Saturday, January 26, 2013

More Vatican Skulduggery

Friend in UK writes me this:
The effective disenfranchisement of the people by forcible governing powers appears to be a consideration/fear/thought in several/ many countries. There are to my mind indications and have been for a while of the possible/actual suppression of the peoples of the world. It is a thought that would not have occurred to me some few years ago. At the same time there seem to be the growing rich elite, banks, businesses, individuals etc and the growing poorer people. One thing that is plain over here is that Christianity is being marginalised in this country at quite a rapid pace. Also famiy life is fracturing more than ever. We need to keep close to the Lord amidst such troubling indications - I tell myself, remembering the wonderful riches of Christ.
And sends a  a link to this: 

How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions:

...Behind a disguised offshore company structure, the church's international portfolio has been built up over the years, using cash originally handed over by Mussolini in return for papal recognition of the Italian fascist regime in 1929.

Since then the international value of Mussolini's nest-egg has mounted until it now exceeds £500m. In 2006, at the height of the recent property bubble, the Vatican spent £15m of those funds to buy 30 St James's Square. Other UK properties are at 168 New Bond Street and in the city of Coventry. It also owns blocks of flats in Paris and Switzerland.

The surprising aspect for some will be the lengths to which the Vatican has gone to preserve secrecy about the Mussolini millions. The St James's Square office block was bought by a company called British Grolux Investments Ltd, which also holds the other UK properties. Published registers at Companies House do not disclose the company's true ownership, nor make any mention of the Vatican.

Instead, they list two nominee shareholders, both prominent Catholic bankers: John Varley, recently chief executive of Barclays Bank, and Robin Herbert, formerly of the Leopold Joseph merchant bank. Letters were sent from the Guardian to each of them asking whom they act for. They went unanswered. British company law allows the true beneficial ownership of companies to be concealed behind nominees in this way.
...British wartime records from the National Archives in Kew complete the picture. They confirm Profima SA as the Vatican's own holding company, accused at the time of "engaging in activities contrary to Allied interests". Files from officials at Britain's Ministry of Economic Warfare at the end of the war criticised the pope's financier, Bernardino Nogara, who controlled the investment of more than £50m cash from the Mussolini windfall.
Nogara's "shady activities" were detailed in intercepted 1945 cable traffic from the Vatican to a contact in Geneva, according to the British, who discussed whether to blacklist Profima as a result. "Nogara, a Roman lawyer, is the Vatican financial agent and Profima SA in Lausanne is the Swiss holding company for certain Vatican interests." They believed Nogara was trying to transfer shares of two Vatican-owned French property firms to the Swiss company, to prevent the French government blacklisting them as enemy assets....

Thursday, January 24, 2013

American Citizens Being Set Up for Tyrannical Takeover?

The first part of Chris Pinto's radio program today is about a couple of the Psalms in relation to the increase in evil in the world, but the second half is about reports of army generals being chosen for their willingness to order shooting on American citizens, and reports that foreign soldiers have been training in America for years  -- obviously because THEY won't mind shooting American citizens.

I've heard all this before and it isn't going away.  There have also been rumors for a long time of concentration camps having been built for American citizens by FEMA all over the nation, as well as rumors of the possibility of martial law, with speculations about what might bring this about, and refusal to give up our guns under executive order is a major reason considered.  Rioting after a huge economic disaster is another.  Do all these gun control fanatics WANT to see American citizens killed or locked up, or are they merely dupes?

He is reporting on an article at, Shock Claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on US citizens.'

A Dr. Jim Garrow is the source of the information.

On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.
Garrow made the following Facebook post:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.
So, who is the source?
Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”
Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.
Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
His bio on reads:
Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

2/2/13: Video of interview with Garrow:

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

States Considering Laws to Nullify Obama's executive orders on guns

Chris Pinto's radio show today focuses on the actions by forty-seven states to nullify Obama's gun control orders.

Tangentially related, he also touches on the Rwanda genocide as a form of the Catholic Inquisition and recommends the film available at You Tube, In God's Name, about that slaughter.  The film refers to the murderers as "Christian" but it becomes clear that that means Catholic.  The point is that the people were not armed and could not defend themselves, and official Catholic doctrine is that nobody should be armed, and that's also the position of the UN.

Here's an article about the states' rebellion against Obama's gun measures, in a publication called The New American: States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control:
Numerous bills have already been introduced in state legislatures, for example, that would nullify unconstitutional federal gun control and even criminalize enforcement of such lawless restrictions. Texas, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, and other states are considering nullification legislation in the wake of Obama’s recent push to enact gun control by executive decree and proposals sent to Congress. Other states are expected to join soon, and many have already adopted laws in recent years protecting guns made and kept within their jurisdictions from federal regulations.
Update Jan 22:  Sheriffs Target Obama Gun Control, Vow to Resist.
As state governments and federal lawmakers who take their oath of office seriously work to stop the Obama administration’s proposed unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, a wave of county sheriffs all across the country is rising up to protect gun rights, too. Dozens of chief law enforcement officers have already pledged not to enforce new gun control, and many have even promised to actively prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal statutes within their jurisdictions. 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Church History: The Protestant Reformation and its Enemy the Vatican

This post is to be mostly a collection of links to talks and sermons about Roman Catholic efforts to destroy the Protestant Reformation.

1)  Here is a link to a talk by ex-Catholic-priest Richard Bennett,  Response of the Papacy to the Reformation, Part I which is a historical sketch of the Counter Reformation, or Roman efforts to undo the effects of the Reformation, principally through the Jesuits from the time of Jesuit founder Ignatius of Loyola to the present, including remarks on 
  • The success of Jesuit education in turning minds toward Romanism; 
  • The Oxford Movement in 19th century England to Romanize the Anglican Church;
  • Dispensationalism, its Futurist eschatology & the Scofield Bible;
  • Vatican Concordats with various nations including Germany through Hitler;
  • Alliances with Islamic states;  a "call for peace" signed by "Christians" (;  Muslim-Catholic Forum;
  • As a nation state Vatican makes civil laws and civil agreements about marriage, economics, property rights, laws about education, what can be on the radio; can shut down churches;  How Vatican increases through civil power.
  • How Romanism fulfills scripture about the Harlot Church;
  • How Dispensationalism blinds the Church to Romanism as the Antichrist
Bennett has the website Berean where you can find his personal testimony about his life as a priest and how he came to Christ.

2)  This talk is really Response of the Papacy to the Reformation, Part 2, but under the title Papal Rome, the European Union, Antichrist, Prophecy, Jesuits, Reformation, Martyrs  in which Michael De Semlyn of Richard Bennett's ministry gives the history of Rome's intention to recreate the Holy Roman Empire in Europe, showing among other things the Roman Catholic symbolism in the formation of the European Union.   [And here's a link where someone has very helpfully made a transcript of this talk with footnotes.]
  • Papal Pronouncements on Europe:  8/31/2003 Pope John Paul II dedicated Europe to the Virgin Mary.
  • "Last Sunday" (date is not given) the Pope "urged" that the final draft of the European Constitution recognize explicitly "the Christian roots" of Europe, by which of course he means only Roman Catholicism.  "...As described by the London Sunday Telegraph, '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'.  [July 21, 1991]
3)  Alan Cairns has a great Irish accent from his homeland ("faith" is "fee'yeth," "grace" is "gree-ess") but preached in South Carolina for many years before his retirement a few years ago.  He has in his sermons what I think must be the strongest Reformation emphasis I've ever heard.  You can find him at Sermon as well as Richard Bennett,  Here's the Sermon Audio page of Posts on "Reformation" by Alan Cairns.

This sermon from 1995 The Reformation, A Battle to be Fought and Won Again is a powerful reminder of the truths of the Reformation and our need to continually be reminded of them, to study them and defend them.  He makes it clear that Inquisitional style persecutions of Protestants by Catholics are ongoing in predominantly Catholic countries, not something that ended centuries ago as we are so often misled into thinking.  There is a glitch in the audio around 6:36 where he has apparently begun discussing these persecutions but it is interrrupted.  How much is left out I don't know.

4)  In this sermon from 2004, The Failures of the Reformation, Cairns answers some familiar attempts to discredit the Reformers, often by Fundamentalists, and offers some thoughts of his own about how the Reformation stopped short of full success.  I found particularly interesting his remarks about the Anabaptists, who are often characterized as victims of the Reformers and generally get a positive press from today's Reformed teachers.  Cairns presents them in a less-than-positive light and claims they are NOT the forerunners of today's Baptists as is so often thought.

Side note:  One might suspect Jesuits behind the smear campaign but Cairns doesn't mention that possibility.  Fundamentalists with no sense of history are apparently sufficient for the task.

5)  [1/18] The Lord just led me to this one, A Historical Sketch of the Persecution of Christians (2006) by Joe Morecraft, and what a powerful sermon this is, on the persecutions of believers from the earliest days of the Church, so effectively preached that no matter how much I've already learned about these things, which is really quite a bit, I feel convicted more deeply than ever of my own cowardice and shrinking from the true call to martyrdom for Christ.  I thank the Lord that He seems to be leading me to deeper and deeper expressions of the life in Christ as I work on this blog post, and all I can do is pray for even a tenth of the courage of the martyrs down the centuries who died as true witnesses.
  • AMERICAN CHRISTIAN COMPROMISERS.  Around 28:00 he mentions those "Christians" who are in favor with the world, who are invited to inaugurations etc., the compromisers as opposed to the true Christians Christ told us the world will hate.  Billy Graham who is a closet Romanist comes immiedately to mind of course.  But others might take note who are tempted in the same direction.
  • TWO AMERICAN HERITAGES.  Around 29:08 he starts talking about two streams of American heritage, saying that Christians belong to the older one, the one that goes back to the original Puritan and Pilgrim settlers and NOT TO THE GENERATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES OR "FOUNDERS" which he characterizes as UNITARIANS.  I hadn't heard this message before except from from Chris Pinto.   Morecraft says Teach your children to be patriotic toward that older heritage and to shun the newer heritage!  Interesting!  This must be a stream of preaching I've somehow just never encountered before. 
Cairns and Morecraft are both Presbyterians and such powerful preachers of the truth I could be persuaded to become a Presbyterian, a REAL Presbyterian, not like that liberal Presbyterian USA church I once belonged to.  Why didn't I discover them earlier?  I probably didn't deserve to, that's the most likely reason, because I AM a weak cowardly Christian.  He who has shall receive more...   Every little thing we do in the right direction will move us further along that path.  Every little dying to self we do will give us the ability to die more.  I pray for the strengthening of the Church, and if it be the Lord's will that there might still be revival, that Christians who are giving in to compromises in so many many ways might see their error and repent, that so many who still live in complete darkness might see the great Light and be saved.  IT CAN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CHURCH LEARNS TO DIE, and that can start with recognizing and repenting of our sins, and our sins of compromising with the world are MAJOR these days.

6)  Here's a talk that's just chock full of information that's new to me: History of the Conflict in Ireland by Ivan Foster.   It's a very balanced presentation of the strife in Ireland which covers the effects of deceitful machinations by Romanists plus the neglect and indifference of apostate and ecumenized Protestants both English and Irish.

From the Sermon Audio page on Ivan Foster:
Mr. Foster, a former member of Omagh District Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly, believes it is essential for Christians to actively strive for the preservation of civil and religious liberty. Such striving must be done in the knowledge that only by national repentance and a return to God and Biblical Protestantism can Ulster be saved.


{I'm still working on this post and have already rearranged and added to the material above, and expect to do more as I continue to study this topic.  I hope I will be forgiven for continuing to work on this after it's published.}   
The Popes and the Reformation -- Alan Cairns (1998)
The Counter-Reformation -- Alan Cairns (1997)
The Anabaptist Reformation - Alan Cairns (2007)
One Bible, One Gospel - Alan Cairns (2002)
This is Cairns' answer to Dispensationalism
One Bible, One Gospel, Part 2 - Alan Cairns

Monday, January 14, 2013

Why It Took Chris Pinto to Make The Threat of Romanism Clear to Me

Listening for the second time to a talk on Dispensationalism I noted again the by-now-familiar fact that the Futurist interpretation of prophecy was originally introduced by a Jesuit in the effort to get the papacy out from under the traditional Protestant label of Antichrist, by moving all the scripture references to the Antichrist to the unfulfilled future.  Hearing this again it hit me how much I HAD known about Catholicism's influence in so many ways before I ever heard of Chris Pinto, had heard many of the pertinent facts from Reformed teachers over the years, so I had to ask myself why what Chris Pinto had to say hit me as so new and revelatory.   

Well, nobody else in my experience ever drew the right conclusion from all these separate facts about Romanist perfidies -- that their work never stopped but is being pursued with as much determination now as it ever was in the past. 

A Jesuit invented Futurism and somehow a huge swath of the Protestant churches have become futurists!  And Dispensationalists, which is the theology behind futurism, the biggest theological movement in the churches today.  How clever can they be?  They also either invented or at least promoted Arminianism, which Augustus Toplady back in the 18th Century called "The Road to Rome," also saying that what has come to be called Calvinism is really simply the gospel itself.  But Arminianism is now very aggressively promoted against Calvinism even by some who are otherwise strong opponents of Catholicism -- such as Dave Hunt and T A  McMahon.

Pinto drew the necessary CONCLUSIONS from the many facts that had been floating around in my head, that for some reason nobody else who noted the same facts had drawn, that Catholicism is every bit as much the Antichrist at work in the world today as it ever was, still working to undermine theology, to instigate violence against Protestants where possible (using complex lies to cover their tracks), and still aims to rise to world prominence again where it can destroy its enemies through its Inquisition. 

It was noted in passing in the talk on Dispensationalism that it was a Jesuit who invented Futurism to defend the Pope and the speaker even paused to emphasize it, saying "ponder that," but said no more about it.   Always the impression is given that whatever Romanism has done is somehow past and over with or not really effective or whatever, so we don't have to give it too much thought.  But Pinto has made it clear that it's aggressively ongoing, has already undermined Protestantism both in the churches and the culture in ways we don't normally recognize as the doings of Rome, and is continuing to work with the same objectives as ever.  In other words it's still an important threat to the true Church as of RIGHT NOW and most of us are blind to it.

Up to about a century ago there were strong voices in the Protestant Churches continuing to keep the issues alive and keep Catholicism on the hot seat, but all that has died out, or at least died down to a few barely warm embers over the last century.  I was reading in the online book The History of Protestantism by J A Wylie and noticed that he held an office called Lecturer on Popery!  In a Protestant Institute.  That's what we need NOW.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Lessons of 2012

Saw a blog that asks the question what God taught us over the last year, that I thought at least for myself might make a better post here than an answer there.  The emphasis there was on personal lessons learned and I have a few of those, but mostly last year was interesting for me because of knowledge I acquired that I think important in relation to my blogs here in general, knowledge I wish the Church at large would take to heart.

I mention one personal lesson I'm still learning in the next section, but the one at the top of my list is learning to curb my temper.  I may finally have learned it after blowing up at a friend in such a way that I may have irreparably damaged the relationship.  Time will tell.  Something provokes me, and I do get provoked in a strongly physical way, start shaking sometimes, it even feels like a physical need to yell, but that's the thing I need to learn not to do.  It can happen over an opinion or over my five-year-old grandson's rambunctious misbehavior.  I shouted so ferociously at him to stop doing something recently that I scared the wits out of the little guy and he burst into tears.  He also scrambled so fast to undo what I'd yelled at him to stop doing -- turning off a particular light (he wanted to make the room completely dark and wasn't taking No for an answer until then) -- that I was amazed.  That never happened before but it made me aware I really do have an effect.  I'm of two minds about that, I'm sorry I upset him so, yelling at the top of my lungs isn't the right way to discipline a child, but I'm really really glad he isn't the total deaf ear to adult disapproval I'd come to think he is.  He was so upset I had to give him a big hug and tell him I love him -- also thanked him for turning the light back on -- and we made up and that was nice, but I've known for a long time I need a much better way of responding to such provocations.

So that's Number One on the personal side of the year's lessons.  There were a number of similar incidents over the last year.  I think God finally got MY attention. 

But I'm just as impressed with general knowledge I picked up over the year, one major area being about the Catholic Church and the Jesuits, another about the American founding and documents.  Both of these I learned about from Chris Pinto's ministry.  He also contributed very useful information that fits into my Bible Hoax blog.

The other major event of the year was my promotion of Jonathan Cahn's book The Harbinger in over a hundred posts here, including attempts to defend it against some very unfair attacks by critics.   The book is THE confirmation of the fact that the nation is under God's judgment that so many Christians seem to be oblivious to.  I learned some new things about the state of the nation and about theology through that experience, and about divisions among Christians.   All things I'm continuing to learn about.

Then with the eruption of evil in the senseless murders of children at Sandy Hook and the immediate predictable irrational knee-jerk misdiagnosis of the problem as the possession of guns by anybody and everybody, along with aggressive efforts to do away with them, threats against the civil order that many Christians have been watching build up for many years got that much closer and more sinister.

There's a sketch, now for some detail.

Enter Chris Pinto

It's only been maybe a year and a half that I've even been aware of Chris Pinto, having first discovered him through his film Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers at You Tube, which started the process of disabusing me of any lingering ideas I had about the Christian foundations of America.  Pinto might not be happy to be promoted by the likes of me, who knows, but for me his work has been a Godsend.

I've actually had someone accuse me of taking *everything* Chris Pinto says about anything as gospel truth, someone in a discernment ministry as a matter of fact.  Of course such an accusation is pretty depressing.  I don't take anything ANYONE says as gospel truth.  But it certainly seems indisputable that for me he's been the single source of more mind-blowing knowledge of important things over the last year than anything or anyone else. 

I have to add here one of those personal lessons learned, that over the last year I've had the unsettling experience of getting to know some fairly well known people in various ministries and finding that it strongly affects how I write -- or at least I have to fight letting it affect how I write.  It's not easy to write something that strongly disagrees with someone whose ministry you appreciate, someone you've also come to know, however slightly, through email exchanges.  I wouldn't have guessed it could be so hard.  The only way I'm able to keep my mind free is not to have any contacts with anybody, sad to say.  That can't be the best solution, so this is a lesson I'm still learning.

Anyway, I've been following Chris Pinto's ministry more closely than just about any others because he happens to have his finger on the pulse of some information I consider to be of great importance to the Christian life that is still mostly new to me.  He has convinced me of these things BY HIS EVIDENCE -- not by who he is or anything he's said about anything else -- and it's information I'd like to disseminate to other believers as far as I'm able because I'm so coninced of its importance to the Church.  

Chris Pinto's Revelations about the American Founders

From Pinto I got EVIDENCE about the attitudes of SOME of America's founders, the Big Five I've come to call them -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine -- that make it painfully clear that they were not only not Christians but have to be called "antichrists" by the BIBLICAL definition, that is, by the fact that they denied that Christ is God who became a man, or "came in the flesh" as scripture puts it. 

Before I knew about Pinto I was aware that Jefferson denied all the supernatural elements of the Bible and that Adams was a Unitarian, but I hadn't really followed up on the implications of that knowledge, thinking that at least they promoted Christian principles and that Christian principles underlie the institutions they helped to form.  As my last post shows, I now know that to be false.  While a case can be made for Biblical law and morality in the formation of the nation, morality is not in itself a Christian principle.  I knew little about the other three founders except that I was aware of a strong push to characterize Washington as a Christian, which is now also debunked in my mind.  I had tried to rationalize away the evidence of the Treaty of Tripoli that denies that America is a Christian nation.  In all this I was probably mostly following the ministries such as Wallbuilders that make America out to be Christian in a blanket way that glosses over contrary evidence.

There are people who have heard the kind of evidence Pinto presents and still insist on the Christian character of these men, which I find very puzzling, since once you know that they are in print denying the Deity of Christ and ridiculing the virgin birth there isn't any rational way to continue in such a belief.  I have to think that some people just have a problem grasping the implications of the evidence.

It also always has to be said that although these particular founders were not Christian, the nation was originally settled by true Christians whose influence and institutions were clearly Christian, and the vast majority of even the founding generation and the population of the nation at large, were true Christians as well.  The sad thing is that our founding documents reflect the beliefs of the Rationalist minority rather than the Christian majority, and this was recognized by many early on only for some reason today's Christians have been denied that knowledge.

Pinto's Revelations About Romanism

I credit Pinto above all with making me aware of the continuing efforts of the Roman Church to undermine true Christianity -- efforts that are ongoing, present and active rather than long since past and over with, and especially his revelations about the Jesuits -- their historical attacks on governments, national leaders, attempts through education to promote Romanism and discredit Protestantism and disseminate ideas destructive of Protestant culture, and their ultimate aim of reinstituting the Inquisition.

Yes, I already thought of the Roman Church as an Antichrist system, as did the Protestant Reformers; I expected it to have a big role to play in the unfolding of the very last days.  Such developments as the ecumenical project of the 90s, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, distressed me greatly, partly because of some of the big name evangelicals who supported it I'd previously admired, and I applauded those such as John MacArthur who vigorously opposed it.  I also read up on the Marian apparitions which seem to have increased in the last century and are most certainly demonic in origin and have to have something to do with the coming together of the global religion we're all anticipating. 

I also knew the Jesuits were known for a distinctive brand of sophistic thinking and that they had been soundly trounced by Blaise Pascal, but I thought of that as an episode in the distant past.

But after hearing some of Chris Pinto's research all that suddenly appeared to me as the tiny tip of an enormous iceberg, the hidden part of which was startling in its implications of ONGOING efforts to destroy Protestantism, reverse the Reformation, even bring back the Inquisition, all now to my mind present realities and not merely past history or future possibilities, realities that are on the very verge of succeeding in their ultimate aims, realities that explain phenomena I'd been attributing to other causes -- such as the rapid deterioration of American morality over the last half century.  It's like you've been contemplating world events in a great gray shifting fog in which images appear and disappear and reappear, pondering scripture and wondering if the Antichrist is soon to be revealed, watching in particular the odd meteoric rise in popularity of Islam in the last decade since 9/11 and the ongoing disturbances in the Middle East surrounding Israel, when all of a sudden the fog clears and the Pope's visage takes shape before your eyes with startling clarity.  Wow, it's Romanism after all!  And bigger and more ferocious than you could ever have imagined.

It's deeply distressing to me to discover the looming extent of the influence of Romanism in this way, at a point when it's succeeded so well at making a comeback after one might have thought the Reformation had defanged it effectively forever and consigned the Inquisition to the dead medieval past, now to discover it's never given up its ambition to rule the world and do away with enemies and "heretics," yet being taken by so many Christians as just another Christian denomination.   We needed to know all this YEARS ago.  Now it seems it could be too late.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Historical Attempts to MAKE the Constitution Christian, proving that it is not and never was a Christian document

I hope Chris Pinto doesn't mind if I quote a whole article of his from his website (below), including the URL of course. 

He's many times on his radio show mentioned the attempt by some to introduce a Christian Preamble to the Constitution, and this article is where he documents various attempts of that sort made over the period from the Civil War to 1910 and then another attempt in 1947. 

Such efforts to introduce Christian principles into the Constitution ought to make it clear that the nation was NOT founded on such principles as so many have been claiming for some time.  The documents that form the law of the nation are NOT Christian.

There are quotes easily enough available from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine to demonstrate not only their NONChristian beliefs but frankly ANTIChristian beliefs as they outright deny the Deity of Jesus Christ and ridicule such basic Christian doctrines as the supernatural conception of Christ by a virgin.   For anyone to go on presenting any of these men as Christians after knowing this about their beliefs involves either great delusion or an attempt to deceive.

George Washington carefully kept his beliefs to himself, but it is known that he refused to take Communion at his church during his Presidency, and the pastor of that church specifically called him a "Deist."  As I've mentioned here before, it's not right to call him or the others Deists by today's understanding of the term, because they did believe in prayer and God's Providence, but all five of them appear to have denied the most basic Christian principles.  There is some reason to believe that Washington may have converted to Romanism on his death bed which would imply he accepted the deity of Christ at least at that time, but Romanism was not considered to be Christian then and shouldn't be now either.

There is a great deal of confusion over the fact that these men can sound very "Christian" at times in their statements that favor Christian morality and their references to "God," as in "Nature's God," but this is deceptive. 

It ought to be a red flag to anyone who understands even a little about Masonry that the Declaration of Independence was written on a Masonic lambskin apron.  How often are we given that bit of factual information?   It ought to give us a clue as to what "God" was invoked in that document under the phrase "Nature's God."

Christians don't balk at that phrase because it's not in any obvious way inconsistent with Biblical views of God, and you could find some Biblical support for it if you were determined to, but in the context of the making of the founding documents of America, in the context of the philosophical frame of mind of at least the main names involved in that enterprise, it is NOT a Biblical concept at all.  In fact it identifies God as part of Nature rather than as the transcendant Creator God of the Bible.  Pinto says the phrase was specifically chosen to CONTRADICT the Biblical understanding of God, though I don't have access right now to his source for that.  In any case it's not hard to find that the phrase "Nature's God" was associated with DEISM and not with Christianity.  Wikipedia's entry on that phrase says flatly that it's Deist, and here's a quote from another article on the subject:
"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]
Get the phrase "a civil religion" for which the Declaration of Independence is said to lay the foundation, NOT Christianity.  It's always sounded good even to Christians that "all religious beliefs were respected" in America, but when the fog of delusion that surrounds this concept clears for a moment, can't we see that this is nothing else than supporting the idolatrous religions of the world as if they are equal to the true religion, and violating the commandment to "have no other gods before Me?"  It's right to tolerate other beliefs, but our great error is that we've put them on an equal footing with Christianity and given them powers they should never have been allowed to have if the nation really was in any sense Christian.  What have we been thinking?  Why hasn't this FACT been screamed from pulpits so that it couldn't have been missed, instead of treated as righteous?  And "moral conduct" is what ALL religions promote, why is that made the foundation of anything American and worse than that, why is it mistaken for something CHRISTIAN?  Even if it's based on the Bible it is NOT Christianity.  Yet what have Christians done with all this?  We thank God for our freedom to worship in this nation as if that's all that matters, not taking note of the fact that every idolatrous, satanic and evil religion is likewise given freedom which is an affront to God and can only promote the release of demonic powers against Christians in the end, which is already curtailing OUR freedoms and may soon bring them to a halt.  What HAVE we been thinking?

Another clue to the NONChristian nature of our founding documents is that whether or not to include references to God in the Constitution was debated in Congress and decided AGAINST. 

There is also the controversial Treaty of Tripoli which flatly states that America is not a Christian nation.  This is controversial but I believe Pinto has shown that it was clearly intentional and reflected the anti-Christian beliefs of Washington and Adams who had most to do with it.

And here's Pinto's article on later attempts to MAKE the Constitution Christian, which by itself ought to demonstrate that it was NOT Christian at its inception:

Friday, April 1, 2011 at 11:30AM Chris Pinto

Once one gets away from the popular propaganda about the United States being founded as a “Christian nation,” and looks to the real history, the pieces of the puzzle make much more sense.

In truth, Christians have been lifting up a shout against our “God-less” and “Christ-less” governing documents since they were first written. In 1845 a pastor by the name of Rev. D.X. Junkin published the following against the oath taken by an American President sworn into office:
The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mohammedan as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions.” (Source: Proceedings of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association, p.iii)
The above quote is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Revolutionaries, who began their declaration with “We the People” as if to suggest that they represented the interests of the greater body of Americans. In reality, as we see so often today, they did not represent “the People,” but rather their own minority opinion. We must note that this did not begin with Carter, Clinton, Obama and Pelosi – it began with Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

In the 19th century, T.P. Stevenson, the Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution wrote:
“That there is no acknowledgement of God or of the Christian religion in the Constitution of the United States, has been deplored by many devout and thoughtful men ever since that otherwise admirable political instrument was framed.” (Ibid, p.iii)
During the Civil War Era, the National Reform Association launched an effort to re-write the Preamble to the Constitution because it was believed that the war was God’s punishment on the country for leaving God out of the Constitution. In 1863, we read the following which had been drafted by Mr. John Alexander of Philadelphia:

“In this, the day of our national calamity, it becomes us to inquire what the Lord would have us to do ... In the earlier struggles of the people for national independence, the frequent acknowledgement of God and his authority ... gave evidence of a religious public sentiment in the nation ....But alas for human frailty and ingratitude! Instead of going on to promote more and more the glory of God and the rights of man, a terrible, and ... fatal backward step was taken in adopting that otherwise noble instrument (i.e. the Constitution) without any direct recognition of God or his authority and with a toleration of human slavery ... From that day the nation has been demoralized by the promulgation of an instrument as the paramount law of the land, which is far beneath the Christian sentiment of the nation .... And now God has arisen in His anger and is vindicating His own glory and the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Therefore His just judgments are upon us as a nation, and we must repent and forsake our national sins, or be destroyed.”(Ibid, p.iv)
It is quite interesting that the Christians of America recognized the wickedness of the slave trade in this country. Kidnapping men, women and children from their own countries and then selling them into demoralizing circumstances stood contrary to the commandments of God, and the mercy of Jesus Christ. It was for the cause of slavery that the children of Israel themselves became slaves in ancient Babylon. Because they refused to let their slaves free, God punished them severely (Jeremiah 34:14-17). It seems that believers in America at that time had an understanding of this. Alexander went on to say:

“We regard the Emancipation Proclamation of the President and his recommendation to purge the Constitution of Slavery as among the most hopeful signs of the times. But we regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting all acknowledgement of them in our Constitution, as the crowning, original sin of the nation, and slavery as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore the most important step remains yet to be taken, -- to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of His law ...” (Ibid, pp. iv, v)
Alexander went on to say,
“True, it may be said that under our present excellent Constitution we have enjoyed great prosperity ... But do we not know that God is long- suffering and slow to wrath ... Does not every one see that God is displeased with us as a nation, and has been provoked to bring upon us this terrible calamity?”
All this having been said, the following amended Preamble for the Constitution was set forth by Alexander and his committee:

“We, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all] in order to form a more perfect union ... do ordain this Constitution ...” (Ibid, p.v)
As we know, the attempt at implementing this Preamble in 1863 proved unsuccessful, but was far from the end of the issue. In the book, “Separation of Church and State” by authors Johnson and Yost, we read the following:

“From time to time efforts have been made to put what has been termed ‘God into our Federal Constitution.’ An Amendment was proposed to that effect in 1844. Again in 1865 President Lincoln had a delegation of ministers representing a number of different denominations call upon him in a similar effort. The National Reform Association has been instrumental in spearheading such attempts on various occasions. In an effort to recognize the Christian religion and Jesus Christ as its author, religious amendments were introduced in Congress in 1894, 1895, 1896, 1908, 1909, and in 1910."
It appears that no attempts have been made since then until July 15, 1947, when in the House of Representatives, Representative Louis E. Graham of Pennsylvania proposed that the United States acknowledge Jesus Christ as Saviour and King by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On July 18 of the same year, Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas proposed a similar amendment. These two resolutions, House Joint Resolution 239 and Senate Joint Resolution 150, introduced in the Eightieth Congress, are identical and read as follows:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America ... The Preamble of this Constitution shall hereafter Read: ‘We, the People of the United States, DEVOUTLY RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY AND LAW OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR AND KING OF NATIONS, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ...” etc. (Source: Separation of Church and State in the United States, by Alvin W. Johnson, Frank H. Yost)
The importance of showing this information to a modern Christian audience is to demonstrate that the United States, its Constitution, and original government was not a “Christian” entity as is often portrayed by certain teachers in our churches. The history as presented by these men can only be called “propaganda” designed for some other purpose, than giving an accurate portrait of America’s past. It is provable beyond any doubt that Bible believers in this country have objected to the pagan, deist, infidel Revolutionaries and their God-less government from the beginning.

Recognizing that false histories have been used to foment some of the most horrid and bloodthirsty movements in recent memory (Nazism, Communism, etc.), as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, we must be on the alert, and do our diligence to keep watch, and be certain to “prove all things” as the Lord has commanded us to do. For if we allow ourselves to be deceived, as the serpent beguiled Eve with his craftiness, will we not be without excuse before God? Have we not been warned? If we shut out the voices of the past, and those sober witnesses who have cried out, will we not be all the more guilty in the sight of heaven? Tyrants, wolves, and wicked men of every stripe have endeavored to manipulate the Church of Christ for their own evil purposes. Our responsibility is to maintain holiness and to walk in the fear of God, and resist these deceivers, lest we allow the churches in our nation to be used for a worldly and diabolical end.    [end Pinto quote.  My boldings]

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

My Fantasy of a Divided America

Chris Pinto's radio show today, The Next Civil War, discusses something many of us have had in the back of our minds for some time, the possibility that this nation really could divide over the political and economic issues that have split us into stark red versus blue on the map.  Meaning actual civil war.  He says it's something he has heard about over the last few years, just as many of us have, and he just met someone who surprised him with his serious talk about the possibility. 

I've often wished we could divide the nation, which isn't a wish for war but for a peaceful division, the atheists and liberals going one way and the Christians the other.   Not a war, just a peaceable agreement to disagree and live separately and govern ourselves separately.  Pinto mentioned Texas' move to try to secede from the union.  Could it happen that way?  I must say I wish it could.   We could have a massive exchange of properties between individuals until the sections are clearly one or the other.   How about the blues take the east half of the nation and the reds the west half. 

Except I don't want a merely conservative nation.  I'm also sick of "conservatives."  After all the debate and wrangling and political idiocy of the last few decades and the deterioration of the country in the direction of the destruction of everything Christian, I want to live in an unabashedly CHRISTIAN state.  You can't force people to be Christian of course, but you can put Christian laws in place that determine the Christian character of the nation, which is what we SHOULD have had with the Constitution in the first place, and might have had if the big name founders hadn't been antichrists.  Perhaps there shouldn't be a state Church but the state HAS to be Christian, and I mean PROTESTANT Christian.  I'm not even in a mood to allow Catholics into it, but I know there are honest sincere Catholics who would fit in, but I want laws keeping them from having any kind of power in the state, similar to what the original colonies had.  That would be tricky.  Even one Catholic church in the nation would be an abomination it seems to me.  Jesuits will be excluded absolutely. 

Universities will be founded -- or existing ones reinvented -- along the lines of the original Harvard and Yale and others, with a straightforward program of teaching the Christian religion, BIBLICAL Christianity, the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST not some generic liberal form of "Christianity."  So will all the other schools in our Christian nation, as also existed in early America.  GOD's LAW WOULD BE THE LAW OF THE LAND. 

We need cadres of committed Biblical Christians STUDYING HISTORY to bring such a vision about.

I can predict right off that the Christian nation will prosper from hard work, capitalist economics, fiscal responsibility, generally rational and humane policies, and most particularly the righteousness that exalteth a nation, but I wonder what would happen to the secular liberal nation next door.  We might have to arm our borders against them.  Or maybe they'll get smart and take some cues from us.  And of course we'd send missionaries to them.

The problem is I don't like our "Protestant" leaders much either.  Too much worldliness and compromise.  Things do get sticky when you think about the actual realities we'd have to deal with.  Well, we'll pray.  God will send us the leaders we need.

The possibility of any of this coming about is, I must admit, shall we say, remote.  The signs are that we are in the very last days of the planet and things are just going to continue to deteriorate until the Lord returns.  But it's pleasant to wish.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Are we ready?

It's been in the works for some time of course, this attack on the Second Amendment.  They may not have engineered the shooting itself although I wouldn't put it past them to find a way to pull it off.  They can probably count on somebody hearing from Satan and doing that without much effort on their own part.  Maybe.  Although the timing was interesting. 

And they've got lots and lots of people thinking this is a great idea to take guns away from the good guys because a drug-crazed person used a gun, of all the idiotic illogical things but that's the way these people think these days.  Feverishly up in arms even, if you'll pardon the pun, indignant as all hell itself against our right to keep and bear arms.  Poor deluded people.  And you can't say anything to them at all that they'll hear.

Nothing moves them, they can rationalize it all away.  It doesn't matter to them that crime goes up when guns are taken away, because rampant crime against law-abiding citizens is somehow supposed to be tolerable by comparison with the rare gun rampage enacted by the NON law-abiding.  We're supposed to be nice to criminals who break into our houses, not good to defend ourselves against the poor things.  Crime is called innocent, and the victim is called criminal.  Sign of the times. 

Point out what happened in World War II when guns were confiscated and Hitler was able to move in freely wherever he wanted, and they'll find some reason why Hitler didn't really care that there were guns pointing at his soldiers from every household which supposedly blows your concern to smithereens.  Point out that Americans sent guns to the Brits because they were unarmed against a possible Nazi invasion and that too gets ridiculed.  Some idea that guns can't really ward off a whole army, what a stupid idea they have about how it would all go down.  Soldiers going door to door would be seriously inconvenienced by heads of household with guns.  So without guns we can now be sure they WILL go door to door because they know they can do it.  Out at the point of a bayonet, into the back of the truck, whatever.  Or just shot dead on the spot.  Or beheaded.

I guess they have some crazy idea another Hitler isn't going to rise up in this best of all possible worlds or something like that.  It's just us Christians who are expecting that, and just around the corner too.  Soon as they take our guns.  Oh and after we've finally fallen off this fiscal cliff which has to happen eventually, so we're gunless and starving both, easy targets.  Or maybe they'll get a nice hot war going in the Middle East to destroy Israel first.  Or all three at once.  Yeah, all three.  Wonder if the deluded ones will have second thoughts then or they won't care because it will be mostly the Christians and the Jews who are targeted.  At first anyway.

The Second Amendment, indeed the Constitution itself, is "antiquated" to these twisted minds.  Let's do away with it altogether, just as we've done away with God, just as we've done away with God's laws, just as we now commit murder of the unborn and call it a right and have bestowed righteous status on just about everything else God calls unrighteous. 

This time it's the whole world under God's judgment at once though, not just America.  Certainly America is under judgment, we've been seeing that for some time now.  God even gave us Jonathan Cahn's book to make it certain in case we missed it, as unfortunately many Christians did when the WTC was attacked.  And are still missing it.  There are Christians who actually think that Cahn got it wrong about the harbingers being from God, and I particularly think of their waving away the public speeches by Daschle and Edwards and other government leaders that quoted Isaiah 9:10 as not really statements of defiance of God at all, so spiritually obtuse are some of our Christians these days.  Judgment begins at the house of God. 

So although Cahn's book goes on selling pretty well it isn't going to be the call to repentance it might have been.  We seem to be well past that possibility.  Seems now that it's just going to stand as a testimony against us, God's way of saying He did all He could to tell us what's coming and we ignored it and now it's on our head.   That's what He did through His prophets to Israel time and time again.  He's been merciful and longsuffering enough even to do it for us now and we're not hearing.  We're going down.  The sins of America are well ripe for the harvest.  Some pastors have begun prepping their congregations for possible martyrdom, which is what they should be doing. 

But the biggest catastrophe is probably going to be Europe again.  Keep your eyes on the European Union.  Something evil this way comes.

It's all in place for the finale.  All it needs is a trigger.  And then it will probably happen very fast.  When?  Tomorrow?  In a few months?  A few years?  Soon. 

I have unsaved family.  That probably bothers me more than anything else.  I don't mind dying.   Well, I must admit I'm afraid of pain, and I'm IN quite a bit of pain with arthritis these days so I know what I'm afraid of there, so I'd rather be killed quickly of course.   But it's God's call and He will sustain me through whatever He decrees.  Will he save any of them?  Am I not praying enough for them? 

"Those who know their God will do exploits" the angel told Daniel.  It would be nice to do some exploits on behalf of the Lord when all this comes down.  May God give us the necessary provision of faith for the task.

I will certainly not miss this world in which evil and good are changing places more and more every day and the vast majority of people are happy with it. 

Monday, January 7, 2013

The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in the School Shootings

Turns out Chris Pinto was just on vacation over the holidays and I CAN still hear his radio shows, thank You Lord.  Wish he had put up some kind of announcement but anyway he's back.  And as usual giving me information I wouldn't otherwise be aware of and as usual getting me upset about the condition of the world and the church and especially our dangerous ignorance of who our enemies really are along with a feeling of helplessness about it all.  Of course I know God is in charge, and helplessness throws me back on Him, which is what is always needed anyway.

Today's show Pharmakeia - The Missing Link in the Gun Control Debate"? is focused on the Sandy Hook school murders and related incidents that have created the usual furor against guns and the usual government plans to do away with the Second Amendment, which of course is not the culprit.  But Satan's agents want us deprived of this Constitutionally provided means of self-defense so that's where the emphasis goes. 

Pinto's show yesterday, Jesuits, Gun Control & The War on the Constitution got into the influence of the Jesuits on the push for Gun Control, and not only that but the war on the Constitution in general, and I may say more about that eventually.

As you ponder the connection between drugs and these murders the Biblical Greek term Pharmakeia comes to mind.  That word or another version of it is translated "witchcraft" in at least one place in the KJV and as "sorceries" in other places.  (Galatians 5:21, Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15). 

PHARMAKEIA as witchcraft means getting possessed by demons through the use of mind-altering drugs.  Some people on these drugs, or just coming off them, report hearing voices telling them to commit murder. 

Christians are generally taught the meaning of this Greek term but for some reason the actual influence of drugs in our modern world isn't clearly laid out for us by our pastors, so now we find out about it after twenty years of murders that are most likely "pharmakeia" in the Biblical sense of Satanic influence. 

Not all people are affected by these drugs this way of course but even the drug companies have had to label some of the psychiatric drugs with POSSIBLE influences in some pretty scary directions, including "homicidal ideation." 

The world of course denies the reality of Satan so it's only going to be Christians who will even take note of this connection, but since the media hasn't been keeping us informed about this connection we haven't known about it either.  We may hear that such and such a murderer heard voices which we will attribute to demonic instigation but without any knowledge of the connection with drugs they were taking.  Maybe the saddest story is that of Andrea Yates who heard such voices telling her to murder her children, and she strongly felt this was Satan talking to her, but we weren't told about any connection with psychiatric drugs she was on and of course nonChristian authorities have no clue that there could be a connection and probably just dismiss her statements about Satan as imaginary anyway, just the form her psychiatric illness happened to take.  A hallucination.  But Satan and his hordes are real and they can possess people and speak into their minds.

The class of drugs known as hallucinogens have traditionally been used by shamans for the express purpose of contacting spirits and getting possessed by them, in order to have the powers they impart or grant to the possessed one, and that includes the illegal hallucinogens which people are trying to get legalized, thanks a lot, even marijuana.  The more demons among us the better, right?  People who take those drugs are implicitly asking to be demon-possessed whether they know it or not, but now it appears that you can be INADVERTENTLY demon-possessed by taking prescribed psychiatric drugs. 

Some of the drugs implicated are PAXIL, PROZAC, ZOLOFT, EFFEXOR, RITALIN, LITHIUM, many of the well known antidepressants, even the pain killer VICODIN in the case of James Holmes, the shooter at the theater in Aurora, Colorado. 

What makes the difference in who gets affected in this way and who doesn't?  Various kinds of vulnerability are involved, but that includes those who are addicted to violent and demonic movies, video games etc. 

Some of the references Chris Pinto points to are, first from World Net Daily, David Kupelian on The Giant Gaping Hole in Sandy Hook Reporting is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications:
  • Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves.Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
  • Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
  • Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
  • In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
  • In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
  • In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
  • In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
  • Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
  • John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
  • Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug.Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.
  • One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them.”I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.”Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others.The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others. Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.
    .
Some other references Pinto pointed to:
60 School Shootings Linked to Psychiatric Drugs Over the Last 20 Years

CCHR Says Federal Investigation Into Psychiatric Drugs and Violence Long Overdue

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health watchdog, is calling for a federal investigation into the link between psychiatric drug use, school shootings and other acts of senseless violence, calling the investigation long overdue, and citing the supporting evidence.
On Dec. 17th, the Los Angeles Times article, “Adam Lanza’s family had kept a watchful eye on him,” cited sources who say Lanza had been ‘medicated’ as early as age 10. WFSB Eyewitness News, a Connecticut CBS affiliate, reported on Dec. 19th in the article, “Adam Lanza underwent psych evaluations in years past,” that Adam Lanza “had some disorders” and Eyewitness News learned that Lanza “did undergo some sort of psychiatric evaluation sometime within the past few years.”
The questions that need to be answered are what “medications” was Adam Lanza prescribed, when was he prescribed them, and for how long.
The importance of answering these questions, as well as the need to launch a federal investigation into psychiatric drugs prompting acts of violence, are based on the following:
·    CCHR’s website documents that at least fourteen school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed. This list comprises only those cases where information about the shooter’s psychiatric drug use has been disclosed, which is often not the case. For example, according to CNN’s article on July 12, 2012, “Who is Dr. Lynne Fenton?”James Holmes, the suspected perpetrator of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, was confirmed to have been under the care of psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, yet no mention has been made of what psychiatric drugs he may have been prescribed.
·    More than 11,000 adverse reaction reports are on file with the US FDA between 2004 to 2011. These reports include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.
·    CCHR’s site also documents that 22 international drug regulatory warnings have been issued on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation. Dozens of high profile shootings/killings have been committed by teenagers under the influence of psychiatric drugs, and there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.
More than a decade ago, a few insightful lawmakers in New York were concerned enough about the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence, that they introduced groundbreaking legislation: New York Senate Bill 1784, introduced in 2001 by then Senator Owen H. Johnson, would have required law enforcement agencies in New York to collect data on certain violent crimes and what, if any, psychiatric drugs the offender may have been on during the commission of the crime.
Google listings for School Shootings and Psychiatric Drugs

Here's a  website devoted to this topic.