Rare & Banned Books
Sound Tidbits
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

A Simple Homeless Man Passes On Keys to Heaven


A Simple Homeless Man Passes On Keys to Heaven

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec 19, 2009

The other day walking to my car at Trader Joe’s, someone tapped me on the shoulder from behind.

“My, good man, ” said a deep voice.

“Can I give you a dollar or something?” I asked, looking at a disheveled old man with torn clothes and toes sticking out of his shoes.

“I don’t want your money,just want to tell you about the Anti-Christ.”

“Oh, is that all,” I said laughingly, thinking this was not the time or place.

Greg, don’t be a hypocrite, I said to myself, wondering how this kind looking old fellow ended up a homeless in such a wealthy part of San Diego.

“I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” said the old man with a solemn straight face.

“That’s from Matthew chapter 16, verse 19,” the verse rolling off the old man’s tongue as easily as ordering scrambled eggs and a cup of coffee.

“I’ve memorized the whole bible, son. should I start with Genesis,” he asked acting and looking as smart as any bible scholar I’ve ever read about.

“Let me introduce myself before I continue,” while at the same time handing me a set of gold keys. “These are the keys to the kingdom of heaven I just talked about. Here take them.”

As I took the keys, he continued in a very eloquent voice.

“My name is Randolph Hollingsworth. Most people think of me as crazy but I consider myself an artist for God, painting his picture in words every day throughout this beautiful southern California city of Mission Bay.

“What do you think of that verse I just read, son?

“I guess these are the keys that open up heaven’s door,” I said. “Do you want them back?”

“No, keep them as a reminder of what life is all about because you are nothing more than a part of Babylon like most everybody else in this parking lot.”

Years later, I was on a Mission Bay beach, walking the sand with the white and grey gulls. I still carried the gold keys in my pocket and wondered whatever happened to Randolph.

Funny how the strangest people sometimes carry life’s most important messages.

In this case, a simple homeless man inspired me five years ago to study the bible, inspired me to get out of Babylon.

Regarding the anti-Christ, my research continues since it is pertinent to America’s troubles today. Here is some information from a most informative website,

Who is the Antichrist today?

Many would be surprised to know that the answer to the question who is the antichrist today, is the same as who Paul and John were referring to nearly 2000 years ago. So why is the entire world today looking for some future one man antichrist?

When George Bush came into power, many exclaimed that he was the antichrist! But now that Barack Obama is president, those same people are crying out that he must be the antichrist. It seems like every new American President is guaranteed to be the antichrist! What is very clear is that most of the world has absolutely no idea on who is the antichrist today. Even David Hasselhoff has been called the antichrist for the most ridiculous and unbiblical reasons. Almost everyone is just speculating instead of reading the Bible and finding out what the Bible actually does teach about Antichrist!

It normally comes as quite a surprise to most people when they discover that the word antichrist only occurs four times in the entire Bible and is found in 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7.

John informs us in 1 John 2:18 that even in his time that there were many antichrists. How can this be if the Bible supposedly says that antichrist is one man in the future? John also said that anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is antichrist. So where does antichrist really originate from? Note that John answers this question in the following passage.

1 John 2:18-19 “Little children, it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there MANY antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from US, but they were not of US; for if they had been of US, they would no doubt have continued with US: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of US.”

Did you note that John said that antichrist went out from US? Thus John is saying that antichrist was part of their own Church but they went out on their own. He is also saying that antichrist was more than one person and these people went out on their own and formed their own Church. Again, how can this be if antichrist is supposedly only one man?

Are you ready for the real bombshell? The theory of a future one man antichrist was manufactured prophecy from the 15th century and was written by some very evil people known as the Jesuits. Are you ready for an even bigger bombshell? These Jesuits were commissioned to do this by this very antichrist power itself that John spoke of and was done to divert attention off themselves as being antichrist and to place it on some future fictional one man antichrist.

This was done when the early Protestants discovered that the real identity of antichrist was actually right under their nose and the word spread quickly. It was discovered that the antichrist was not an individual but an entire antichrist system that denies Jesus came in the flesh and has greatly affected what is important to God such as His sanctuary, His Church and His law.

These Jesuits were very intelligent theologians and what they wrote was a very clever and believable distortion of scripture. Satan has now successfully perpetuated this false and manufactured prophecy right down to current time today where the whole world just blindly believes it is true. So who is the antichrist today? It is an apostate system that goes right back to the days of the early Church and still continues today. So let’s see what the Bible really says about who is the antichrist today. See also the related topic futurism Bible Prophecy for detailed information on the evil empire of the Jesuits.

Please Note: For an extremely comprehensive study just on the topic of the identity of antichrist, please alternatively select who is the antichrist. Otherwise please continue with the remainder of this document, which also reveals the identity of antichrist but primarily covers the false views and misunderstandings on antichrist and how many have come to believe that antichrist is one future individual or even that antichrist has already been and gone! Both of these views originated from the Jesuits.
Identifying the Antichrist Beast Power

Note that the antichrist is also known as the little horn of Daniel and the first beast of Revelation 13. We find that Revelation chapter 13 describes two beasts, the first rising out of the sea (Revelation 13:1) and the second coming out of the earth (Revelation 13:11). Thus there are two beasts in Revelation 13 but we are going to zero in on the first beast called antichrist. I must warn you: This topic is shocking, controversial, and sure to stir up heated discussion. Nevertheless it must be presented faithfully, fairly, and without compromise. John wrote:

“I saw a beast rising up out of the sea” (Revelation 13:1).

Who is this beast that figures so largely in God’s last book? Those who accept a “Preterist” interpretation of Revelation generally believe the beast was the Roman emperor Nero who murdered Christians and Jews in the first century A.D. Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer have recently expressed this view in Tyndale’s new prophetic novel, The Last Disciple. Gary DeMar, John Noe, Ken Gentry Jr., Samuel Frost, Kurt Simmons and many others teach this idea. To Preterists, the beast is dead.

While Preterism is growing in strength, by far the most popular interpretation remains the “Futurist” one reflected in the best selling Left Behind series (also published by Tyndale). According to Futurists, the beast is still on the horizon; a monster that will only lurch into action after the Rapture. Leading proponents of Futurism today are Tim LaHaye, Tommy Ice, Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey and Irving Baxter Jr. Both Preterists and Futurists see the beast as one satanic individual; an evil person. The biggest difference is the timing of when Mr. Diabolical shows up.

So which is it? Is the beast past or future? Or could he be present? Hold onto your seats. From the time of the Reformation until the late 1800s the vast majority of Protestant scholars firmly believed the beast was snarling right in front of them. Such was the doctrine of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Knox, the translators of the King James Bible, John Wesley, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop J.C. Rylie, Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and countless others. These were not Preterists or Futurists. They were Historicists, meaning they saw prophecy fulfilled throughout Church history until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Let’s put emotions, personal opinion and speculation aside, and adjust our brains to facts solid, unquestionable, irrefutable evidence. The beast rises from the sea (Revelation 13:1), looks like a lion, bear, and leopard (Revelation 13:2), has ten horns (Revelation 13:1), a mouth speaking great things (Revelation 13:5), makes war on the saints (Revelation 13:7), and achieves global influence (Revelation 13:7). Daniel chapter 7 talks about the same things, describing four beasts rising from the sea (Daniel 7:1-3), a lion, bear, leopard, and dragon like animal with ten horns (Daniel 7:4-7), a little horn with eyes like a man (Daniel 7:8), a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:8), which makes war on the saints (Daniel 7:21). Most scholars agree both Protestant and Catholic that Daniel’s little horn is the same as the beast in Revelation 13:1. Each has a big mouth and makes war on the saints. These are all facts.

Here is a key question: What is a beast? A man? A computer? The Bible provides the answer. An angelic interpreter told Daniel, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth” (Daniel 7:23). Thus a beast is a kingdom. Period. The four beasts are four kingdoms. Daniel was living during the time of Babylon (Daniel 7:1), and in fact, a winged lion was a symbol of that ancient power. Most scholars agree the lion represented Babylon, followed by Persia, then Greece, then Rome. This is basic history. Rome fell in 476 AD and was divided among ten primary nations; Vandals, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Visogoths, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Suevi, Burgundians, Lombards and Alemanni. Prophecy clearly predicted “the little horn” would:

Rise out of the fourth beast, or Roman Empire (Daniel 7:7-8)
Rise among the ten horns, in Western Europe (Daniel 7:8)
Have eyes like a man, or human leadership (Daniel 7:8)
Have a mouth speaking great things (Daniel 7:8)
Make war on the saints (Daniel 7:21)

Thus we have Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Rome’s division and then the little horn that is the same as the beast. Who is this horn? “Nero!” shout Preterists. “The future Antichrist!” contend Futurists. What is wrong with this picture? The answer should be obvious. Preterists are wrong because the little horn (antichrist) especially gains power after Rome was divided into ten parts. Nero came 500 years too soon. Futurists fail because the little horn burst into strength immediately after the empire of the Caesars collapsed into ten parts. The future beast notion sweeps 1500 years of history under the proverbial rug by expecting the little horn to rise only after Christians vanish.
Preterism’s problem:

Lion (Babylon)
Bear (Persia)
Leopard (Greece)
Dragon like animal (Rome)
Ten horns (Rome’s fall and division)
Little horn (Nero, this doesn’t fit)

Futurism’s failure:

Lion (Babylon)
Bear (Persia)
Leopard (Greece)
Dragon like animal (Rome)
Insertion of a 1500 year gap
Ten horns (future revived Roman Empire)
Little horn (future Antichrist)

Historicism’s accuracy:

Lion (Babylon)
Bear (Persia)
Leopard (Greece)
Dragon like animal (Rome)
Ten horns (Rome’s fall and division)
Little horn (rising into strength in Europe right after Rome fell)

Who is the little horn? Ask Martin Luther, Melanchthon, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome, John Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop J.C. Rylie, Thomas Cranmer, Charles Spurgeon and countless others. To them the answer was obvious. They all saw a present power that started small but grew into strength immediately after Rome fell, rose up in Western Europe, had eyes like a man, a mouth speaking boastful things, and made bloody war on the saints.

It is easy to write fiction books about an imaginary future Antichrist or a dead one. But to write non-fiction works about a present beast, especially one with global influence, this is not so easy. Nor is it politically correct. Yet the question Jesus Christ bids us ponder is: What is the truth?

The Bible says, “All the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3). It is no secret that the majority of modern prophecy teachers apply this prediction to the rise of one Mr. Bad Guy (the Antichrist) who will supposedly show up after the rapture. That’s the dominant view. Is it correct?

“FBI Apologizes to American Lawyer Wrongly Arrested” was the title of an Associated Press story that appeared in the San Luis Obispo Tribune on May 26, 2004. A terrorist bombing had occurred in Spain killing 191 people and FBI fingerprint evidence pointed to Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim, as the guilty one. Mayfield was thrown in jail. But the FBI soon discovered they had wrong man. The Tribune declared, “Court documents released Monday suggested that the mistaken arrest first sprang from an error by the FBI’s supercomputer for matching fingerprints.” The embarrassed agency then acknowledged the need to “review its practices on fingerprint analysis.”

When it comes to the beast, is it possible that the “fingerprint analysis” of many modern prophecy teachers is in error? Most expect the arrival of a future Antichrist, but are they looking for the wrong man? Could the beast be here now?

Let’s review the evidence presented in identifying the antichrist Beast power. The beast of Revelation 13:1-10 is the same as the “little horn” of Daniel 7. Both have “a mouth speaking great things” (see Daniel 7:8; Revelation 13:5) and “make war with the saints” (see Daniel 7:21; Revelation 13:7). Almost everyone agrees here. In Daniel 7, the plain prophetic sequence is:

The rise of a lion (verse 4)
The rise of a bear (verse 5)
The rise of a leopard (verse 6)
The rise of a fourth beast (verse 7)
The fourth beast has ten horns (verse 7)
Another little horn rises among the ten horns (verse 8)
The little horn had eyes like a man (verse 8)
The little horn had a mouth speaking great things (verse 8)
The little horn made war on the saints (verse 21)

An angel said, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth” (Daniel 7:23). 98% of Christian scholars throughout history have identified these four beasts as four kingdoms being: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. It is simple history and a no brainer. The controversy swirls around the ten horns and the little horn. Futurists place the ten horns in the future (predicting a “revived Roman empire”) and think the “little horn” refers to one Mr. Diabolical who shows up after we are gone.

Preterists think the little horn is Nero who waged war against Christians in the first century. In identifying who is the antichrist Beast power, we saw fatal flaws in both of these views. Futurists insert a 1500 year gap after the fall of Rome (thus breaking the successive sequence of Daniel 7), while Preterists fail to realize that the little horn bursts into strength after Rome’s division into ten parts, not before.

The ONLY SOLUTION that fits Daniel 7’s sequence sees Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, then Rome’s division into ten parts, and then the little horn that is the same as the beast. Let me stress that this prophecy is not pointing its irrefutable finger against sincere people who do not fully understand the Scriptures. No. Its focus is a “kingdom” or beast system (centred in one “man”) that is leading millions away from childlike faith in the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Who is the little horn? Are you ready? Martin Luther wrote that Daniel “saw the terrible wild beast which had ten horns, which by the consent of all is the Roman Empire, he also beheld another small horn come up in the middle of this. This is the papal power, which rose up in the middle of the Roman Empire.” [1]

Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, John Calvin, John Wesley, Roger Williams, Fox’s Book of Martyrs, the translators of the King James Bible, John Bunyan, the Westminster Confession, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Spurgeon, David Benedict’s History of the Baptist Denomination, Bishop J.C. Rylie, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and countless other historic Protestants all believed the little horn of Daniel 7 was the global power of the Roman Catholic Church which came out of the Roman Empire, rose up among the ten parts of Europe, is cantered in one man (the Pope), has made war with the saints in history, is a “kingdom” today (over 100 embassies stand on Vatican hill), and even now exerts global influence.

According to 400 years of Protestant scholarship (which should not be taken lightly), the beast is here now and has been operating for over a thousand years. Again, this prophecy is not against sincere people who do not fully understand the Bible, but against a system that leads away from direct faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and has introduced many subtle traditions into the Christian Church.

Preterists and futurists should “review their practices of fingerprint analysis.” Like the FBI in 2004, they have identified the wrong man. Let’s not make the same mistake.

[1] References: Quoted in Romanism and the Reformation – From the Standpoint of Prophecy, by H. Grattan Guinness. Harley House, Bow, London.1891, p. 127. Italics original. See also Works of Martin Luther, vol. II, P. 386.
Antichrist before the Rapture

Apocalyptic films like A Thief in the Night, Revelation, Apocalypse, and Left Behind: The Movie, all depict the vanishing of Christians in the Rapture prior to the arrival of the Antichrist. In fact, this concept of Rapture first and Antichrist second has become so popular that many are not even willing to listen to an alternative view. Yet Jesus Christ definitely requires an attitude of openness to His Word from every Christian. Just because a certain doctrine is believed by millions, this does not necessarily mean it is true. Jesus said, “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). We must “test all things,” and “hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

According to the Bible, which comes first, the Rapture or the arrival of the Antichrist? Amazingly, the Paul gives us a very straight and simple answer in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 3.

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our gathering together to Him [here is when the church is gathered] … Let no man deceive you by any means [this warning is addressed to Christians]. For that day [the day when Jesus comes to gather us] shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed [Antichrist], the son of perdition.”

Do you see it? Paul wrote about: 1) the coming of Jesus Christ; 2) our gathering to Him; and 3) the arrival of the Man of Sin. When it comes to the order of events, Paul is very definite. He said that before Jesus comes to gather us, the falling away must take place first and the Man of Sin must be revealed. Thus the Man of Sin [also called Antichrist], must come first, before Jesus comes to gather us.

Paul said, “Let no man deceive you by any means” (verse 3) about this exact truth!
Is Antichrist Only One Man?

Paul called the Antichrist, “the man of sin … the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). It is primarily because of this verse that millions have come to believe that there will be only one super sinister Mr. Sin who will rise to power after the Rapture. Is it true? Will there be only one man, the Antichrist? Is this what Paul really meant?

First of all, in the little book of 1 John, the Bible plainly says there are “many antichrists” and John states that antichrist came from US speaking of the Church (1 John 2:18-19), and a “spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:3). John also wrote that any person who denies the true doctrine of Jesus Christ is “a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 7, 9). Thus so far, the idea of there being only “one” antichrist fails the biblical test.

There are other equally inspired statements in the Bible which parallel Paul’s expression, “the man of sin.” Prophecy also refers to this same Antichrist as the “little horn” (Daniel 7:8), the “beast” (Revelation 13:1), “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and “that Wicked” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Do all of these expressions refer to one evil person who will rise to power after the Rapture? You are about to see that they do not.

Most agree that Daniel’s “little horn,” Revelation’s mysterious “beast,” and Paul’s “man of sin,” all refer to the same thing. Daniel 7 describes four beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard and a dragon like beast with ten horns (Daniel 7:3-7). Then comes the “little horn” out of the head of the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). This little horn has “eyes like the eyes of a man,” “a mouth speaking great things,” and “makes war on the saints” (Daniel 7:8, 21). This is exactly what “the beast” has and does in Revelation 13:5, 7. Thus the “little horn” is the same as “the beast.” But what many fail to discern is that in Daniel 7, a beast is clearly defined as a kingdom, not a man. The Holy Word says, “…the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth” (Daniel 7:23).

The Bible doesn’t say the “little horn” is a man, but rather that it would have “eyes like the eyes of a man” (Daniel 7:8). When Paul used the expression, “the man of sin,” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, he was simply referring to the “little horn” with its “eyes like the eyes of a man.” Yet that same horn is called a “beast” in Revelation 13:1, and the Bible clearly tells us that a beast represents a great kingdom (Daniel 7:23).

A careful study of 2 Thessalonians 2 reveals the impossibility of “the man of sin,” also called to “the mystery of iniquity,” and “that Wicked,” as only applying to one man. First, “the mystery of iniquity,” although under restraint, was “already at work” in Paul’s time (verse 7). Second, it would continue all the way until the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of the world (verse 8). Thus it cannot refer to only one man, for that man would have to be almost 2,000 years old!

Did Paul ever use the expression “the man” in any of his other writings in such a way that it does not refer to only one man? Yes. Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:15-16. Here “the man of God” does not refer to only one Holy Man, but rather to a succession of godly men throughout history who follow the Scriptures. Paul also used the phrase, “the minister of God” (Romans 13:4) to refer to all civil officers throughout history who restrain evil. Thus, Paul’s mysterious phrase, “the man of sin,” which is the same as the “little horn,” and the “beast,” may properly refer to an actual “kingdom” with “eyes like the eyes of a man,” that is, to a kingdom cantered in a historical succession of supremely exalted men who, contrary to the Scriptures, are part of “the mystery of iniquity.”
Is Dispensationalism “Antichrist?”

One of the fundamental doctrines of Dispensationalism, a theological system founded by J.N. Darby in the 1830s, is that “Israel” and “the Church” are entirely separate entities. Famed Dispensationalist Charles C. Ryrie confessed:

“The Church/Israel distinction is the best way to determine whether or not someone is a dispensationalist – the most important criterion” (Dispensationalism Today, by Charles C. Ryrie, Moody Press, 1965, pps. 44-45, 132).

This Church/Israel distinction forms the basis of Dispensationalism’s prophetic views. It is no secret that Dispensationalism teaches:

We are now in the “Church Age.”

The Church will be taken to heaven in the Rapture, thus ending the “Church Age.”

After the Rapture, God’s focus will be the literal nation of Israel in the Middle East.

Because God in the Old Testament promised the land (of Palestine) to Israel, the Modern Israeli nation has a biblical right to all that land today.

The net result of this doctrine is that most Dispensationalists believe that modern Palestinians have no right to any of Israel’s land today, even if some of these Palestinians dwelt on some of this land pre 1948 (when Israel became a nation again). Their doctrine is: God favours the Jews, not the Arabs or Palestinians. Politically, this doctrine often leads Dispensationalist Christians to oppose:

Any compromise by Israel in giving up land to the Palestinians.

Any withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Palestinian occupied territory.

A two state solution to the Israel/Palestinian crisis that hopes both sides can have their own states on the same land side by side.

Obviously, the current Jew/Arab/Palestinian issues are complex. There is no simple solution to Middle East problems. Evils have been committed on both sides. No one should justify Palestinian terrorists killing innocent Jews or unjust actions by Israeli soldiers against innocent Palestinians (for further reading, we recommend Occupied Voices by Wendy Pearlman).

The purpose of this current topic is not to attempt to solve the Middle East mess, but to reveal this clear teaching of the New Testament: Jesus Christ has broken down the wall between Jews and Gentiles. He loves both sides equally and gave His life for all.

Paul wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile]…for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Gentiles [are] fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel (Ephesians 4:6).

For He Himself [Jesus Christ] is our peace, who has made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation…to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that he might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-17).

Jesus Christ Himself said, For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).

These inspired verses teach that Jesus Christ gave His life for the entire world (Israelis and Arabs) and that He broke down the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. He did it “through the cross.” Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2) and now Jews and Gentiles can be “of the same body,” “one in Christ Jesus.”

In light of these Scriptures, any inherent favouritism toward one group (Jews/Israelis) over against Gentiles (Arabs/Palestinians) should be clearly seen as contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. The same God created both groups. Both sides should be treated fairly. Both sides have equal rights. The Father and His Son love both Israeli babies and Palestinians babies. Jesus died for all. Both sides have sinned and both sides are lost without the Saviour.

Contrary to Jewish prejudice existing in His own day, Jesus ministered tactfully and lovingly to an outcast Samaritan woman, even though “the Jews [had] no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). He also told His classic parable of the “Good Samaritan” whom He commended for an act of kindness to a man beaten by robbers, while at the same time portraying a certain priest and Levite as lacking compassion (Luke 10:25-39). These examples show plainly that Jesus did not favour Jews above Gentiles. He loved both groups and longed to bring salvation to all.

In this light we ask: Is Dispensationalism’s bias in favour of Israelis above Palestinians (which is supposedly based on Scripture) in harmony with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ? Obviously, Dispensationalism is not “the little horn” (Daniel 7:8) or the “beast” (Revelation 13:1), but can much of its doctrine still be classified as “antichrist”? The New Testament says that all true Christians should “abide in the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9) in order to avoid being misled by “many deceivers” who are “antichrist” (verse 7).

Jesus Christ, His message, and His Doctrine should be our Center. Any doctrine or theory not in harmony with Jesus Christ is “anti-christ.” “Let no man deceive you by any means” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

The Antichrist and the Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation in the 1500s literally changed the course of history. It helped move Europe out of the Dark Ages and led to the rise of true religious freedom. Its original principles eventually found expression in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which teaches that when it comes to religion, the governments of earth have no right to control the conscience.

True Protestantism teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8) and the supremacy of the Bible above the visible Church (2 Timothy 3:16), above traditions, Pastors, Priests, Popes and Kings (See D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book xiii, chapter vi, pp. 520-524). It also teaches the priesthood of all believers (2 Peter 2:9-10) and that all people everywhere can be saved by coming directly to our loving heavenly Father through His only Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6). “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

What did the major Protestant Reformers teach about the Antichrist? Whether you agree with them or not, it’s important to realize what they taught. The following quotations are not intended to foster ill will toward any human being, for this would be contrary to teaching of Jesus Christ (John 13:34-35), but rather to simply present what some of the most influential Christian leaders who have ever lived believed about “the little horn” (Daniel 7:8), “the beast” (Revelation 13:1), and “the man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3) about who is the Antichrist.

A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, [scientist and theologian] John Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): “Luther … proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy … And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror seized their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated on the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow on Rome.” Taken from J. H. Merle D’aubigne’s History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.

Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.

John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): “Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt… I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thessalonians 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract “that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church.” As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as “the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself…speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thessalonians 2).” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God.” Taken from Philip Schaff’s, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvellously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvellous blindness upon them.” Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.

John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.

No Comments
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Get Spanked and Become an Instant Millionaire


Get Spanked and Become an Instant Millionaire

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec. 13, 2009

Someone mentioned the other day a punk kid in this cockeyed country sued one of his teachers and church guardians, receiving a $1.25 million dollar reward for a simple spanking on his bottom.

If things were like that back when I was a kid, I’d be a very rich man today. A billionaire times over.

I’d have first sued my grandmother, the first remembered slap on my bottom being when I decided to paint a picture of a horse with mustard and ketchup on her newly waxed kitchen floor after several grandmotherly warnings.

Verdict today in a “civil” court using my law school training probably about $500,000 for a first spanking incident with supervised visitation rights for grandma.

Oh, I know me and if I grew up understanding what civil litigation not a spanking on my bottom meant, I wouldn’t have stopped there with grandma. Oh no, I wouldn’t have stopped there!

This was easy money and first off I wouldn’t have wanted Mom or Dad to get their hands caught in the cookie jar.

So I know I would have hidden the money under a big tree in the backyard with a big rock over it so Ralph my dog would never be able to dig it up, ever.

Anyway who needed Dad and Mom for a college fund now, figuring they work for me since I’ve got six figures in my piggy bank, the piggy bank grandma bought. How fitting.

But being the good grandson I was, I would have of course entertained the thought of giving her a kickback, but by no means would I have wanted to ever do anything dishonest.The state and me had a good thing going, right, and I didn’t want to ruin it. No way. This was easy money.

I certainly would have been considered a great big fool to stop with grandma, wouldn’t I? So the lawsuits would have continued, of course, if the world was cockeyed way back when like it is today.

And since Dad spanked me on a regular basis way back when, he was an easy mark, good for 10 to 20 million in today’s market. I’d have been a fool not to save him for last. That would have been the right thing to do, right, if things back then are like they are today?

Sure that’s right. Just ask any school counselor or Child Protective Service worker on the public payroll?

Back to way back when.

I, of course, was a kid with a heart and would have asked the CPS worker if Dad would get a cut of the money since he was acting extra special good to me lately , letting me get away with listening to the Cubs late night Dodger games instead of going to bed early for school.

I know I would have wanted to give him a little cream off the top so he could buy a new milk truck or two.
He was a milkman, walked an awful lot and worked hard for Mom and me so I would have cut him in for a piece of the legal action if at all possible.

So with Dad in my back pocket way back when, I would have had to pick another mark in my “get rich by getting spanked” scheme just to keep the money ball rolling.

I picked Ottmy grandfather’s pinnacle card-playing buddy who was helping him build a boat in the garage.

Otto had a wooden leg from the war so I think I would have crawled under the card table along with grandpa’s doberman, Eddy, who used to sit under the table chewing off his rather long toe nails.

That’s a long story for another time with grandma forcing my grandfather to cut his toe nails since they scratched her in bed every night. That’s at least what I heard and like I said we have to leave it for another time.

So I crawled under the card table and starting writing with red ink in big letters “Otto loves Wanda and wants to marry her.” I heard Otto saying he was lonely after his wife, Elsie, died and after years of washing his own clothes, wouldn’t have mind getting together with Wanda.

After making the last heart with a great big arrow like Cupid on his wooden peg leg, Otto finally felt the point of the pen.

It took him awhile to react with that wooden leg but when he did I knew I had enough now to buy a mansion in Beverly Hills and could live next to those hillbillies I always watched on TV.

And before I got up off the floor, Otto put me over his peg-legged lap and walloped me a good one on the bottom with his cane, grandpa never objecting and encouraging him to teach me a good lesson.

I spent the next few days wiping the ink off his wooden leg with some turpentine but it gave me time to prepare the lawsuit. I know I would have done that if way back then is like it is now.

And as they say the rest is history and the verdict after paying Stanley the crooked lawyer his cut was approximately 750,000 hamburgers. I liked to compute money back in those days by how many McDonald’s hamburgers I could eat in my lifetime, assuring myself I would never go hungry like in the stories grandma told me about my family in the old country.

They were always hungry. Always starving, always walking with limps and I wondered how they ever had the energy to get over on the boat. But they did and I am glad because now I was fast becoming a millionaire, at least in this make believe crooked world that could have been but is today.

However, if it would have been that way I still had to pay Stanley the crooked lawyer in the neighborhood a third of my earnings. That made me determined to crack the million dollar mark with one lawsuit, never again having to work a day in my life even though I never even started working although I felt like it by watching Dad every day.

However, there is a good and loving side to this story from a good and loving son. I didn’t really want to ever sue Dad at least that’s what I would have said. But I knew I was just delaying the inevitable.

Once you get a taste of easy lawsuit money it never ends. I knew one day I would have hit up Dad since he is the one who spanked me on the bottom the most and even when I got a little older, threw me outside and made me sleep in the garage when he caught me drinking.

So I would have most definitely decided way back when not to sue Dad, at least for awhile and to instead sue Sister Angelica, the last person who spanked me.

Not only did she spank me on the bottom but she actually made me hold a penny to the blackboard with my nose for the entire class for acting up and putting ants down the collar of little Nancy the tattletale sitting in front of me.

I had collected the ants all during lunchtime for the glorious occasion of getting the once in a lifetime chance to get even with Nancy for always snitching on me.

And the nerve of Sister Angelica putting me on public display for such a worthwhile endeavor but I figured it was worth millions so I obediently put my nose to the board while everyone laughed their heads off during prayers.

Boy did I figure this wrong this time.

Can’t win ‘em all, I guess. Stanley the crooked lawyer told me off good with a scowl oh his face when I went to his office with the case in hand. Instead of dollar signs in his eyes, Stanley looked at me like I was nuts, saying the law suit is no good, absolutely no good, impossible, out of the question, absurd, simply ridiculous!

And that was it just like that. The end of easy money with the simple words “Don’t you know you can’t sue the Roman Catholic Church, kid?” And with that my litigious balloon was busted.

But I hung on, thinking I needed that house in Beverly Hills, asking like a little mouse, “Why?

“It’s not holy,” blurted Stanley “and you know the judges all are Catholic. I won’t be able to walk down the street anymore! Go look for somebody else to sue. Go sue Johnny the butcher, he’s always got blood on his hands. Sue the Protestant minister. Sue the crazy Evangelist who lives on Harlem Avenue. They’re OK to sue but don’t go walking in the Mother Church, even though they got more money than Rockefeller, trying to get any of their gold. That’s just the way it is. Just the way it is.”

So my life in lawsuits was quickly put to an end even though it could have happened way back when if it was the way it is now.

So I sit now in what seems like a completely different world a 100 years later with a Juris Doctor degree. I got stuck in the law for awhile and deserve it for even thinking like a crook even in this fictitious walk down memory lane.

But in reality, in the real world, I didn’t make any money, got sick of the corruption and decided to spend life penning a few words instead of running around suing people.

“Then why do you still put that confounded JD behind your name on every article you write?” asked one reader. “Why don’t you just put JA behind your name instead?”

I thought about it with a good laugh, saying how about “JAD or JDA”.

But in truth if today’s litigious conditions existed, all those things I mentioned above could have happened.

Could have happened. Would have happened. But didn’t happen because family was still more important way back then and “Child Protective Service” thug units would not be able to play mommy and daddy.

The sad thing is parents collectively haven’t “put their foot down” closing the door before the State got a strong foothold with its deceptive invasion into the homes and private lives of Americans.

But the real catch is these CPS thugs act like mommy and daddy but they really are doing it for money, not love.

They do it for federal money kick backs, concocting child abuse cases to keep their jobs while getting judges, psychiatrists and doctors rich.

They do it to separate families not bring them together. How can a state thug bring love in any home, anyway? How can they fix anything? They can’t.

If you don’t believe me there are thousands of cases to back me up. Like the one in Florida where a guy named Greg Pound hasn’t seen his kids for five years for a simple accident that was in no way neglect.

It was an accident but the crooked case workers saw a chance to make a bundle by stealing all his children, wanting to steal a baby not born yet.

And they did, the mother finally turned herself in after years of be falsely categorized as a fugitive from justice.

Justice! If that’s what you American’s want to call it, go ahead. But if you don’t believe me, the beauty of technology is go read about Pound’s case and other cases at and then come back and talk to me.

And while your at it why don’t you go to and read how today in this cockeyed world they jailed that fictitious Evangelist minister Stanley the crooked lawyer told me to sue.

They jailed Tony Alamo on false charges and to top it off they took more than 35 children from Bible believing families under the guise of abuse when no abuse has ever been shown.

This is the cockeyed world we live in. But it’s real, out of control and there is no end in sight to judges awarding million of dollars for simple spankings that may or may not have even happened.

But remember one thing like Stanley the crooked lawyer said:

“Don’t sue the Roman Catholic Church kid, your chances of winning there ain’t good, ain’t any good at all.”

1 Comment
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Why Slats Grobnik Left Chicago to Meet Up With Greg


Why Slats Grobnik Left Chicago to Meet Up With Greg

After Mike Royko died, Slats about drank himself to death

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec. 12, 2009

Until that fateful day in 2006 when he came knocking on my door, Slats Grobnik remained quiet as a Chicago church mouse.

More than likely he was spending all his time day and night at Sam’s Tavern or Billy Goat’s on the northside.

Life had become not worth living, according to some of his bar napkin notes found by Sam the bartender who told me when I called the bar:

“After Daley and then Royko passed, I thought he’d drink himself to death until he blurted out the name ‘SZYMANSKI’ for the whole bar to hear. Before he ran out like a crazed lunatic, he told me ‘he’s a Polock, too, he used to drink like Mike, he thinks like Mike, he was in newspapers like Mike and now this Polock is taking on the big enchiladas.’

“Like I said, Greg, we haven’t seen him since and that was, I think, in 2006.”

“I know where he’s at. He’s holed up in a bunker in a Kansas cornfield building a replica of the Roman Coliseum.”

“What the hell!”

“It’s a long story, Sam. I’ll tell you the next time I’m in town for a Cubs game.”

I hung the phone up, Sam saying he’d have a drink on Slats, save one for me and tell his buddies to track him down in Podunk wherever.

I had always tried to figure out why Slats contacted me of all people. I was not much interested in Chicago or Mayor Daley anymore, leaving for the fancy life in Rome, Italy, where I learned the finer things of wine, women and song.

It was a long way away from “Shotandabeerland” but looking back I miss it.

Old men always miss their youth unless they spent it in prison and I miss the old ways, the simplistic insanity of sticking with the Cubs belly to belly with other insane Cub fans and, of course, getting my licks in and swearing at the Daley machine every day.

What the hell I worked for the Daley machine when I was a kid in school, driving Harry Semrow, the Board of Tax Appeals Commish around and making his breakfast in the morning was one of my first Daley machine jobs.

I remember Harry would have me take the back alleys to run from the press when he was involved in something hot. Harry was like my grandfather and so were some of the Chicago state reps in the machine who got me a summer job as a Page in the Capitol in Springfield.

But I was young, stupid and left for Naples, Florida, to become a bad word to the machine: a journalist. I knew I should have taken Harry’s advice and be groomed as Alderman, Chicago’s word for city council member.

Looking back, I just left for what could have become a very prosperous and corrupt political career like my family’s friend, Dan Rostenkowski, leaving to become some pie in the sky journalist with high hopes, incredible dreams but very little common sense and ability to do anything remotely practical. Oh, I could break a horse, wheel a big ocean vessel but that was basically it.

So I basically became a journalist because I kept reading that damn Mike Royko and now here comes Slats.

In fact, when I left Chicago, my family, my extended Italian families and my Daley machine friends called me plain nuts, saying “Don’t you worry, he’ll be back with his tail under his ass after he gets a taste of life away from home, away from the Cubs and away from Chicago’s famous hot dogs with onions, tomatoes, a touch of parsley and, of course, no ketchup.”

It’s a mortal sin to put ketchup on a Chicago dog and I was told that by one of the priest’s at Notre Dame High School. I think it’s the same priest who is now single and involved in a homosexual affair, but what the hell things change and at least he knew his business about how to eat a Chicago hot dog.

Getting back to Daley and the boys, I never did come back home like everybody predicted and really never thought about it much, save the Chicago dogs once in awhile, till I talked with Slats yesterday.

Now I am thinking about everything I miss, thinking about Royko, Daley, Semrow and the whole lot of them.

More importantly, thinking how I miss 16-inch softball playing without a mitt, thinking how I miss talking with the boys at night and, hell, letting the women straighten out the house by themselves for a change. Thinking how I didn’t mind coming home at 10, 11 or midnight, saying “Honey, don’t worry I was just with the boys shooting the shit!”

Yep, no women’s lib back then. Nope. Just like God intended: men were men and women were women. No fags in the bar either, not that we cared. But they never came in after Joey from Oriole Street threatened to separate one’s head from one’s body if they sat next to him.

I don’t think Joey would have done it, but segregation has always been the way in Chicago. The Whites on the northside, Blacks on the South. Fags keeping to themselves one one side of the bar and mostly congregating in theatre groups in Old Town around Second City.

I remember once I had a wild hair up my ass and told my Dad I was going to be an actor. Why an actor I don’t know but you know what hit the fan. Dad swore at me in Polish first, English second and an unknown language third, telling me “you ain’t over my dead body turning out like one of them downtowner you know whats.”

Well, I’m happy to report I never turned out like that but I never turned out like a bigot either.

But either way I can understand why Chicago is Chicago.

The guys I grew up with came from families who had it a lot rougher in the old country. They weren’t used to the political correctness of the New World changing before their eyes.

They were used to monarchies, tough rulers and iron fists coming down on them at every turn. They were used to getting their land ripped away from them, used to slugging around for a living. They didn’t have time to be politically correct or time to worry about this and that. “Shit or get off the pot” they used to say and they brought the same attitudes with them to Chicago.

That’s why it’s easy to understand why they loved and hated the corrupt Daley machine.

Although Royko was his strongest critic, here are a few words he wrote after Daley died that also explains what Chicago was like back then. Well, what the hell, let’s read the whole column even though this story is gonna last forever. It’s just too good to pass up and it’s Friday night anyway.

By Mike Royko

If ever a man reflected a city, it was Richard J. Daley and Chicago.

In some ways, he was this town at its best — strong, hard-driving, working feverishly, pushing, building, driven by ambitions so big they seemed Texas-boastful.

In other ways, he was this city at its worst — arrogant, crude, conniving, ruthless, suspicious, intolerant.

He wasn’t graceful, suave, witty or smooth. But, then, this is not Paris or San Francisco.

He was raucous, sentimental, hot-tempered, practical, simple, devious, big and powerful. This is, after all, Chicago.

Sometimes, the very same Daley performance could be seen as both outrageous and heroic. It depended on whom you asked for an opinion.

For example, when he stood on the Democratic National Convention floor in 1968 and mouthed furious crudities at smooth Abe Ribicoff, tens of millions of TV viewers were shocked.

But it didn’t offend most Chicagoans. That’s part of the Chicago style — belly to belly, scowl to scowl, and may the toughest or loudest man win.

Daley was not an articulate man, most English teachers would agree. People from other parts of the country sometimes marveled that a politician who fractured the language so thoroughly could be taken so seriously.

Well, Chicago is not an articulate town, Saul Bellow notwithstanding. Maybe it’s because so many of us aren’t that far removed from parents and grandparents who knew only bits and pieces of the language.

So when Daley slid sideways into a sentence, or didn’t exit from the same paragraph he entered, it amused us. But it didn’t sound that different than the way most of us talk.

Besides, he got his point across, one way or another, and usually in Chicago style. When he thought critics should mind their own business about the way he handed out insurance business to his sons, he tried to think of a way to say they should kiss his bottom. He found a way. He said it. We understood it. What more can one ask of the language?

Daley was a product of the neighborhoods and he reflected it in many good ways — loyalty to the family, neighbors, old buddies, the corner grocer. You do something for someone, they do something for you. If somebody is sick, you offer the family help. If someone dies, you go to the wake and try to lend comfort. The young don’t lip off to the old, everybody cuts his grass, takes care of his property. And don’t play your TV too loud.

That’s the way he liked to live, and that’s what he thought most people wanted, and he was right.

But there are other sides to Chicago neighborhoods — suspicion of outsiders, intolerance toward the unconventional, bigotry and bullying.

That was Daley, too. As he proved over and over again, he didn’t trust outsiders, whether they were long-hairs against war, black preachers against segregation, reformers against his Machine, or community groups against his policies. This was his neighborhood-ward-city-county, and nobody could come in and make noise. He’d call the cops. Which he did.

There are those who believed Daley could have risen beyond politics to statesmanship had he embraced the idealistic causes of the 1960s rather than obstructing them. Had he used his unique power to lead us toward brotherhood and understanding, they say, he would have achieved greatness.

Sure he would have. But to have expected that response from Daley was as realistic as asking Cragin, Bridgeport, Marquette Park or any other Chicago neighborhood to celebrate Brotherhood Week by having Jeff Fort to dinner. If Daley was reactionary and stubborn, he was in perfect harmony with his town.

Daley was a pious man — faithful to his church, a believer in the 4th of July, apple pie, motherhood, baseball, the Boy Scouts, the flag, sitting down to dinner with the family, and deeply offended by public displays of immorality.

And, for all the swinging new lifestyles, that is still basically Chicago. Maybe New York will let porn and massage houses spread like fast food franchises, and maybe San Francisco will welcome gay cops. But Chicago is still a square town. So City Hall made sure our carnal vices were kept to a public minimum. If old laws didn’t work, they got new laws that did.

On the other hand, there were financial vices. And if somebody in City Hall saw a chance to make a fast bundle or two, Daley wasn’t given to preaching. His advice amounted to: Don’t get caught.

But that’s Chicago, too. The question has never been how you made it, but if you made it. This town was built by great men who demanded that drunkards and harlots be arrested, while charging them rent until the cops arrived.

If Daley sometimes abused his power, it didn’t offend most Chicagoans. The people who came here in Daley’s lifetime were accustomed to someone wielding power like a club, be it a czar, emperor, king or rural sheriff. The niceties of the democratic process weren’t part of the immigrant experience. So if the Machine muscle offended some, it seemed like old times to many more.

Eventually, Daley made the remarkable transition from political boss to father figure.

Maybe he couldn’t have been a father figure in Berkeley, Calif., Princeton, N.J., or even Skokie, Ill. But in Chicago there was nothing unusual about a father who worked long hours, meant shut up when he said shut up, and backed it up with a jolt to the head. Daley was as believable a father figure as anybody’s old man.

Now he’s gone and people are writing that the era of Richard J. Daley is over. Just like that.

But it’s not. Daley has left a legacy that is pure Chicago.

I’m not talking about his obvious legacy of expressways, high-rises and other public works projects that size-conscious Chicagoans enjoy.

Daley, like this town, relished a political brawl. When arms were waving and tempers boiling and voices cracking, he’d sit in the middle of it all and look as happy as a kid at a birthday party.

Well, he’s left behind the ingredients for the best political donnybrook we’ve had in 50 years.

They’ll be kicking and gouging, grabbing and tripping, elbowing and kneeing to grab all, or a thin sliver of the power he left behind.

It will be a classic Chicago debate.

He knew it would turn out that way, and the thought probably delighted him.

I hope that wherever he is, he’ll have a good seat for the entire show. And when they are tangled in political half nelsons, toeholds, and headlocks, I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear a faint but familiar giggle drifting down from somewhere.

I always said Chicago in my day never liked cutesy stuff. It was too rough and tumble for that, too crude with a neighborhood mentality that meant you hung out with your own and were suspicious of strangers.

Like Daley showed us it was political clout not correctness that counts and it didn’t matter if it was demonstrated in not so proper english.

But that’s all changed now and it’s nothing more then Yuppy heaven just like the East Coast and the West, no different now outside Wrigley Field then outside Dodger Stadium.

Well, perhaps there are two exceptions, Billy Goat’s and Sam’s Tavern.

That takes us back to Slats. He goes out of sight after Royko dies in 1997 and surfaces with me in 2006.

Why? I’m not like Mike. On one hand, Mike was a syndicated columnist in 600 newspapers and I don’t syndicate to didley squat.

On the other hand, Mike was a Polock from the old Polish neighborhood and so am I.

But Royko had status in Chicago, a reputation of butting heads with the Daley machine face to face on the streets, fighting the good fight for the little guy. And I sit like a smuck in front of an internet screen taking on the ghosts of the people behind the bigshots without ever looking them square in the eye.

So who knows why Grobnik came to me?

Maybe because I drank Old Style beer like Mike, was a Pole like Mike and wrote a few words down not quite as well as Mike.

So now he is settling for second best and come to think of it what did Slats have left anyway?

Daley died, Royko passed on and Chicago ain’t Chicago anymore. So, Slats gets bored with local politics, gets out of Dodge, finds the vestiges of this Polish Chicago journalist and decides to take on the global bigshots.

Makes sense to me.

Slats moves up, sets his sights high and leaves the Daley machine behind to tackle the biggest machine of them all – the Vatican led New World Order.

The rest of the story since he left Royko in 1997 is history as they say and has been sporadically documented on this web site for the last three years, the last correspondence with Slats being in yesterday’s post.

Go back and read it because it scares me to even think about what Slat’s said.

In the meantime, we know Mike is in a better place but I think he’d even be a little surprised to see where Slats ended up 12 years later.

But maybe if Mike had lived to see it, he’d have come with Slats since things have really gone south quickly and I know He was a little out of place moving finally moving to the suburbs.

As for me, I am going to talk some sense into Slats once and for all and on behalf of Mike. I’m gonna talk some sense into both of us, telling him this thing is too big, just two big for two Polocks from Chicago.

In fact, I am going to buy two box seat season tickets at Wrigley for next year and convince Slats to hightale it with me back to Chicago and to take Sam the bartender up on the drinks waiting for us.

Imagine, Slats how easy it would be to now poke fun at the Daley machine after tackling the big hot shots in Rome and Washington.

A piece of cake, Slats. A piece of cake.

1 Comment
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Has Slats Grobnik Become a Jesuit Agent?


Has Slats Grobnik Become a Jesuit Agent?

Or has he gone stark raving mad!

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec. 11, 2009

“Oh, the irony of it all. You write and criticize and then you become just like those you criticize the most.”

I sat listening to Slats Grobnik, waiting for more.

Slat’s is a staunch Jesuit and Vatican critic, a freedom fighter busy building a replica of the Roman coliseum in a Kansas corn field for only God knows what reason.

“Why a modern day coliseum?” I asked.

“I’ve told you a million times before but for those who never listen, I am building it in life-size fashion to one day watch with millions of people experience real live gladiator fights, not the reality fake garbage on TV.

“This will be the real thing, man! But the twist is the common-folk – the peasants as we are called – will be watching the elite fight it out. We will have the Jesuit hierarchy, for example, in the ring fighting the Clinton’s and the Obama’s. How wonderful to watch the real pigs squeal for a change!”

I must admit Mr. Grobnik’s idea appeals to the animalistic side of the human condition, but sometimes I really wonder if he doesn’t have a screw loose somewhere. But don’t we all for that matter and I found myself wanting to hear more even it was considered lunacy.

“Enough of the coliseum!”

“Thank you,” interrupted Slats.

“What do you mean you have become like the people you criticize the most?” I asked.

“I am now undercover – deep cover – but will tell you everything anyway.”

“How can you tell me everything if you are secretly going undercover?”

Slats looked at me with evil intentions but just as quickly his eyes turned to those of an angel.

“That’s the beauty of it my friend, the beauty of talking out both sides of your mouth like the Vatican and Jesuits. Always throwing opposites into the environment, creating confusion, confusion and more confusion.

“I am confused, Slats.”

“Good, my friend, now we can communicate like the Jesuits want us to, because now I can say anything and it won’t matter, will it?”

“I guess not.”

“So you are thinking why talk at all.”

“Yes I was.”

“Now your catching on.”

“To what?” I asked, really not even remembering why I asked it.

“Your catching on to talk, talk, talk! If you are so confused like my buddies in the Jesuit get us to think, then nothing gets done and all that is left is talk, talk talk and really, it is not important what is said. Of course, the Jesuits are sneaking around causing all kinds of mischief, revolutions and wars while – we the people – talk, talk and talk.”

“So what are we talking about, Slats?”

“Good question, I forgot. But does it really matter. Undercover, deep cover or whatever you like to call it I have bowed to the enemy and have become a Jesuit double agent.”

“Slats you have finally gone mad,” I said in a resounding manner while he buried his head in his insane architectural plans of the Roman Coliseum.

“I got these from Caesar himself, last night,” Slats said.

“You need a doctor.”

“Just joking,” he assured me and then went off on what happened since our last conversation six months ago when he was about half-way through his Roman Coliseum project.

“When we last talked, Greg, I was about half-way finished with construction. I lived alone in this hidden bunker for a long time without visitors besides the kind farmer and his wife who brought me food and visited every now and again.

“Then, like a thief in the night, I must have been taken from the bunker and found myself in a dungeon. I was later told it was beneath Georgetown University. I was briefed, debriefed and finally my underwear was given back to me, thank God. I heard a lot about Jesuit sexual propensities and was worried but they left me alone at least while I was conscious.

“From there the story only gets worse. I really don’t know how long I was there but I left a confirmed, card carrying Jesuit agent. I work for them now. They said they would take over construction of the Coliseum, writing a contract with me, written in invisible ink so to speak, that it will be finished in six months. They want to turn it into a national landmark and then use it for their own purposes.”

“For their own purposes! Slats do you know what that means?”

“A few dead bodies, I guess. But they told me what’s a few more when millions have died at their hands before because the ends justifies the means.”

“The ends justifies the means! My God, man, do you know what your saying! OK, so you sold out, right?”

“All I am at liberty to say at this time, Greg, is that I still will criticize the Jesuits like before and will still be building the Coliseum to fight the New World Order like always.

“So publicly you have one agenda and privately another? Sounds like double talk to me,” trying to pin Slats to the wall and wondering whether he really has fallen into the hands of the enemy.

We then sat strangely silent for several minutes, Slats fiddling with his drawings.

He then handed me a letter with the Georgetown logo on it, saying not to open it for six months for in it contained certain secrets which reveal the truth of the ancient NWO plan.

“If they know you have it or say a word, I am a dead man. They didn’t give me the letter or their secrets. Let’s just say they fell into my hands like welcome rain drops while at Georgetown,” said Slats in a whisper while quickly turning on loud music to drown out any bugging devices.

“Why six months and why me?” I asked.

Slats didn’t answer, showing me the door.

As I walked to the car, I wondered if I would open the letter on my trip back?

Questions popped into my perplexed mind like:

“Would I reveal this secret for the betterment of humanity? Would revealing it mean the life of my friend? Is Slats really a Jesuit agent or has he gone mad?”

So many unanswered questions, so much double talk!

I then slipped the envelop into my briefcase, wondering what to do during the next six months.

1 Comment
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Bingo Is Dead, But Is He Silenced?


Vatican’s Genocide Takes Another Life

Listen to the words of Pastor Kevin Annett

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Dec. 8, 2009

Writing doesn’t interest me much anymore, as the limited output on this website illustrates.

Maybe my interest will be sparked again but I’ll leave it in God’s hands.

However, if I don’t write a word ever again or pen a million pages, all the words in the world can’t erase the suffering and bloodshed the hierarchy of the religion I was born into has brought and is still bringing into the world.

I speak of course of the Vatican and perhaps a little break from writing about them or shall we say “it” has been worthwhile in order to understand words alone may not be enough to wake people up.

And with that in mind if this story doesn’t wake you up, nothing will:

Bingo is Dead, But is He Silenced?
By Kevin Annett

“The only reason I’m still alive is because I see there’s people who care about me, and who’ll stand beside me when I face the bastards who hurt me.”

Johnny “Bingo” Dawson, an aboriginal survivor of Canadian Indian residential schools, said those words last year, when with uncommon courage he helped occupy St. James Anglican church in Vancouver during a Sunday mass, to confront the church that tortured him as a child.

Bingo never lived to see justice. He died yesterday, alone in a slum hotel room in Vancouver’s downtown eastside.

I have lost a friend and a brother. We have lost one of our strongest voices.

I last saw my brother a week before he died, on the cold street corner of Main and Hastings that was his home. He was ecstatic that I had been to Rome and confronted the Vatican over all the aboriginal children who died at their hands. I asked him if he would come with me back to Rome in April, and speak there about the genocide he had witnessed.

The invitation lit up his broken face and brought tears to his eyes.

“I’ve got a criminal record, man. But maybe I can get a passport anyway. I’m going to find out!”.

Bingo was talking about our plan all over the neighborhood during his last week. Maybe that’s what caused his death.

Bingo was not a popular guy among the Vancouver police and the local churches, because he never showed any fear when they went after him. He went on their radar screen in a big way after he started joining our church occupations, and was always in our front ranks.

I once saw Bingo face down three cops who “ordered” him to “stop being such a fucking troublemaker”, after we had occupied St. James church. Bingo told them to get off his land. That was enough to make him a marked man. As he told me after the incident with the three cops,

“That sergeant’s told me that people like me end up dead.”

Bingo started getting stomach pains two days before he died. The coroner is saying food poisoning. The consensus on the street is that he was deliberately poisoned, which is a standard way of disposing of dissidents in the aboriginal world.

In the police state repression that is smashing down all around us these days in pre-Olympics Vancouver, Bingo was also the latest victim of cops, corporations and politicians determined to “clean up” the downtown east side of potential protesters. And he won’t be the last.

But it’s not enough of an epitaph to such a valiant soul as Bingo to simply say the obvious: that it’s easy to kill an Indian in Canada, especially a vocal one; that the church and cops wanted him dead, and probably arranged it on the eve of the Olympics and our sojourn to Rome; and that our ranks are all the weaker now that Bingo is gone.

Instead, knowing how much he hated sentimentality, I want to say that, like Bingo, I expect everyone reading this to get off his or her ass and stop simply talking about genocide. For if our actions do not become twice as loud now to make up for the awful silence left by Bingo’s death, then he truly has been silenced. And those who killed him truly have won.

We are holding a memorial service and march for Bingo next Monday, December 14 at 3:00 pm where he lived: on the northeast corner of main and Hastings in the heart of Vancouver. We will go to the place of his greatest victory, outside the churches that killed thousands of children and have gotten away with it.

But the march doesn’t end that day, or ever. Our campaign is converging on Rome and the Vatican this April to shake loose the oldest and most murderous institution in human history, and bring its victims home. And Bingo will be there with us.

I stood on Bingo’s corner tonight, remembering all the laughs we had shared there and recollecting his stubborn courage when he had faced down priests and Bishops on their own turf. It didn’t feel like he was absent, but still smiling that ironic grin of his and gruffly asking passersby why they were letting Christians get away with mass murder.

Bingo’s spirit and hopes survive in the actions of we, the living. Without us, he is gone forever, as is any chance for justice.

Don’t let it all be for nothing.


Upcoming events to honor Bingo and carry on his work:

1. December 14 Memorial Service and March, 3:00 pm, northeast corner of Main and Hastings, Vancouver

2. January 10 and 17 Sunday vigil and march in memory of the murdered residential school children, and those who continue to disappear – Gather at 10:00 am outside “Holy Rosary” Catholic church, Richards and Dunsmuir sts, downtown Vancouver

3. February 17 Ash Wednesday Day of Silence to raise funds for aboriginal survivors to come to the Rally at the Vatican in April – See (Updates) for more information.

4. Hold similar actions in your own community outside (and inside!) Catholic, Anglican and United churches during their services.

Sponsored by The Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared , and see the trailer to Kevin’s award-winning documentary UNREPENTANT film on the same website.

Soon to be released feature film, THE DIARY, based on Kevin Anett’s epic struggle to bring to light genocide in Canada – see the trailer at:

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Bible Warns George Washington’s Family Crest Is Sign of Babylon And Mark of the Beast


Bible Warns George Washington’s Family Crest Is Sign of Babylon And Mark of the Beast

He displayed this crest, identified in the Book of Daniel, proudly throughout the revolutionary war

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Nov. 14, 2009

Those who deny George Washington’s connections to the Jesuits and being involved with a hidden Luciferian New World agenda need to read the following article reprinted below from a Catholic publication.

Those critics need also examine the Washington family crest, which Washington displayed proudly on his uniform during the American Revolution.

It is the contention of researchers, who consider Washington nothing more than a traitor like Jefferson and Franklin, that he had been hand picked by Jesuit General Lorenzo Ricci and Jesuit Bishop and land baron, John Carrol, to carry out the Order’s hidden agenda and dirty work.

Washington’s family crest is quite revealing and shows his true colors and since symbols are important to the occult, does his crest reveal his hidden agenda was tied together with the Jesuits?

Let God’s word in the Book of Daniel be our confirming authority.

“The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.” Daniel 7:4.

This refers to the Babylonian Empire, which reigned supreme in Daniel’s time. Washington’s family crest remarkably is what Daniel warned us about.

As explained on a Washington memorial website, here is a description of the crest now imprinted on Washington artifacts such as fine china plates, sold for profit to the public:

George Washington’s Family Crest features a griffin, a mythical beast with the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion.

The crest was part of the Washington family’s full coat of arms. Washington used the crest on his silver throughout his life.

The crest was also cast into four iron firebacks that Washington purchased in Philadelphia in 1787.

Three intelligent Bible readers were contacted regarding Washington’s family crest and its significance according to the Book of Daniel.

John Daniels and Tom Freiss agreed with the above interpretation that it was remarkably similar to what Daniel prophesized while Eric Jon Phelps disagreed, saying:

“Babylon has nothing to do with the Washington family crest any more than the Lion of the Tribe of Judah has any relation to Babylon.”

Here is another interpretation, agreeing with Freiss and Daniels and disagreeing with Phelps. The following is taken from….

The description of a beast is given in the New Testament book of Revelation chapter 13:14-18. “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”
Identifying the Beast

Now that we have read the quote we need to identify the beast, but before we talk about the Beast we need to understand the back-ground and history preceding the Beast. The best place to begin is in the book of Daniel, which deals greatly with prophecy, from the 6th century B.C. down to the end of time.
Lion Beast

The interpretation of the symbols used in Bible prophecy has not been left to human guesswork. Prophecy is history written in advance, and the book of Daniel provides the key to understanding it. A beast in prophecy symbolizes a king or kingdom. “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” Daniel 7:17 and “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,” Daniel 7:23 indicate this. Note that ‘king’ and ‘kingdom’ are used interchangeably. Daniel 7:3 states that these four kings “came up from the sea”, and sea or waters in prophecy represents “peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.” Revelation 17:15. In chapter 7 of Daniel we have the then current, and future kingdoms of the world presented to the prophet. “The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.” Daniel 7:4. This refers to the Babylonian Empire, which reigned supreme in Daniel’s time.

The Bear
Bear beast

“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.” Daniel 7:5. This symbol too is the same as the one found in Daniel 2:39. The kingdom which followed Babylon was Medo-Persia. This was a dual monarchy with the Medes ruling first, the later the Persians. The prophecy indicates this aspect by noting that the bear ‘raised up itself on one side’. The three ribs represented other powers overthrown in its rise to dominance, namely Lydia, Babylon and Egypt.

The Leopard
Leopard beast

“After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.” Daniel 7:6. This symbol also represents the same power as the one presented in Daniel 2:39. It was the Grecian empire under Alexander the Great which overthrew the Persians, and when he died his kingdom was divided into four parts, as symbolized by the four heads.

The Fourth Beast
Roman beast

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.” Daniel 7:7. This symbol is again the same power as the one represented in Daniel 2:40. The fourth universal power to rule the world after Daniel’s day was pagan Rome. It was so different from any beast Daniel knew that he was unable to name it. It was indescribable. The ten horns are noted in Daniel 7:24 as “ten kings that shall arise”. It is in fact that the Roman Empire was split up into ten smaller kingdoms between the years 351 and 476 A.D.

Their ancient and modern names are:

1. Alemanni – Germany
2. Franks – France
3. Anglo-Saxons – England
4. Burgundians – Switzerland
5. Visigoths – Spain
6. Suevi – Portugal
7. Lombards – Italy
8. Heruli
9. Vandals
10. Ostrogoths

The Little Horn

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” Daniel 7:8. This verse gives two identifying marks to locate the ‘little horn’ in history. It came up ‘among’ the ten horns (kingdoms) and ‘three’ of the original ten were overthrown in its rise to power. Later, in Daniel 7:24, another identifying mark is given. The little horn would come up ‘after’ the ten horns. There is only ONE power in all history that fits this description. In Rome itself in the very centre of the fractured empire there arose after 476 A.D. the PAPACY, the one-man government of the Catholic church. In its rise to power three of the Gothic tribes, the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, were overthrown and disappeared from history. The reigning power of these kings passed to the Pope. The power of the Papacy was established by the decree of Justinian in 533 A.D. and was carried out by force of arms in 538 A.D. with the overthrow of the Ostrogoths by Justinian’s general, Belisarius.
Conclusive Evidence

More identifying marks are given in Daniel 7:25. It says that he “shall wear out the saints of the most High”, indicating great persecution. No reader of history will deny the role of the Papacy in this. The dreadful persecution of the Dark Ages have indeed blackened the pages of history.

Then he shall “think to change times and laws”. This the Papacy has done by disposing of the second commandment (forbidding the worship of idols) and changing the fourth (the only one dealing with time). A false day of worship has been set up in place of the original seventh-day Sabbath kept by Christ and the apostles.

1,260 Years

The next identification leaves no doubts, as no other power on earth could fit the prediction. That is, he shall reign for 1260 years. This is mentioned twice in Daniel and five times in Revelation, as follows: “time, times, and an half” (Time = 1 Bible year of 360 days, times = 2 Bible years, an half = 1/2 Bible year; totalling 1,260) in Daniel 7:25, 12:7 and Revelation 12:14; “forty and two months” in Revelation 11:2 and 13:5; and “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 (A prophetic calendar year of 360 days, or 12 months of 30 days each, is used in Bible chronology).

This power, then, would reign supreme for 1260 days, each day standing for a year, or 1260 years (Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34); from 538 A.D., when the last of the opposing ‘horns’ was uprooted, till 1798. In that year Berthier, one of Napoleon’s generals, took the French army to Rome, made the Bishop of Rome, Pope Pius VI prisoner, and carried him to France where he died. The civil power of the Papacy finally ceased and a republic was set up in Rome.

1260 year time line

But the prophecy regarding the Papacy didn’t end there.

Look at a few references regarding the Papacy’s 1260 years of supremacy, in the book of Revelation. Starting at chapter 13 we find verses 1 to 10 talking again about the Papacy’s rise to power out of the fallen Roman Empire, its great power during the 1260 years, and the deadly wound it received at the end of that period. Verse 3 says, “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.” We see from Daniel 7:21, 22 that this power would exist right up until Christ’s second coming.

We have now positively identified the Beast of Revelation 13:14 – 18 as the Papacy or the Roman Catholic Church, but who is the image of the beast that is mentioned?
The Beast With Lamb-like Horns Makes The Image To The Beast

In between its deadly wound and its rise back to power another beast is brought to view in Revelation 13:11, 12. “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”

‘Then I saw another BEAST . . .’
The Symbols The Meaning
Arises out of the earth. Rev.13:11 Arises in some new vacant or sparsely populated land.
Arises about the time the sea beast is falling. Rev. 13:10 Grows into a nation about the time the Papal overthrow – (1798)
Has two lamb-like horns – verse 11 Two Christ-like principles give it strength (civil and religious liberty)
Has no crowns on the horns – verse 11 Not a monarchy – some form of republic.
Exercises power equal to the first beast. Rev. 13:12 Becomes a formidable if not supreme world power.

This “beast coming up out of the earth” is a nation that comes up in a wilderness area. It is a country discovered, not conquered. It has “two horns like a lamb” indicating youth, gentleness and represents civil and religious freedom. But “he spake as a dragon,” “exerciseth all the power of the first beast” and “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast.”

Only one power in history meets these five prophetic specifications, namely the United States of America. We see from verse 14 that it began with a humble nature but turns arbitrary towards the end of time. We see that it makes an Image to the Beast – an exact copy of what the Papacy was during its 1260 year rule. When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.

Prophecy reveals that America will exalt Sunday sacredness, which is the Mark of the Papacy’s authority to make up its own laws; and that the whole world will follow! It is the boast of the Papacy that it can change the Law of God, the ten commandments. This will become the deciding issue in the future, even to the point of death (Revelation 13:14, 15.). The LAW of GOD or the laws of men?

Note that at this time “he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men” “insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Revelation 13:13 and Matthew 24:24).

The Papacy claims the change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was her act and is the mark of her authority in religious things.

‘Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?’

‘Answer: Had she not such power she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.’

(’A Doctrinal Catechism’, by the Rev. Stephen Kennan, p.174)

‘Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act . . . and the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.’

‘If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.’

(Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal in a letter of February 10, 1920.)

The following article taken from a Catholic website and forum reveals more interesting connections between Washington and beast in Rome:

George Washington’s Conversion to Catholicism

By Ben Emerson

George Washington, the first president of the United States, served from 1789 to 1797 in that capacity. A popular slogan concerning him was that he was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

On December 13, 1799, Washington (aged 67 years) was exposed to a storm of sleet and developed a cold. He rested in bed at his home in Mount Vernon, Virginia.

On the morning of the 14th at 3:00, he had a severe attack of membranous croup. At daybreak, Mrs. Washington sent for the only physician, Dr. Craik. Two other physicians also came, but all three together could not save him. Washington died between 10:00 and 11:00 that night.

About four hours before Washington’s death, Father Leonard Neale, a Jesuit priest was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary’s Mission across the Piscataway River. Washington had been an Episcopalian, but was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church that night. After Washington’s death, a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were found among the effects on an inventory of articles at his home

George Washington had an interest in Roman Catholicism for many years. His servant Juba stated that the General made the Sign of the Cross before meals. He may have learned this practice from his Catholic lieutenants, John Fitzgerald or Stephen Moylan. At Valley Forge, Washington had forbidden during “Pope’s Day,” the burning in effigy of the Roman Pontiff. As President, Washington slipped into a Catholic Church several times to attend Sunday Mass.

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) praised George Washington highly in an encyclical Longinque Oceani of January 6, 1893, to the bishops of America:“We highly esteem and love exceedingly the young and vigorous American nation, in which we plainly discern latent forces for the advancement alike of civilization and of Christianity… Without morality the State cannot endure – a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom we have just mentioned [‘the great Washington’] with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed… Thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and the government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.” Washington was a student of the writings on political philosophy of St. Robert Bellarnine and St. Thomas Aquinas. George Washington, James Madison, and some of the other Founding Fathers incorporated into the Constitution in 1787 some of these two saints’ ideas about how to set up a Republic.

In a like manner, Thomas Jefferson had studied these saints and incorporated some of their concepts into the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

A question, therefore, the reader can pose to friends is as follows: Who was the first man who served as U.S. President, who was at the time of his death a Roman Catholic? Most people will say John F. Kennedy, but the correct answer is George Washington, the Father of our Country.…

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Was George Washington Baptized Catholic?


Was George Washington Baptized Catholic?

A picture of Virgin Mary found in his personal belongings and his early writings have Jesuit origins

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Oct. 18, 2009

A report surfaced from a 1952 Denver newspaper article that a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary was found in George Washington’s personal belongings, adding to reports in an 1860 book that he was baptized Roman Catholic on his deathbed by a Jesuit priest from Georgetown University.

It is further reported as a 16-year old youth Washington wrote, making emphasis on the “one hundred and ten “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation,” which were first written by Jesuits and not as first reported by French scholars.

According to researchers, these maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.

In an article written in 1926 entitled Washington’s Copy of Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation (reprinted in its entirety at the end of this article), the following conclusion was drawn, giving us further evidence that Washington was influenced by Jesuitism at an early age:

“Here, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter as it now stands: The Rules of Civility were composed originally, or compiled, and published in France, by the Jesuits, about 1595; they were translated into English by Francis Hawkins about 1640, and passed through no fewer than eleven editions down to 1672.

“From the Hawkins book the one hundred and ten Rules written by Washington were selected, simplified and arranged by some person at present unknown. One copy came into the hands of George Washington, who from it wrote out the manuscript that is among the Washington Papers purchased: from the family by Congress in 1834 and 1849, and held in the Department of State until 1903, when they were transferred to the Library of Congress.”

Returning to Washington’s alleged Roman Catholic Baptism, the Denver Register reported the following on May 11, 1952:

“A picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were among the effects found in an inventory of the articles at Mount Vernon at the death of George Washington, first president of the U.S.A. The Rev. W.C. Repetti, S.J., archivist at Georgetown University, reports he has discovered this information in an appendix to a biography of Washington.

“The book is a Life of George Washington by Edward Everett, published by Sheldon & Co. in New York in 1860.

‘”The fact that he had a picture of the Blessed Virgin is rather unexpected, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been brought out, ” says Fr. Repetti. The long report among slaves of Mount Vernon as to Washington’s deathbed conversion would be odd unless based on truth. These were not Catholic Negroes; it is part of the tradition that weeping and wailing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome, whom they had been taught to fear and hate. Supposedly, Father Neale was rowed across the Piscatawney by Negro

oarsmen; and men often talked freely when slaves were nearby, confidently ignoring their presence.

On Feb. 24, 1957, the Denver Register added the following post:

“It was a long tradition among both the Maryland Province Jesuit Fathers and the Negro slaves of the Washington plantation and those of the surrounding area that the first President died a Catholic.

“These and other facts about George Washington are reported in the Paulist Information magazine by Doran Hurley. The story is that Father Leonard Neale, S.J., was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary’s Mission across the Piscatawney River four hours before Washington’s death. Washington’s body servant, Juba, is authority for the fact that the General made the Sign of the Cross at meals.

“He may have learned this from his Catholic lieutenants, Stephen Moylan or John Fitzgerald. At Valley Forge, Washington forbade the burning in effigy of the Pontiff on “Pope’s Day.” Several times as President he is reported to have slipped into a Catholic church to hear Sunday Mass”

Further, there is a Notre Dame University story supporting that Washington may have died a Roman Catholic, as reported by a Notre Dame publication by a Fr. J”

“The Notre Dame angle on the story supports it (Washington being Catholic.) Fr. Sorin in the 1870’s built Washington Hall on the campus. It still stands today. He would not have named the building after a non-Catholic but named it for the first president considering his conversion a providential sign of the eventual conversion of this Protestant nation to the Catholic faith.

The naming of Washington Hall fits with other signs on campus of Sorin’s belief that faith would prevail (and that Notre Dame would be at the heart of the Church in America) including the construction of a domed bicammeral main building reminiscent of the state capitols under construction throughout the nation at the time and a series of murals dedicated to the discovery of America by CC under her Catholic Majesty, Isabella.

At any rate, Sorin believed the Jesuit story of a call to Georgetown University for a priest to baptize the president on his deathbed. I have heard from several Jesuits that the story has credence.)

Besides if Washington was so opposed to the Papacy why would he have overlooked the importance of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and issue the following statements which seem to support the papacy instead of warning Americans about the Beast in the Book of Revelation:

Here is his Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775 pertaining to Guy Fawkes Day (”Pope’s Day” in the United States):

“As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.”

As promised earlier, here is the article about Washington’s Copy of ” Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation” written by Charles Moore, Washington, D.C. May, 1926:

Among the hundreds of volumes of Washington Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, two contain the school exercises of George Washington, written before he had reached the age of sixteen years. The one devoted to mathematics exhibits a wide range of subjects, combined with sureness and accuracy in working, and clearness and neatness of presentation. Few graduates of colleges to-day, unless they specialize in mathematics, become so well trained in that subject. The problems in surveying show that at sixteen Washington was fitted to earn his living in the field.

The second book begins with legal forms, such as every planter should know: bills of sale and exchange, contracts, conveyances, deeds, leases, and even wills. The middle portion contains a Christmas poem, and also one entitled “True Happiness,” which strongly suggest that the boyish love poems attributed to his pen were taken from some book, now unknown. Probably they expressed his feelings at the moment, and he copied them.

The remaining ten pages of the second book are occupied by one hundred and ten “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation,” about which much has been written and little is known. These maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.

During the days before mere hero worship had given place to understanding and comprehension of the fineness of Washington’s character, of his powerful influence among men, and of the epoch-making nature of the issues he so largely shaped, it was assumed that Washington himself composed the maxims, or at least that he compiled them. It is a satisfaction to find that his consideration for others, his respect for and deference to those deserving such treatment, his care of his own body and tongue, and even his reverence for his Maker, all were early inculcated in him by precepts which were the common practice in decent society the world over. These very maxims had been in use in France for a century and a half, and in England for a century, before they were set as a task for the schoolboy Washington.

That romantic and stimulating scholar, the late Moncure D. Conway, was born in Falmouth, Virginia. The Falls of the Rappahannock made music to his boyish ears, as they had sung to the young Washington. Mr. Conway’s knowledge of times and places and people in Colonial Virginia stimulated his zeal for research and gave food for his vivid imagination. He was the first to trace the origin of the Maxims to a treatise entitled “Bienseance de la Conversation entre les Hommes,” prepared, in 1595, by the “pensionnaires” of the French Jesuit College of La Fleche, and sent by them to their brothers at Pont-a-Mousson.

One of the recipients, Father Perin, translated the Maxims into Latin, adding a chapter of his own on behavior at table. The Latin edition appeared at Pont-a-Mousson in 1617, at Paris in 1638, at Rouen in 1651. It was translated into Spanish, German, and Bohemian. A French edition appeared at Paris at least as early as 1640. [Author's note: George Washington's Rules of Civility Traced to their Sources and Restored, by Moncure D. Conway; 1891. See also Backer's Jesuit Bibliography).]

Just as he had completed his comparisons with the French work, Mr. Conway found in the British Museum an English version of the Maxims, “purporting to be by a child in his eighth year,” first printed in London in 1640. “The translations are indeed rude,” he writes, “and sometimes inaccurate as to the sense, but that they were the unaided work of a child under eight is one of the “things hard to be believed” which a Maxim admonishes us not to tell.” Mr. Conway’s conclusion is that “A careful comparison of Washington’s Rules with the Hawkins version renders it doubtful whether the Virginia boy used the work of the London boy. The differences are more than the resemblances.”

Yet admittedly Washington knew no French. As easily as the young Washington himself threw a stone across the Rappahannock, Mr. Conway overcomes this difficulty by having the Maxims translated from the French and made into copy-book form by the Reverend James Marye, who was born within the pale of the Catholic Church, at Rouen, but who came to Virginia with the first Huguenot Colony and was the minister of St. George’s Parish, Spotsylvania County, from 1735 till his death in 1767. His home was at Fayetteville, eight miles from Fredericksburg. There he lived and was buried. [Author's note: Documents, chiefly unpublished, relating to the Huguenot emigration to Virginia. Edited and compiled by Robert Alonzo Brock. Richmond, 1886. History of St. George's Parish in the County of Spotsylvania, by Rev. Philip Slaughter, D.D. Edited by R. A. Brock. Richmond, 1890.]

The fact that James Marye was born in France and was educated as a Jesuit makes plausible the theory that he had knowledge of a work on manners known throughout the civilized world. He might have been Washington’s teacher; but there is no proof that he taught in Fredericksburg or elsewhere, or even that there was a school in Fredericksburg in his day, then little more than a name. Indeed we are by no means certain that George Washington went to school. His father, Augustine Washington, died in 1743, when the boy was eleven years old, and thereafter, until he was sixteen, he lived with his half-brother, Augustine, on the ancestral acres in Westmoreland County, forty miles from Fredericksburg. He was often at his mother’s home, at Ferry Farm, across the Rappahannock from Fredericksburg; but we are not certain who his teachers were or whether he was taught outside his own home.

A comparison of texts furnishes proof positive that the Maxims copied by George Washington came from the Hawkins version, and not from the French. The doubts thrown on the Hawkins work because of the author’s youth are unfounded.

Francis Hawkins was born in London in 1628. His father, John Hawkins, M.D. (Padua), was a brother of Sir Thomas Hawkins and of Henry Hawkins, all members of an old, active and influential family. Dr. John Hawkins had pub fished five books before his precocious son Francis, at the age of eight years, turned into English the French version of the Maxims. The pleased father took the manuscript to the printer, William Lee, who published it about 1640. The troubled state of the country kept the book from being reprinted until 1646, when a second edition appeared. Then followed in quick succession nine other editions before 1672.

A second part, entitled “Youth’s behaviour, or Decency in Conversation amongst Women”: with a portrait of Lady Ferrers, was added by the Puritan bookmaker, Robert Codrington, in 1664. This shows that Puritans as well as Cavaliers, Protestants as well as Romanists, regarded Hawkins’s Maxims as stepping-stones to favor. Indeed, so thoroughly was Hawkins’s English version accepted that Hawkins is regarded as the author of the book, and mention of the French authorship does not go beyond the expression on the title-page: “composed in French by grave persons for the use and benefit of their youth.”

Meanwhile Hawkins, at the age of twenty-one, entered the Society of Jesus. In 1662 he was professed of four vows; ten years later he was confessor at Ghent, and from 1675 till his death in 1680-81 he was professor of Holy Scripture at Liege College. [Dictionary of National Biography.]

The open questions are: who condensed, and arranged as exercises in writing, the Hawkins Maxims; and, second, who taught George Washington penmanship by the use of them ?

In any event, and whoever the teacher, it was the Hawkins English version and not the French version that was the source of the rules Washington copied. Is it not probable that the Hawkins book was one of those compilations that “no gentleman’s library could be without,” notwithstanding the fact that no such title appears in the catalogue of the library of William Byrd of Westover, reputed to have been the finest in the Colonies? Is it not possible that either Washington’s father or one of his half-brothers, all three of whom were educated in England, brought back a copy of one of the Hawkins editions?

One copy of the edition of 1663 has survived in the Library of Congress. The New York, Harvard, and Richmond Libraries report no copies. But the British Museum has the editions of 1646, 1651, 1663, and 1672; and also a Latin translation of the same work, London, MDCLII. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has the seventh impression, 1661; eighth impression, I 663; ninth impression, I 668; and eleventh impression, 1672. Trinity College Library, Cambridge, England, has at least two editions-1663 and 1672. Dr. James H. Penniman of Philadelphia owns a copy of the edition of 1651,–the only copy of any edition I have found in this country, except the one in the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress copy has been used as the basis of the comparisons herein made between the Washington and Hawkins texts. With its aid the Washington Rules have been restored, in cases of mutilation, with an accuracy more complete than the conjectural restorations of Dr. Toner [Author's note: Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation. Copied from the original . . . and edited with notes, by J. M. Toner, M.D. Washington, D.C., 1888.] and of Mr. Conway. Of the one hundred and ten Rules in the Washington manuscript, not all are in the French version. Among them are a number that were added by English writers in the later editions of the Hawkins book. All the Rules are in the 1663 edition.

The hiatus of three quarters of a century between the latest known edition of Hawkins and the date which Washington himself placed upon his manuscript of the Rules is still unclosed. The Rules are not found in The Young Man’s Companion, by W. Mather, a copy of which school-book, with the name of George Washington and the date 1742 plainly written on the title-page, has been on the market. It is not established that the writing is his or that he owned the book, although it is contemporary with him. Nor have the Rules yet been discovered in any other like publication from 1672 till this day.

Professor E. K. Rand, of Harvard University, has called my attention to Dr. F. J. Furnivall’s collections of texts on Early English Meals and Manners and Queene Elizabethes Academy; and to the modernization of these texts by Edith Rickert, under the title of The Babees’ Book: Medieval Manners for the Young (1908). Many rules naturally are similar to those to be found in both the French and the English versions, but identity is lacking. Moreover, although mention is made of compilations so late as Richard Weste’s School of Virtue, printed in 1619, no mention is made of Perin’s work, or of Hawkins’.

Here, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter as it now stands: The Rules of Civility were composed originally, or compiled, and published in France, by the Jesuits, about 1595; they were translated into English by Francis Hawkins about 1640, and passed through no fewer than eleven editions down to 1672. From the Hawkins book the one hundred and ten Rules written by Washington were selected, simplified and arranged by some person at present unknown. One copy came into the hands of George Washington, who from it wrote out the manuscript that is among the Washington Papers purchased: from the family by Congress in 1834 and 1849, and held in the Department of State until 1903, when they were transferred to the Library of Congress.

I am indebted to Mr. R. F. Sharp, Keeper of the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum; to Mr. S. Gibson, Secretary of the Bodleian Library, Oxford; and to Mr. H. M. Adams, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, England, for painstaking investigation in their several institutions, and for their prompt and courteous replies to inquiries.

Miss Emily B. Mitchell, long connected with the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, has prepared the manuscript of this work, and has aided in the research involved. Mr. Levin C. Handy has photographed the Washington Rules in such manner as to bring out the very best that in them is.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Were Washington and Papist Bishop John Carroll Good Buddies?


Were Washington and Papist Bishop John Carroll Good Buddies?

Was Washington in Rome’s pocket just like another George named Bush?

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Oct. 17, 2009

The connection between George Washington and John Carroll, the first Jesuit infiltrator and U.S. bishop, has never been fully explored.

This lack of knowledge has led many anti-Jesuit historians to paint a clouded picture of many of the founding “fathers”, including Washington’s, true intentions and hidden agenda behind the founding of this country.

Isn’t it interesting that our first leaders are remembered as “fathers” just like Catholic priests?

It is also interesting that the Catholic Encyclopedia states “the Catholics of the United States hailed with joy the election of George Washington as first president under the new Constitution.”

Further, Carroll with Washington’s stamp of approval “represented to Congress the need of a constitutional provision for the protection and maintenance of religious liberty, and doubtless to him, in part, is due the provision in Article Sixth, Section 3, of the Constitution, which declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”, and also the first amendment, passed this same year by the first Congress, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Here is another interesting tidbit about Washington’s close ties and connection to Jesuit infiltrator, Carrol, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Every Catholic congregation within the United States is subject to his inspection; and without authority from him no Catholic priest can exercise any pastoral function over any congregation within the United States.” In 1792, says Shea (op. cit., 486-7) he interceded with Washington in regard to missions among the Indians; eventually the president recommended to Congress a civilizing and Christianizing policy among the Indians, one result of which was the acceptance of the services of a Catholic priest, to whom a small yearly salary was allowed. After the death of Washington, Bishop Carroll “issued a circular to his clergy (29 Dec., 1799) in regard to the celebration of the 22d of February as a day of mourning, giving directions for such action as would be in conformity with the spirit of the Church, while attesting to the country the sorrow and regret experienced by Catholics at the great national loss” (Shea, op. cit., 495).”

In fact, most of Washington’s connections to Rome have been overlooked, such as Carroll’s glowing eulogy at his funeral, his lack of Jesuit criticism during his public life and the fact he allowed the capitol of this country to be built on land owned by the Carroll family instead of the logical place in Philadelphia.

More information on Carroll reveals the Jesuit bishop was probably the richest man in America in the late 1700’s. Carroll allowed funding to construct D.C. (which is nicknamed “Rome on the Potomac”). The owner of the land used to be Francis Pope and his priest was Jesuit Andrew White.

Early land records show Washington D.C.’s original name was Rome, Maryland, and a branch of the Potomac River was called Tiber Creek, which was named after the Tiber river in Rome. Rome was built on 7 hills, and Washington D.C. has 7 named hills, whose names are: Capitol Hill, Meridian Hill, Floral Hills, Forest Hills, Hillbrook, Hillcrest, and Knox Hill. [30]

Here is a good place to start about the life and times of John Carroll, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

John Carroll, first bishop of the hierarchy of the United States of America, first Bishop and Archbishop of Baltimore, b. at Upper Marlboro, Maryland, 8 Jan., 1735; died in Baltimore, 3 Dec., 1815.

His father, Daniel, born in Ireland, settled at Upper Marlboro, where he became a merchant, and married Eleanor Darnall, a relative of the wife of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. She was very rich and had been well educated in France. Their first son died in infancy; their second, Daniel, figured prominently in Revolutionary history. John, their third son, was probably baptized at Boone’s Chapel, now Rosaryville, Maryland. When twelve years of age, he went to the Jesuits’ grammar school at Bohemia in Cecil Co., Maryland, where he was “assiduous in study, pious and amiable”. After one year there, he went abroad to St. Omer’s College in French Flanders, and for six years pursued a liberal education with “marked capability of mind, attention to studies and docility and kindness of manner”. His father died in 1750, and in 1753 John Carroll joined the Society of Jesus. In 1755 he began his studies of philosophy and theology at Liège, and after fourteen years (1769) was ordained priest at the age of thirty-four. The next four years he spent at St.-Omer and at Liège teaching philosophy and theology. During the winter of 1772-3 Father Carroll travelled through Europe as preceptor, with the son of Lord Stourton. Upon his return to England he was, for a short time the guest and chaplain of Lord Arundell at Wardour Castle. This year, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued (21 July) and published (16 August) at Rome, the Bull suppressing and dissolving the Society of Jesus. This news reached Father Carroll 5 September, and after writing a vindication of the Society he had to provide for his future course of life. In the following spring he returned (26 June) to Maryland and hastened to his mother’s home at Rock Creek, with whom and other intimates he had faithfully corresponded while in Europe. As a result of laws discriminating against Catholics, there was then no public Catholic Church in Maryland, so Father Carroll began the life of a missionary in Maryland and Virginia. He built a tiny frame chapel on his mother’s estate and here on Sundays (in her house on weekdays) he said Mass when at home. During the next two years he devoted the time left from his devotions to the study of ancient literature and current topics in order to increase his knowledge; yet he did not neglect his social obligations. Apropos of his support at that time he himself wrote: “Catholics contributed nothing to the support of religion in its ministers; the whole maintenance fell on the priests themselves. . .the produce of their lands was sufficient to answer their demands.”

In 1776, when a committee composed of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton was about to be sent by the Continental Congress to seek the neutrality of Canada during the War of Independence, “by a special resolution (Feb. 15) Charles Carroll of Carrollton was requested to prevail on Mr. John Carroll to accompany the committee to Canada, to assist them in such matters as they shall think useful”. He accepted the honourable office, and spent the remainder of the winter in Canada; he found, however (Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, New York, 1888, 148-53), that it was too late to discuss the question of union with the revolted colonies, or even neutrality, and returned toNew York at the end of May in company with Benjamin Franklin. His influence on his fellow-countrymen even at this period may be surmised from the fact that, though out of the constitutionsadopted by the Thirteen States, only four did away with the old Penal Laws and allowed Catholics absolute equality with other citizens, yet these (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland) were situated nearest to Father Carroll. During these years he chose to live with his mother, then seventy years old, and refused to accept an assignment elsewhere by Father Lewis, formerlySuperior of the Jesuits in Maryland, and now Vicar-General of the Vicar Apostolic of London (or the Western District). Father Lewis, however, did not consider him entitled to support from the income of the property belonging to the Jesuits, although he had to labour very hard, often riding twenty-five miles on sick-calls. (Shea, op. Cit., 85-86); Campbell in U.S. Cath. Magazine, Baltimore, 1844, III, 364,365.)

When the war was over Carroll and five other priests met at Whitemarsh, Md., 27 June, 1783, to discuss ways and means to carry on their missionary work and hold their property intact. They held a second meeting 6 November, 1783, and a third 11 October, 1784, at the same place, when they formulated the draft of the regulations binding all the clergy of Maryland. Thereby every priest was maintained and given thirty pounds a year, and each priest agreed to offer ten Masses for every priest who died there. The adopted the following:

“It is the opinion of a majority of the chapter that a superior ‘in spiritualibus’, with powers to give Confirmation, grant faculties, dispensations, bless oils, etc., is adequate to the present exigencies of religion in this country. Resolved therefore,
“1st, That a bishop is at present unnecessary.
“2nd, that if one is sent it is decided by the majority of the chapter that he shall not be entitled to any support from the present estates of the clergy.
“3rd, That a committee of three be appointed to prepare and give an answer to Rome conformable to the above resolution.”

In response to a petition sent by the Maryland clergy to Rome, 6 November, 1783, for permission for the missionaries here to nominate a superior who should have some of the powers of a bishop, Father Carroll, having been selected, was confirmed by the pope, 6 June, 1784, as Superior of the Missions in the thirteen United States of North America, with power to give confirmation. He was asked to send a report of the state of Catholicity in the United States. This same year a minister named Charles Henry Wharton, a Marylander, an ex-Jesuit, and distant relative of Father Carroll, attacked the Church, and was answered by Carroll in “An Address to the Roman Catholics of the United States of North America”. Its aim and spirit may be gauged from one of its passages wherein Carroll said: “General and equal toleration, by giving a free circulation to fair argument, is a most effectual method to bring all denominations of Christians to an unity of faith.” The work was published at Annapolis in 1784, and is the first Catholic work written by an American Catholic published in the United States. Father Carroll was, all the while, distracted, personally wishing the rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus and to remain himself a Jesuit. But officially seeing the need of a bishop, and that too an American, he decided to accept the pope’s appointment of himself, and forthwith as Prefect Apostolic sent (Feb., 1785), to Cardinal Antonelli, his acceptance of that office, but urged that some method of appointing church authorities be adopted by Rome that would not make it appear as if they were receiving their appointment from a foreign power. A report of the status of Catholics in Maryland was appended to his letter, where he stated that 9000 were freemen, 3000 children, and 3000 negro slaves; that some of the more prominent families, despite the dearth of priests (there being then only nineteen in Maryland) were still Catholics in faith, sufficiently religious, though prone to dancing and novel-reading. The pope was so pleased with Father Carroll’s report that he granted his request “that the priests in Maryland be allowed to suggest two or three names from which the Pope would choose their bishop”. In the meanwhile Father Carroll took up his residence in Baltimore (1786-7), where even Protestants were charmed by his sermons delivered in old St. Peter’s church. He took an active part in municipal affairs, especially in establishing schools, Catholic and non-Catholic, being president of the Female Humane Charity School of the City of Baltimore, one of three trustees for St. John’s College at Annapolis, founder of Georgetown College (1791), head of the Library Company, the pioneer of the Maryland Historical Society, and President of the trustees of Baltimore College (1803).

He represented to Congress the need of a constitutional provision for the protection and maintenance of religious liberty, and doubtless to him, in part, is due the provision in Article Sixth, Section 3, of the Constitution, which declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”, and also the first amendment, passed this same year by the first Congress, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: (for a more cautious view see SHEA, op. cit., 348).

Church troubles, Trusteeism in New York, and Nationalism in Philadelphia, at this time decided the priests of Maryland (March, 1788) to petition Rome for a bishop for the United States. Cardinal Antonelli replied, allowing the priests on the mission to select the city and, for this case only, to name the candidate for presentation to the pope. Twenty-four of the twenty-five other priests in the meeting voted for Father Carroll. Accordingly on 6 November, 1789, Pope Pius VI appointed him bishop. His consecration took place in Mr. Weld’s chapel at Lulworth Castle, England, 15 August, 1790, at the hands of the Rt. Rev. Charles Walmesley, Senior Vicar Apostolic of England. Bishop Carroll returned to Baltimore in triumph, 7 December, when he preached an appropriate and touching sermon in St. Peter’s church. Troubles in Boston required him soon to go thither, where he removed much prejudice.

In common with their fellow-citizens, the Catholics of the United States hailed with joy the election of George Washington as first president under the new Constitution. Before the inauguration Bishop Carroll, on behalf of the Catholic clergy, united with the representatives of the Catholic laity (Charles Carrollton, and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, Dominick Lynch of New York, and Thomas FitzSimons of Pennsylvania) in an address of congratulation, admirable for its sentiments of exalted patriotism ["An Address from the Roman Catholics of America to George Washington, Esq., President of the United States", London, 1790, fol.; reprint New York, 1865, facsimile and notes; see Shea, op. cit., 349-50, and ibid., the memorable and cordial reply of Washington (12 March, 1790) "To the Roman Catholics of the United States", in which he says: "I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of your Government, or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed." The original of this reply is preserved in the Archives of the Archbishop of Baltimore]. It may not be out of place to quote here the noble words of Bishop Carroll himself, addressed (10 June, 1789) to a maligner of Catholics: “Their blood flowed as freely (in proportion to their numbers) to cement the fabric of independence as that of any of their fellow-citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body ofmen in recommending and promoting that government from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good order, and civil and religious liberty” (Brent, 97, see below; Shea, op. cit., 153).

On 7 Nov., 1791, he held the First Synod of Baltimore, attended by twenty-two priests of five nationalities. To train priests for his diocese of three million square miles, Bishop Carroll had asked the Fathers of the Company of Saint Sulpice to come to Baltimore, where they arrived in 1791 and started the nucleus of St. Mary’s College and Seminary. Bishop Carroll issued his first pastoral letter 28 March, 1792; very practical, yet tender, appealing for support for the clergy by means of the offertory collections. In 1793 for the first time, Bishop Carroll conferred Holy orders, the recipient being the Rev. Stephen Badin, the first priest ordained within the limits of the original thirteen of the United States. In 1795, he ordained to the priesthood Prince Demetrius Gallitzin who was to add 6,000 converts to his flock. In 1798, Bishop Carroll won an interesting and important lawsuit, the famous Fromm Case (Shea, op. cit., 448-5), in which Judge Addison, President of theCourt of Common Pleas of the Fifth Circuit of Pennsylvania, decided that “The Bishop of Baltimore has the sole episcopal authority over the Catholic Church of the United States. Every Catholic congregation within the United States is subject to his inspection; and without authority from him no Catholic priest can exercise any pastoral function over any congregation within the United States.” In 1792, says Shea (op. cit., 486-7) he interceded with Washington in regard to missions among the Indians; eventually the president recommended to Congress a civilizing and Christianizing policy among the Indians, one result of which was the acceptance of the services of a Catholic priest, to whom a small yearly salary was allowed. After the death of Washington, Bishop Carroll “issued a circular to his clergy (29 Dec., 1799) in regard to the celebration of the 22d of February as a day of mourning, giving directions for such action as would be in conformity with the spirit of the Church, while attesting to the country the sorrow and regret experienced by Catholics at the great national loss” (Shea, op. cit., 495). Having been invited by the unanimous resolution of Congress, in common with the clergy of all denominations and congregations of Christians throughout the United States, he preached a panegyric of the president in St. Peter’s church in Baltimore, 22 February, 1800, which was regarded by all who heard it, or read it in print (Baltimore, 1800), says Shea, (op. cit., 495), as one of the most masterly which were uttered on that day. Episcopal orders were conferred for the first time in the United States by Bishop Carroll on Bishop Neale, his coadjutor, with right of succession to the See of Baltimore. Plans for building his cathedral now occupied Bishop Carroll’s mind, and on 7 July, 1806, he laid the corner-stone on ground bought for $20,000, and the seventh design of the architect, B.H. Latrobe, was accepted.

In 1808, Bishop Carroll became Archbishop, with suffragan sees at New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Bardstown. At a meeting held in Baltimore in 1810, Archbishop Carroll, with Bishop Neale and three of his suffragans, drew up some important regulations for the welfare and direction of their clergy and people (See PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OF BALTIMORE). Owing to ill-health Archbishop Carroll had to decline the proffered honour of laying the corner-stone of Washington’s Monument in Baltimore, in the autumn of 1815. His end was now approaching. To a Protestant minister who said to the dying prelate that his hopes were now directed to another world, Archbishop Carroll replied: “Sir, my hopes have been always fixed on the Cross of Christ”. A short while after he said, “Of those things that give me most consolation at the present moment, one is that I have always been attached to the practice of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary; that I have established it among the people under my care, and placed my diocese under her protection.” On 22 November he received the last sacraments, after which he made a touching discourse to the priests present. “The whole population of Baltimore”, said a letter from a relative, were “constantly calling to inquire about, and to urge permission to see him.” The funeral Mass was offered in St. Peter’s pro-Cathedral and the body temporarily laid in the chapel of St. Mary’s Seminary till 1824, when the cathedral crypt was ready for the deposit it still guards.

“Archbishop Carroll, though of low stature, had a commanding and dignified appearance”, wrote the Rev. Dr. C. I. White. “The configuration of his head, his whole mein, bespoke the metropolite. . . . He wrote them (Latin, Italian and French) not less readily and tersely than his own. He mingled often in gay society, relished the festivities of polished life, and the familiar intercourse of both clergy and laity of the Protestant denomination. He was wholly free from guile, uniformly frank, generous and placable; he reprobated all intolerance. . . . He ranked and voted with the Federalist party. He loved republicanism. His manners were mild, impressive and urbane.”

A Baltimore paper of the day said of the burial: “We have never witnessed a funeral procession where so many of eminent respectability and standing among us followed the train of mourners. Distinctions of rank, of wealth, of religious opinion were laid aside in the great testimony of respect to the memory of the man.” Another Baltimore paper said: “In him religion assumed its most attractive and amiable form, and his character conciliated for the body over which he presided, respect and consideration from the liberal, the enlightened of all ranks and denominations; for they saw that his life accorded with the benign doctrines of that religion which he professed. In controversy he was temperate yet compelling, considerate yet uncompromising.

Brent says he had “sound judgment, real piety and pre-eminent talents”. “The discourses from the pulpit, and the pastoral letters of Archbishop Carroll were alike distinguished for their unction and classical taste. His voice being naturally feeble, the exertions which he made to be distinctly heard from the pulpit rendered his elocution less agreeable there than in other situations requiring less force of lungs. His colloquial powers and resources were great andrich , and his kind and benignant feelings always prompted him to apply them to the best of advantage. There was an irresistible charm and elegance indeed in his conversations.”

The archives of the Baltimore cathedral contain the original Brief making Father Carroll Superior of the Missions in the United States and erecting the See of Baltimore and appointing Bishop Carroll, copies of the Briefs raising Baltimore to an archiepiscopal see and conferring the pallium on Bishop Carroll, also very many of his official and private letters, etc.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Reject Pope’s Recent Encyclical


Reject Pope’s Recent Encyclical, says former RC Priest

Why is Rome organizing political, economic, and religious activities worldwide?

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Oct. 14, 2009

Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest for more than 25 years, has warned Americans about Rome’s evil agenda as well as their non-biblical teachings.

Steeped in pagan tradition with a Luciferian agenda, the Vatican agenda now encompasses the United Nations, economic institutions, and international finance organizations, according the Pope’s latest encyclical.

Bennett, a born again Christian, has appeared on my radio show many times and is a highly credible source when it comes to the deceptive agenda of the Vatican and Jesuit Order.

Recently, he penned a letter about the Pope’s latest encyclical.

Please read Bennett’s words below if you want to educate yourself about how the Vatican controls what has come to be known the New World Order:

The Pope’s latest encyclical can read like an ideological bombshell.
However, when we study papal history with its obsession for global
power, it is not so shocking.

The Papacy has an agenda for the United Nations, economic
institutions, and international finance organizations. The Pope has
called for the crafting of a new governmental body above these groups
and intends that the new body be equipped with enforcement power on a startling scale.

Much more sobering is the detailed body of Roman Catholic social
doctrine on which the encyclical is built and which the Papacy is in
the process of instituting secularly. These documents need to be
analyzed and rejected before nations and peoples unwittingly concede
both temporal and religious control to the Vatican. We have outlined
the heart of the major tactics found in the body of Roman Catholic
social doctrine, which includes the Pope’s latest encyclical. Our
article, “The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and
Religious Activities Worldwide,” is now posted on our Website at:…

If you wish to get the article as a Microsoft Word document, just
request it and it will be sent to you. We consider this to be one of
the more important appraisals we have done. We ask therefore that you forward the article to many Christians who need to take heed. We
request also, if possible, that you post it on your Website or blog.
Trusting in the Lord’s grace and mighty power,
Richard Bennett

Our many MP3 messages continue to be the most popular resource on ourwebsite. Countless numbers of people have MP3 players and I-pods, so please make this supply of information known:

If you have high speed Internet, most of our DVDs are located at:…

“The Mindset of Catholicism Permeating Evangelicalism” was my focal
address in London last July. I highlighted the Catholic Church’s
official teachings and showed that in critical areas of biblical
truth, many New Evangelical churches are pervaded with Catholic
mindsets. I gave a strong concluding message with what our Christian
response should be. Please check this out and make it know to
others. It is located at:…

We never believed that our Inquisition DVD could create such interest
across the world. It now has had more than 260,690 viewings on
YouTube alone. Please make this historically documented account of
605 years of torture and death by order of the Roman Catholic Church,
known to others, located at:…

Because the correct understanding of marriage is essential to life,
and many Catholics live with deep guilt regarding the Catholic laws on
marriage, our DVD “The Vatican Manipulation of Marriage” is
particularly relevant. You can see it at:…

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Vatican Global Control


Vatican Global Control

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Oct. 12, 2009

The following information is a must read for anybody interested in the extent of Vatican global control.

The first piece is an interview conducted by Jon Rappoport with Richard Bell, a finance historian and former stocks manipulator.

The second piece of information is a list of Vatican controlled orgnaizations compiled by a British researcher.

Rappoport interview with Richard Bell:

Q: So, foreign investors are accelerating their withdrawal of money from the US.

A: A significant amount is being shifted to Europe.

Q: So is this current stock market debacle an OP run by the European Union (EU)?

A: That is true, but too simplistic. Dr. Paisley points out that the EU has been a stepoperation.

Q: Meaning?

A: First came the Common Market. Then we had the European Community. Now we have the Europe Union. At each step, people were told, “This is a good and limited concept.” That was all a joke. It was always about creating one giant Euro-super-state, under the control of a few people.

Q: And so?

A: So, the Vatican has been everywhere during this step-operation, urging the parties forward, promoting the idea of UNITY. Which is always a winner. People like that concept. Paisley points out that unity is used as a soft hammer to make people forget who is doing the wrong thing and who is doing the right thing. UNITY as a tool of propaganda means: No one is really bad. Make alliances with everyone. Melt into One. That is a disastrous political policy.

Q: And the Vatican is pushing the mission of the EU because?

A: Because making friends and influencing people and playing nice and urging unity IS the current strategy of the Vatican, in these times. It is using that soft approach to create bigger political structures, over which it can exercise control. People forget that a dedicated Roman Catholic, if he is at the head of a large organization, can easily function as a front for the Vatican. If you have ten men like this, all of them powerful,

all of them who have been helped by the Church into their positions of power, then you are looking at a formidable controlling force—which owes its allegiance to the Vatican.

Q: Name such a man.

A: Jacques Delors, who was president, at one point, of the European Commission. He met with Dr. Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they spoke of this “shared spirituality” that was needed. But that term, for the Vatican, is code for “the one and only Church.” Its Church. People shrink away from realizing that the Vatican has ALWAYS considered itself the rightful ruler of Earth. I can’t be any plainer than that. And all this footsy-playing with other religions and churches is just drivel, behind which lies the real agenda. Paisley, in his article, quotes a letter from the Pope John Paul II to the Archbishop of Prague—“We cannot simply conceive of Europe as a market of economic exchanges or a place for the circulation of ideas but, above all, it must be a genuine community of nations, which want to unite their future and live like brothers, respecting the cultures and spiritual traditions…” You KNOW this is a fraud, because if there is one thing the Roman Church, behind the scenes, does NOT respect, it is the “various spiritual traditions.” That’s the soft soap. That’s the New Agey stuff, the warm fuzzy. That’s the front behind which the Vatican licks its chops, as it contemplates an EU which is fully organized and ready for further takeover from Above. Above, being the Vatican itself. This is no joke. This is almost two thousand years of plotting and conniving and working toward the goal of Rule. But people reject the idea because they think that the Vatican is weak and lost and can never command billions of people to walk into a Church and fall on their knees. But you see, the Vatican, above all, has patience. The long-term goal has thousands and thousands of steps. I know this from numerous contacts over the years. Near the end of my career on Wall Street, I used to tell my friends—changing a quote I had once read—“The Jews who are not Jews run Wall Street at the pleasure of the British financiers who have an illusory idea about the primacy of England, and they in turn serve at the pleasure of the Vatican, which remains in the shadows.” It’s more or less a straight line, and the top of the line gives you the group which appears to be the weakest. Appears. That’s the operative word. If you read Tupper Saussy’s fine book, Rulers of Evil, you will discover that the first translation of Sun-tzu’s classic treatise, Art of War, into a Western language was made in 1772, in French. By Joseph-Marie Amiot, an astronomer in the court of the Emperor of China. Amiot was a Jesuit priest. The Jesuits know all about appearing weak into order to win, and they are perhaps the world’s greatest appliers of Sun-tzu. And they are in it for the long haul.

Q: Then what function, in this scheme, does the EU play?

A: The shill.

Q: Explain.

A: The shill parks himself near the con man and makes it seem like the game can be won easily. The shill is the man who makes it look easy. I stretch the meaning of the term a little. But a shill is a bright penny that attracts attention. The EU represents UNITY. Unity is the bright penny that exclaims, “Look! We can do it. We can all live in harmony. All we need to do is sit down and talk long enough, and all our divisions and conflicts will be solved.” The shill draws the crowds. The shill makes the crowd think there is something very good here. The shill is the magnet, if you will, that sucks in the customers, the adherents, the loyal ones, the people of hope. It’s the oldest trick in the book. And the people who play this trick on a grand scale are very, very clever. They want total domination, but they carve out a circuitous route, because that is the way to arrive. They set up a front which is the shill, and the shill looks very, very good. I don’t mean to offend anyone by this, but for the Vatican, Jesus is a shill, the ultimate shill. Of course, their version of him is so far from the older concept it isn’t even funny. But I digress.

Q: So you’re saying that the Vatican looks for a group that can appear to be very, let’s say, humanitarian, and it uses that to attract followers.

A: Of course. What do you think they spend their time doing? But in their secret “catechism,” creating groups which appear to do good works is really the creation of shills. That’s half of what the Vatican DOES.

Q: People at large would appear to be quite hypnotized NOT to believe this.

A: That’s why I don’t like to talk about it too often. It’s frustrating. People look at me like I’ve stepped on their precious cat.

Q: Okay. Let’s take this a step further. How about this? “The Vatican, working through certain players in the EU, have been making war on the US stock market.”

A: Now you’re clicking.

Q: And the motive is?

A: To weaken anything powerful that is not completely within the circle of power of the Vatican.

Q: Even if such weakening brings about chaos.

A: Especially if it brings about chaos. The very atmosphere in which the Vatican thrives. Chaos ALWAYS equals new followers who are looking for a way to assuage their fear.

Q: You’re saying this is just a current OP that follows along with a very old strategy.

A: A strategy in which the Vatican is the master.

Q: Now, in your years on Wall Street, did you run into people who knew all this, who saw the larger dimensions of the game?

A: I did. Mostly, they kept their mouths shut. Essentially, you’re asking me, “What does a mid-level or low-level player in an ultimately corrupt game do when he discovers a few of the larger dimensions of that game?”

Q: Well, you could say that question applies, in a sense, to all of us, if you stretch the meaning a little.

A: Exactly. That IS the question, isn’t it? We may not be willing and conscious participants in the direction the game is going, but we are in the game, one way or another. I myself WAS a man who twisted the truth to maneuver money in certain ways. And finally, because I was very bull-headed, because I was very selfish—it took me quite awhile to wake up and get out of my own trap.

Q: Here is another Paisley quote. “Deliberate engineering to create the coming about of the European Union provides an enormous opportunity to develop and extend the influence of the Church of Rome. Remember, it is Roman Catholic laymen who, from the beginning, were behind the formation of, and today continue to push the growth of, the European Union.”

A: And look at something else. What is one of the most important economic wars for market share on the planet?

Q: The one between the US and what is now the EU.

A: Yes.

Q: Part of the reason the EU was formed was to give a Europe a chance to compete with the US in that area.

A: Yes. And, situated above all this, its sights set on weakening that “far too independent nation,” the US, has been the Vatican. And one step in that weakening operation is the current trashing of US corporations and the stock market. Which, covertly, was an OP launched by the EU, behind which firmly stands the Vatican.

Q: Layers of the onion.

A: Right.

Q: There are undoubtedly other forces at work in the weakening of the US trading markets.

A: There are. But the big unnoticed one—that’s what I’m describing.

Q: Let’s get back to the shill. Who stands behind him?

A: In a very mild situation, it’s just a con man. But when you get really nasty, you’re talking about somebody who operates like a demon.

Q: Do you mean that literally?

A: No. But other people would. I’m talking about somebody who OWNS somebody else.

Q: Take a very loyal Roman Catholic businessman of great wealth.

A: Yes. One who owes the Church and its agents all he has—because they engineered a lot of it for him. This is a kind of shill, who attracts people to his side. And behind him is the possession force—the people who own him, who, if they want to, can destroy everything he holds precious. And the businessman knows that. Somewhere inside him, he knows it and is afraid of it. The shill and the demon.

Q: A good title for a book.

A: Yes.

Q: Along this line, here is another quote cited by Paisley. This is from Paul Henri Spaak, who has been called one of the founding fathers of the Euro Common Market, the forerunner to the EU: “We [Europe] do not want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people [of Europe] and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he god or the devil we will receive him.”

A: Yes. I read that quote with great interest. It gives off quite a bit of flavor, doesn’t it?

Q: Yes.

A: All sorts of resonance. On one level, it almost seems to be a call for a Satan. On another level, for a fascist dictator waving a wand over Europe.

Q: The Vatican did support Hitler in certain ways and felt it could control him.

A: And that was so. If Hitler had conquered Europe, the Vatican, with its far-flung and very well-placed agents of distinction, would have controlled him sooner or later. Hitler, despite some of his statements, was quite enamored of the Church.

Q: What other resonances do you get from Spaak’s statement?

A: He is asking for someone like a Pope, if a Pope could move out of being a figurehead into real power day to day. I also get the sense that Spaak is willing to roll the dice against any odds because he feels, at that time, that the future of Europe is in a very desperate situation.

Q: So the formation of the EU was really a desperate move, in some ways.

A: At the level of business-people and financiers and bankers in Europe, it was. At the mid-level. And when you are in that frame of mind, you are willing to do anything to regain the kind of power you feel is rightfully yours. Your solution is ALWAYS for a form of fascism, regardless of what face you put on it. You have to remember that.

Q: The EU was a fascist movement.

A: Covertly, yes. Absolutely. Whether you have one man standing on a balcony shouting to crowds, or a bunch of men quietly sitting in a room making all the really important decisions, it is fascism.

Q: Paisley also quotes from—

A: You mean the Sunday Telegraph article?

Q: Yes.

A: I have it here.

Q: Read it.

A: July 21, 1991. The headline was, “Hatching a New Popish Plot.” It reads, “Karol Wojtyla [the Pope] is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right—that of the new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.”

Q: What do you think of that?

A: If you insert the word “secret” in there, I think they’ve got it right. You see, we live in an age when humanitarianism is the—

Q: Propaganda foundation stone.

A: Right.

Q: Why is that?

A: Because so many popular movements aimed at freedom and justice have filled the landscape. So the strategy of the controllers is to go with that. Just like in judo. You go with the motion of your opponent. You don’t try to lash out at it. Part of the Art of War.

Q: You become the great peacemaker and mediator.

A: That’s right.

Q: That’s the ultimate trump card.

A: And the Vatican has a long history of being able to play that card.

Q: Does there come a time when, even if enough people see through the crap, it’s too late?

A: No. But you do have to do certain things.

Q: Like what?

A: You have to expose the propaganda. That’s number one. You have to do that. Then you have to build alternative structures. All sorts of them. And you have to forget about asking the bad guys for help. The whole idea of being nice to people who will do everything they can to control you never works. And if you understand the real motives and intentions of the enemy, you WON’T make that mistake.

Q: You won’t assume that nicey-nice will turn them around.

A: Correct.

Q: The shill and the demon.

A: The front and the back.

Q: Some stories about demons have them feeding off and enjoying the emotions and pain and troubles and suffering of the people they lock on to.

A: I think that’s a fairly good description of the Vatican down through history. If you add in, bilking the people of their money and possessions.

Q: Then it would seem a little curious to have the Vatican calling demonic stuff the evil that must be opposed and defeated.

A: I think that’s characterized as a Cover Story. You’ll find it in a number of areas. The enemy you prop up or invent to solidify your group is really YOU. It’s pretty clever.

Q: Several writers have suggested the Vatican has fallen into being the epitome of devilishness, within its own walls.

A: I enjoy those stories. Because I think they miss the point that the Vatican has been about deception and control since its beginnings. After all, why bother to build a global organization to dominate a path that is supposed to lead to personal salvation? Why not just mark out the path and let people walk it on their own? If they want to? You can’t force someone to take that path. If you do, you get a false result, a fake result.

Q: So you feel that secret societies are important in the telling of real human history. Since the Vatican is really such a society.

A: Yes, that’s right. I’m a person who’s come to conclude that people really do sit down and meet in rooms, that even if they share common goals—and they do—that’s not enough to mount long-term projects and operations. It’s just common sense. If you fight a land war, don’t you have meetings? Don’t you iron our strategy? Don’t you hide that strategy? Don’t you use many agents in the intelligence field? Don’t those agents pretend to be something other than what they are? Imagine what would happen if the generals just assumed they all had shared objectives and proceeded on their own. It would be a moronic thing from the outset. The Jesuits are the intel arm of the Church, in exactly the same way that the CIA works. They obtain information, and they also do covert OPS. I have met more than a few very, very bright Jesuits who are in the financial field. They certainly know what they’re doing. They certainly keep their real objectives close to the vest.

Q: How low do you think the Dow is going to fall?

A: I think to make a serious estimate of that would be a mistake, if you are a person who is trying to acquire useful knowledge about markets. It’s too up in the air. It’s the

wrong target of knowledge to shoot for. But just to guess, for the hell of it—we could see the Dow go down from 11,000, where it was, to 7500 or even 7000, or 6500. But that’s just a foolish guess.

Q: If it did go that low, what would it mean?

A: (laughs) It would mean it’s going to go back up. But just as a top in the market is a confusing time, the same is true of a bottom. All sorts of false starts that go nowhere. Up, then collapse. Up, then collapse again. And then, it finally begins to move up. But you see, all this is thinking about a fantasy, really. Because we don’t know. We could make a hundred predictions and then say, after one of them turns out right—see, on August 24, I said 7000 and I was right. As a market drops lower, more of the big-time money people grab up what they want. And the lower it gets, the MORE big-time are those who grab up huge numbers of shares in their areas of interest. It’s feeding time for the vultures and vampires and demons. They could be ready to take the market up by next week, or it might be two years from now. When the trinket that is dangling from your wrist is the stock market or the economy of a nation, you can pretty well figure that WHIM and SADISM are prominent motives. And also, what you can get away with, given your goals.

Q: But if the Vatican is a major force behind the current weaken-America OP, when is enough going to be enough?

A: Now you’re talking a lot of different of different factors.

Q: Such as?

A: The most important ones are those around the question, “How many of your own people, who are very loyal, but also not in on the true Game—how long can they hold out and stay loyal and not just go nuts?” You want to keep your structure in place. You want chaos, but you also want your vast network to be able to act. Those are tricky questions for controllers. All sorts of personal feelings can enter in.

Q: In the past, I’ve heard you talk, in relation to investing, about over-focus and under-focus. What do those terms mean?

A: Under-focus would be, I want to predict how far the market is going to fall, and THEN I’ll decide what to buy or sell and when. That doesn’t work. Over-focus would be, at the close of trading on Monday, when everyone is getting in to buy up the stocks that have fallen heavily during the morning, I’m going to get in and pick the heaviest loser of the day and buy it, because it’s going to go back up tomorrow. That’s a complete crap-shoot, too. But you know, these two principles work in all sorts of areas. In personal relationships, an over-focus would be, he scratches his face once in awhile and that bothers me. Under-focus would be, he’s spending all our money but I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. Neither extreme works.

Q: Do you think the world is doomed?

A: What do you mean by doomed?

Q: All 6 billion of us are going to fall under a steel-trap tyranny and we won’t be able to get out.

A: Well, we can always get out. But it has to start from the bottom. To try to change everything from the top is a waste of time. You have to know as much as you can about what’s going on at the top to know what to do at the bottom.

Q: I thought you’d say that my question was asking you to do an under-focus.

A: Very tricky. No, I think the closer you get to an understanding of what’s going on at the top, the better prepared you are to take action.

Q: It occurs to me that your analysis of shills and demons applies to the medical cartel.

A: It certainly does. You have your studies and your testimonials from celebrities and your poster kids for diseases and socialite fund-raisers for research—and they are all shills. Most of them are unknowing shills. The studies are fakes, by the way. But all

the shills are fronting for the same system of medicine that kills so many people. The demons are certain people who really set the agenda, the research agenda for the drug companies. They know they are killing people and making money doing it.

Q: They take pleasure from death?

A: It’s very politically incorrect to suggest that, but it’s true.

Q: Many people would say, how can it be true?

A: You have to realize that there are people in this world who do, in fact, take pleasure from that. That’s the way they are. You can offer all sorts of explanations for how they got that way, but most of that is just to let them off the hook. They don’t deserve that reward. They are evil, and they want to be evil. On a much smaller scale, look at the corrupt broker who enjoys hyping stocks to customers when he knows that he has no idea whether the stock is going to go up or down. He enjoys the weird power in that. He likes it. He likes stealing money and lying and getting away with it. The sooner we come to grips with this, the sooner we’ll be able to get our nations back on the right course. Do you feel how much opposition there is to saying that so-and-so criminal just wanted to commit his crimes? We retreat from that, we try to make it all so complex and nice and we want to restore “harmony” by explaining away the whole thing. But these people do exist. They wear very expensive suits, some of them, and they get their feeling of life from destruction. It’s a kick for them.

Q: Getting back to the Vatican—

A: Yes. Getting back to that, part of the big psychological OP of the second half of the 1900s has been the idea that everyone is good and should be approached that way. This is one of the front ideas of the Roman Church, in its latest fake incarnation of “share and care.” It’s just a ruse, but it certainly screws up whole civilizations.

Q: I think one reason people love soap operas so much is because they give us a smattering of characters who are evil and like being evil. It’s right out there.

A: I’m sure that’s true.

Q: We’ve just seen the $60 billion merger of two drug companies, Pfizer and Pharmacia. This makes Pfizer, which was already the largest drug house in the US, even bigger.

A: There are many reasons for these mergers, but looking at it from the top of the basic control agenda, it’s all about shrinking down the number of people who have any say in what happens to us. In empire building, the people who really sit behind the scenes want larger and larger structures to emerge, because, if they can control THOSE, they can control the whole show. If you have 4 million important power groups on the planet, then controlling the planet is going to be hard. But if you can shrink that number of groups down to a hundred, you can move in and work on the leaders of those hundred groups—the people who aren’t already in your pocket—and you can begin to move them into your orbit. This is a basic fact that many people seem to understand, but they forget it or ignore the mechanics of how it works, and they move on. They shouldn’t move on. That’s IT.

Q: As we talk here, I get the feeling that you have some experience with Vatican recruiting methods—undertaken, of course, through many lower-level cut-outs.

A: You’re right. I do. It’s in the area of making lay-Catholics into agents. I have known several people who were approached. The basic routine went like this. A Catholic businessman in a large city is contacted by the local chapter of one of those Catholic groups. There are scores of them. They have different names. They all seem benign or charitable or merely honorary.

Q: So this businessman goes to a meeting.

A: Sure. A lunch, a meeting. He ends up joining the group. He’s already a successful man. Very energetic and ambitious. Wants to get ahead. So, after a year or so, an opportunity is placed in his path. One of his new friends in the group introduces him to a loan officer at a bank, and before you know it, he gets cash to expand his business. Things are starting to cook. This is a fairly slow process, and at every step the

businessman is vetted. Loosely, because nothing has really happened yet. But after another year or two, he acquires a partner in a new venture. The partner is also a member of this lay-Catholic club. The new venture prospers. The businessman meets the local bishop. He is nominated for some kind of layman of the year award. He doesn’t win, but his profile is raised. After years of not going to church, he now goes. He even receives confession once a month. After three or four years, he is introduced to a “financial expert” who is also from the same local group. The expert is really a Jesuit, but very few people know that. The Jesuit becomes his friend. He takes him on a trip to Rome, and they have an audience with a cardinal. Brief. On and on it goes. The businessman is vetted every step of the way. He buys into a construction company. He is now becoming rich. He doesn’t think much about it, but his new lifestyle is really dependent on his acquired Catholic friends. And all they have done for him. He of course would never want to give up the new lifestyle. And now, on a business trip, he meets a woman in a bar. She is quite pretty and friendly. They sleep together. Every time he goes to that city on business, he meets her. Unknown to him, their meetings are recorded on videotape. The Jesuit friend, one day, manages to bring up the subject of this woman. Because the Jesuit friend knows her. He tells the businessman that she is a prostitute, and even though she may not have charged him any money, well—and so the businessman goes to confession and tells the story to his priest. And so on and so forth. And ten years later this man is really all the way in the pocket of his Jesuit friend. And in the case I’m describing, we eventually get to political office. Running for office. And winning. And down the road, with a lot of money in the bank, and many political favors later, this businessman is offered a post in a federal agency. Has to do with foreign trade. He takes the job, on the strong recommendation of his Jesuit friend. And finally, after several more turns of the wheel which I won’t describe, this businessman becomes an ambassador. And is completely beholden. He takes orders, although he may not think of it that way. And he is an agent. He passes along information to his friend. Lots of information. And he becomes trusted. And now he is told of a larger program. It involves making the Church more prominent in the lives of many people. The expansion of the influence of the Church-because that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? And this businessman joins another Catholic group, and is made a knight. The businessman is never considered to be an insider, because he has certain scruples. So he is used as he can be used. And one day, for three minutes, he meets the Pope, as part of a group. It is the culmination of his

adult life. He has passed along a great deal of information to his Jesuit friend, for years.

Q: What kind of information?

A: From diplomatic cables, for example. Some of these cables contained sensitive information. The Church has been interested in various delicate negotiations between the US and a foreign nation.

Q: So you’re saying, multiply this by a factor of a few thousand such agents—

A: Many more than that.

Q: Okay—

A: And you get a tremendous flow of information coming into Vatican intelligence. And this is just information I’m talking about. There are also favors of all kinds. You know, if you read the first few pages of Saussy’s book, Rulers of Evil, you’ll see a list of Roman Catholics in government who have had key positions vis-à-vis US foreign policy. Positions like CIA Director, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Ambassador-at-Large. And there is also a list of senators who run [or ran] the various sub-committees within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—all Roman Catholics. Biden, Subcommittee on European Affairs. Sarbanes, International Economic Policy. Moynihan, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Kerry, Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications. Dodd, Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs.

Q: Yes. I’ve seen the list. And that is just the beginning. Saussy goes on to name “virtually every aspect of secular life in America,” as he puts it, which is run, as a government chairmanship of a committee, by a Roman Catholic Congressional representative. It’s staggering. Here are just a few of those areas: “…insurance, housing, community development, federal loan guarantees, economic stabilization measures…gold and precious metals transactions, agriculture…flood control, minority enterprise…vaccines, drug labelling and packaging, drug and alcohol

abuse…energy…bank regulation…”

A: And people in America still tend to think of Jack Kennedy as the only Catholic who ever really had huge secular political power in the US. Which, when you think about it, is a very under-mentioned piece of fall-out from the JFK assassination. Makes an excellent cover story, doesn’t it? “No more major presence of Roman Catholic power in the secular US government. Jack is dead.”
About this entry

The following was written by a Britsih researcher at a blog called

The intention for this resource is to provide a central database on the internet for posting both original & sourced articles on the true inner workings of the Illuminati & the New World Order, including aspects which may or may not be at odds with each other.

Wherever possible “from the horse’s mouth” evidence, from mainstream & official sources around the globe are used for maximum credibility & verifiable authenticity. Such examples are not usually given the front-page headline prominence they deserve, but nonetheless much evidence of the links that facilitate the covert global power structure’s manipulation, direction & control is essentially “hidden in plain sight”.

It is the assessment of the creator & coordinator of this resource that the spiritual controllers behind the dark forces of the Illuminati are Luciferian & Satanic elements within the so-called Society of Jesus a.k.a. the Jesuits & the so-called Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, oftentimes referred to as the Vatican. The current & 30th Jesuit Superior General is Adolfo Nicolás, who was elected on January 19, 2008. The Jesuit Superior General is traditionally nicknamed the Black Pope.

After much consideration of the evidence, it is the firm conviction of the coordinator of this resource, that this Rome-based nexus acts via major players & place-people within Papal & Royal knighthood orders, hierarchic Satanic orders & high-level Masonic rites, orders & obediances, the Frankist Sabbataian Papal-loyal Masonic Labor Zionists, & then through the elite policy management groups & intelligence, financial, military & political place-people to create what is referred to as the New World Order.

The mystical-religious impulse behind this Jesuit/Vatican-planned New World Order – contrary to the in-house rhetoric of the Papacy & their false opposition of the occult secret societies – is not that of Christ, but the spirit of Antichrist.




- The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (Franco-Neapolitan branch):

Grand Master of the Franco-Neapolitan branch: Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro.

Grand Prior of the Franco-Neapolitan branch: Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, S.J. – a French Jesuit.

Prior of the Franco-Neapolitan branch’s British & Irish Delegation: Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster.

- The Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (Hispano-Neapolitan branch):

Grand Master of the Hispano-Neapolitan branch: Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria;

Grand Prior of the Hispano-Neapolitan branch: Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos from Colombia.

Vice President of the Deputation & President of the British Association of the Hispano-Neapolitan branch: Prince Rupert zu Loewenstein (also SMOM Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour & Devotion, former President of the British Association of the SMOM, Knight Commander with Star of the Papal Order of St Gregory, Knight of St John, Knight of St Januarius, Knight of St Stephen & the money-man to the Rolling Stones & Mick Jagger since 1971 – nicknamed “Rupie the Groupie”).

-The Sovereign Military Order of Malta:

SMOM Prince & Grand Master: Matthew Festing (also a Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Franco-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order).

SMOM Grand Prior of England: Fredrik Crichton-Stuart (also a Knight Commander of Justice of the Franco-Neapolitan branch of the Constantinian Order).

- The Order of the Holy Sepulchre:

Grand Master: John Patrick Cardinal Foley.

Grand Master Emeritus: Carlo Cardinal Furno.

Grand Prior: Fouad Twal (Latin Patriarch & Archbishop of Jerusalem).

- Opus Dei:

Prelate: Javier Echevarría Rodríguez.


- The Order of the Garter: The Sovereign of the Garter is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

- The Most Venerable Order of St John: The OSJ’s Grand Prior is the Queen’s cousin, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

- The Royal Order of Scotland: The Governor is Andrew Bruce, 11th Earl of Elgin.


- Skull & Bones,

- The various orders of the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Gnostic Catholic Church,

- the Martinists, Societas Rosicruciana, AMORC,

- The Temple of Set, the Theosophical Society,

- Universal Unity.

- the Rite of Memphis-Misraim: overtly a 99° system, but covertly going up to the rare 100° – the highest of the Masonic system – given out in Palermo, Sicily headquarters.

- Turkish Ottoman Freemasonry: a 7° system with two branches controlled by Fethullah Gülen & false anti-Mason Adnan Oktar a.k.a. Harun Yahya.

- 32° & 33° Scottish Rite Freemasonry: key Sovereign Grand Commanders include Ronald A. Seale, US Southern Jurisdiction Supreme Council 33° – Mother of the World – in Washington, DC; John William McNaughton (also a York Rite Mason & Shriner) US Northern Jurisdiction Supreme Council 33°; Rev. Canon Richard Tydeman, Supreme Council 33° for England & Wales; Corrado Ballaco Gabrieli, Italian Supreme Council 33°. There are Supreme Councils all throughout the world, among them are Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Russia, Israel, Brazil, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Romania & over 40 others.

- 11° York Rite Freemasonry: comes under the United Grand Lodge of England, overseen by the Duke of Kent & the Marquess of Northampton, respectively Grand Master & Pro-Grand Master of the UGLE.

- The Shriners: all Shriners until recently had to be of the Scottish Rite 33°, this is a Masonic-created & controlled body, all members must be “regular” Master Masons; Imperial Potentate of the Shriners of North America & highest-ranking Shriner in the world: Douglas E. Maxwell.

- Prince Edward, Duke of Kent : Cousin to both Queen Elizabeth II & the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent is the “Most Worshipful” Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) & is also First Grand Principal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England & Grand Master of the Order of St Michael & St George. Note that his wife Katharine, Duchess of Kent converted to Roman Catholicism in 1994, as did their son Lord Nicholas Windsor in 2001, who then went on to get married in the Vatican in 2006.

- Spencer Compton, 7th Marquess of Northampton: The UGLE Pro [Deputy] Grand Master & is also the Pro [Deputy] First Grand Principal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England.

- Prince Michael of Kent: The Duke of Kent’s brother, Prince Michael is the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons. His wife, Princess Michael of Kent, has always been a Roman Catholic & is a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the (Papal-loyal) SMOM, within the Order’s British Association. Princess Michael is also the senior Dame (Dame Grand Cross of Justice) of the British and Irish Delegation of the Franco-Neapolitan branch of the (Papal-loyal) Constantinian Order.


- The Pilgrims Society (Patron: Queen Elizabeth II; President: Lord Inge),

- The Bilderberg Group (Chairman: Étienne [Viscount] Davignon),

- Chatham House/the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chairman: DeAnne Julius),

- The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR; based in New York City; President: Richard N. Haass),

- The Trilateral Commission (The TC’s three current chairmen: Joseph Nye [also an active Bilderberger], Jesuit-educated Peter Sutherland & Yotaro Kobayashi),

- The RAND Corporation (President & CEO: James Thompson [CFR member]),

- The Group of Thirty (G30; Chairman of the Board of Trustees: Paul Volcker, Trilateral Commission founder & member),

- The Peterson Institute for International Economics (Chairman: Peter G. Peterson; also chairman of the CFR),

- JPMorgan Chase’s International Council (Chairman: George P. Schultz),

- The European Round Table of Industrialists (Chairman: Jorma Ollila, Commander of the Order of Orange-Nassau),

- The Bohemian Club (Bohemian Grove, California).


- The United Nations (The UN; trojan-horse Rome-created & controlled One World Government based in New York City) & associated non-governmental organisations (the Paris-based UNESCO, the Geneva, Switzerland-based WHO, et al),

- The European Union (The EU; mostly based in Brussels, Belgium & Strasbourg, Alsace, France;

- The European Council (The EU’s highest political body. Presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates every six months among member states’ national governments with a nominated national minister),

- The European Parliament (The EU’s only directly elected parliamentary institution. President of the European Parliament: Hans-Gert Pöttering),

- The European Commission (The EU’s executive branch; the President of the European Commission is Jesuit-educated José Manuel Barroso),

- The Security & Prosperity Partnership (trojan-horse North American Union),

- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).


- The Bank for International Settlements (The BIS is based in Basel, Switzerland; Chairman of the Board of Directors: Jean-Pierre Roth; also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Swiss National Bank),

- Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BIS/Group of Ten [G10] nations sub-committee; Chairman: Nout Wellink, Knight of the Order of the Netherlands Lion),

- The International Monetary Fund (The IMF is based in Washington, DC; Managing Director: Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the Socialist International-alligned Socialist Party (France)),

_ The World Bank (Washington, DC) & World Bank Group (President: Robert Zoellick),

- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Secretary-General: José Ángel Gurría of the Socialist International-alligned Institutional Revolutionary Party),

Also worth noting are the internationalist bankers’ national & transnational central banks:

- The European Central Bank (Frankfurt, Germany; President: Jean-Claude Trichet),

- The Federal Reserve System (Washington, DC; Chairman of the Board of Governors: Ben Bernanke),

- The Bank of England (in the City of London within the metropolis of London; Governor: Mervyn King),

- & their interest-charging counterparts in virtually every country.


- NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – whose troops heavily comprise the UN “peacekeeping” forces; Secretary General: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer),

- Erik Prince’s Blackwater Worldwide (Knights of Malta-controlled mercenary army, based in Moyock, the Great Dismal Swamp, North Carolina – more troops in Iraq than those sent by the United States Government/Private Corporation).

NOTE: There are many other organisations & individuals that I could list but these will suffice to give an overview of the covert global power structure at this point in time.