Nations.
Why did she single Syria, which is not a member of this council, and did not single Saudi Arabia, which is a member of this council?
If the United Nations Human Rights Council is voting consistently against Israel, it is because its Saudi member and other radical members want so.
Since 2011, Syria has been a victim of the military actions of the U.S. government, firstly under Obama and now under President Donald Trump. The great Syrian sin is not to be aligned to the U.S. interests. Saudi Arabia was not singled out for attacks by Haley because, even though a sponsor of the worldwide Islamic terrorism, it is aligned to the U.S. interests. So, blame a U.S. enemy (Syria) for the anti-Israel hatred of a U.S. ally (Saudi Arabia) in the United Nations!
Yet, this is not the first time the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have aligned interests. When U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was creating the United Nations in 1945, he assured Saudi Arabia that he would not allow the creation of Israel. So the creator of the U.N. — Roosevelt — did not want the creation of Israel, because he had in mind Saudi interests. If the U.N. today opposes Israel to serve Saudi interests, it is doing just the will of its creator.
If Haley were a U.S. Ambassador under the U.N. creator, he would commend her for not singling out Saudi Arabia for attacks. But he would certainly fire her for opposing Saudi interests in the United Nations Human Rights Council against Israel.
It was a great step to withdraw the U.S. from this council. Yet, it would be a vastly more necessary step to disavow its wicked creation. The U.S. cannot disavow its own paternity over the U.N., but it can and should disavow its creation and denounce Roosevelt.
Anyway, Haley would get in trouble if she tried to oppose anti-Israel Saudi interests in a Roosevelt administration.
But even in the Trump administration, her interests are not always aligned with Trump.
Last April Haley was involved in a public quarrel after Trump’s adviser Larry Kudlow suggested she had some “momentary confusion” regarding U.S. sanctions on Russia. Haley responded, “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”
She supports an increase of the anti-Russian sanctions Obama had initiated. She wanted more anti-Russia sanctions in a time Trump did not, and the result was confusion.
Haley, 46, has been ambassador to the U.N. since January 27, 2017.
There are other things you should know about Haley.
She was named one of Time’s 100 most influential people in 2016. So if she is so important, you should know her better, because if there is a woman who can achieve the U.S. presidency, it is her.
When she assumed office in 2011, Haley became the first female governor of South Carolina. The Republican was also the first minority to hold that office. She was endorsed by Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. Romney was the first governor to approve homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts. But Haley is not to blame for Republican liberals supporting her.
She should be blamed for what she has done herself. And, with all due respect to her, I think she does get confused.
In 2015, Haley signed a bill to move a Confederate flag moved from the state Capitol grounds, adhering to demands of liberals in the state who saw the conservative flag as a symbol of hate. She sided with left-wingers against conservatives. She did exactly what liberal governors did in other states.
“This flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state,” Haley said at the time. I can understand her lack of roots in the issue because, even though having been born and raised in South Carolina, Haley’s true roots are traced to her Indian immigrant parents. The Confederate flag or another U.S. conservative symbol has no integral part of her past.
“To destroy a people you must sever their roots,” wrote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian laureate who spent eight years in a Soviet labor camp for his opposition to the Marxist system. He made this statement in regard to the Soviets’ efforts to sever the Russian people from their history, including their Christian history.
Didn’t Haley do the same thing?
As far as I know, the Confederates have good traditions. About 10,000 Confederates moved to Brazil after the end of the Civil War in 1865 and they, who were Protestant, founded schools and preached the Gospel in Brazil. They were the direct inspiration for the Brazilian government to create the first public-school system. Before the Confederates, the poor had no access to schooling and education in Brazil. If the Brazilian poor have today some education, it is thanks to the Confederates. Is this not a good tradition? If Haley does not see this way, what is there in her mind?
Nikki Haley
Even though a Christian, Haley says she still honors her family’s Sikh religion.
She was married in two ceremonies. One ceremony was held in a Methodist church and another was a Sikh ceremony.
Haley attends a Methodist church. But she told The New York Times in a 2010 profile that she would sometimes attend Sikh services, as she was raised in that faith.
The Sikh religion, which is a combination of the concepts of Hinduism and Sufi Islam, believes in reincarnation.
The founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, taught that god (Vahiguru) is already inside every person, but can be accessed and known through only contemplation. Very similar to New Age stuff.
In his The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, author Ed Hindson said, “Because Sikhism is in complete contradistinction to Christianity, the list of disagreements between Sikhism and Christianity is long. Sikhism denies the incarnation, the Trinity, and the Bible. Sikhism affirms reincarnation and denies the reality of sin. Even the nature of God as the uncreated Creator is not the same.”
Nikki Haley
So if a Christian cannot be an adherent of Sikhism at the same time, what is Haley doing by attending Sikh services? With all due respect to Haley, I think she is confused about spiritual matters.
I do not know what Haley calls Christianity, but Christianity with the Sikh religion is a strange mixture, strange fire and unequal yoke.
If she eventually reaches the U.S. presidency, her medley Christian/Sikh (actually, sick) spirituality will get her more confused, for if the body of a Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit, how can this temple share its premises to the spirits (demons) of Sikhism?
Nikki Haley
If she could not respect the conservative roots of South Carolina and instead respected liberals’ whining, what could a possible President Haley do to national conservative roots when confronted with liberal pressure?
She didn’t endorse Trump in the GOP primary in 2016. In fact, she attacked him. She implied criticism of Trump when she said, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.” Trump, who understood the “implied” criticism, answered, “I am! I’m very angry because I hate what’s happening to our country.”
Headlines would accurately say that, for Nikki Haley, any Republican could be a candidate, but Trump.
Haley endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is a neocon who consistently wants war with Russia. She has the same neocon feelings.
Trump said in a tweet, “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!”
Eventually, Trump put in his administration Haley and the director of the McCain Institute — two avid neocons. He did exactly what he condemned in 2016.
Today as the representative of the United States in the United Nations, Haley has used her position to celebrate pride in sodomy (homosexuality). Other evangelical Christians in the Trump administration are doing the same celebration. State Secretary Mike Pompeo, who says that he is an evangelical Christian, declared June as a Homosexual Month, and Haley joined him saying:
“We join our LGBTI friends around the world in celebrating #Pride Month. The United States supports the LGBTI community in standing up for their human rights.”
My public answer to her:
“Utterly shameful, Nikki! You say you are a Protestant Christian, but are you celebrating ‘pride’ in sodomy? God said, ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is abomination.’ (Leviticus 18:22) There is no pride in an abomination.”
No real Christian or conservative would ever defend celebration of homosexual perversion.
Are there positive points in Haley? Sure.
Haley says that the United Nations is useless because, under Islamic control (including Saudi, even though she does not include specifically Saudis in her attacks), it is persistently anti-Israel. I agree with her. Yet, how cannot she remember that, under neocon control, the U.S. government has been equally persistent in an anti-Russia stance, even now when Russia is much more conservative? The U.S. has treated conservative Russia not much differently as Muslim nations treat Israel.
You could understand Obama and his sanctions on Russia, including his anti-Russia mockery. But you cannot understand how Haley, who alleges that she is conservative, can continue Obama’s nasty behavior against a Russia which has fought against abortion and the homosexual agenda at the United Nations. Just as she did to the conservative Confederate flag, she is doing to conservative Russia.
Can she remember that she uses her position in the United Nations to condemn Syria, which has been a victim of ISIS, al-Qaida and has suffered a violent civil war provoked by the U.S. government under Obama, but she does not condemn Saudi Arabia, which is directly supporting the carnage in Syria, which has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world? Why protect the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and attack its victim, Syria? Cannot she be enough compassionate to listen to the old Syrian Christian community, which has largely opposed her decisions against Syria?
Can she remember that the U.S. government traditionally values Saudi Arabia above Israel? In fact, in his first international trip the first nation Trump visited was not Israel. It was Saudi Arabia.
Can she remember that the United Nations was not founded by Muslims and its headquarters is not in Saudi Arabia or another Islamic nation? UN, whose headquarters is in New York, was founded by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who also valued Saudi Arabia above Israel. So it is no wonder that, following the wishes of its American founder, the United Nations has always put Saudi Arabia and its wishes above Israel.
Just as anti-Israel Muslims (a pleonasm) are a threat in the United Nations, anti-Russian neocons (another pleonasm) are a threat in the U.S. government.
If Haley can get along with Saudi Arabia, which bans Christianity and the Bible and is the main sponsor of Islamic terror around the world, including ISIS, why cannot she get along with conservative Russia, which does not ban Christianity and the Bible and fights ISIS?
If Haley eventually reaches the U.S. presidency, her medley Christian/neocon ideology will get her more confused, for if Jesus Christ never worked to expand the military interests of the Roman Empire, how can “Christian” Haley work for the military interests of neocons? What compatibility is there between Jesus Christ and neocons?
Jesus had plenty of opportunities to support the military interests of the Roman Empire and he had had plenty of opportunities to induce his disciples to support the military interests of the Roman Empire. But he did not do so. Why is “Christian” Haley doing it?
If Trump could say in on Twitter, “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!” in 2016, her attitude today against the Confederate flag and conservative Russia has equally embarrassed real conservatives.
I think I can offer some hard advice to her and to Trump too, because even though he quit his 2016 antineocon speech, I continue following his antineocon example. Yet, in Haley’s case, she has never quit his pro-neocon stances.
I have “nudged” Trump and Nikki Haley on Twitter:
Julio Severo to Trump: Please, make America independent of Saudi Arabia and its cursed petrodollars.
Julio Severo to Trump: Please fire neocon Nikki Haley. Hire an antineocon conservative to denounce the Islamic terrorist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Haley has no courage to do it.
Nikki Haley: RT @USUN: “It takes great bravery for the Iranian people to use the power of their voice against their government, especially when that government has a long history of murdering its own people who dare to speak the truth… All freedom-loving people must stand with their cause.”
Julio Severo: Hey, Nikki, could you encourage the CIA to do similar “people’s” revolution in Saudi Arabia?
I am sure that what moves Haley to support Israel is her Christian faith. This makes sense.
But I am not sure what moves her to support the violent Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and disregard and even attack Saudi victims, including Syria. This makes no sense. Certainly, it is not her Christian faith. This is her neocon faith, and neoconservatism involves incessant wars to support the U.S. military industrial complex in wars that often massacre Christians and make profits, expanding the neocon imperialism and Sunni Islam — the kind of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
I am not sure also what moved her to disregard the Confederate traditions and conservative Russia. It makes no sense. Certainly, it is not her Christian faith. It is her respect for the whims of liberals, who hate both the Confederate conservatism and the Russian conservatism.
If Haley intends to continue using the name of Jesus, she should know that God is jealous. The Bible says:
“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, ‘The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously’?” (James 4:4-5 NKJV)
It can mean: “Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with Sikhism and neoconservatism is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of Sikhism and neoconservatism makes himself an enemy of God.” Or she serves only Jesus or Sikhism. Or she serves only Jesus or neoconservatism, which is the “religion” of the warmongers.
Real Christianity has no mixture with Sikhism, reincarnation and neoconservatism. This is why I am concerned about Haley, whose Protestant Christianity has exactly such spiritually harmful mixture. I do not know in the Methodist church, but any such mixed “Christian” would have been a case for spiritual deliverance for Jesus and His apostles.
Because Time named her one of the 100 most influential people in 2016, she has a real chance to achieve the U.S. presidency. As far as Israel is concerned, she would be an excellent option. But as far as neocon ambitions are concerned — including opposition to the Christian conservatism in the U.S. and Russia —, she is far away from being a good choice. And her mixed spirituality would eventually produce unforeseen disasters.
With information from FoxNews.
Portuguese version of this article: Quem é Nikki Haley?
Recommended Reading: