Are Both Ron Paul and Alex Jones Political and Protestant Hypocrites?

After reading Paul's flip-flop on 9/11 and PhD Arthur Maricle's article
on true Protestantism and Papal Power, The answer appears to be yes.

By Greg Szymanski
Jan. 11, 2008

Ron Paul seems to have turned his back and spit in the face of 9/11
truth seekers, but it doesn't appear to matter as most of them continue
to hang on to his wretched Vatican-led New World Order coat tails.

Paul, known to speak out of both sides of his crooked mouth, originally
in the alternative media backed 9/11 truthers who claim the take down of
the Twin Towers was an inside government job.

However, once Paul speaks to the mainstream media, like on the CNN Glen
Beck show and on the campaign trail Thursday evening in South Carolina,
he quickly speaks out of the other side of his deceptive mouth, knowing
his Jesuit and Vatican masters are listening, saying 9/11 was of course
the work of Muslim fundamentalists.

"Did you watch the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina last
night? Ron Paul publicly repudiated the 9-11 truth community and all
their "conspiracy theories," said Tom Friess on his amateur ham radio
show.

"I'll be listening to Jesuit Coadjutor Alex Jones' show today to see if
he even mentions it. If Alex Jones had one ounce of credibility, he
would spend the entire show condemning Ron Paul. But Alex Jones has no
credibility, and neither does Ron Paul."

Putting in his political two cents and saying all Presidential
candidates are in the pocket of the Vatican-led NWO and nothing more
than traitors and sell-outs to the American people, Tom Richards of
Spirtually Smart.com had this to say about Paul:

"It doesn't matter who's running. There aren't fair elections anymore.
Alex Jones knows this.

"Also, Ron Paul has been in with Ronald Reagan for years and years. Paul
led the delegation out of Texas to get him elected president. Reagan
re-established official diplomatic ties with the Vatican for the first
time in over 100 years.

"Since the assassination of Lincoln which it was a fact that the Vatican
was behind that, was the major reason why we broke off ties with the
Vatican then. Reagan was also instrumental as a Vatican smokescreen who
was constantly promoting the Vatican's cold war hoax. Check this out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVyT1e9FWZE

"They are able to play this in mainstream movies because their
smokescreen has been successful. It doesn't matter anymore.

"People say that Paul is in the position he is in right now to see what
the strength of the patriot movement really is. I say it was done to see
how hoodwinked the country is even after its been exposed that there has
been fraud in the election process.

"Ron Paul has been a speaker and supporter of the JBS (John Birch
Society). They may seem good on the surface but they, like Reagan, and
Pat Buchanan's father and Bishop Fulton Sheen (the one Martin Sheen took
his stage name after) were all part of this huge Vatican smokescreen to
get your eyes off of the true enemy (The Vatican) and onto communism.

"Also, the ex director of the JBS is this JOHN G. SCHMITZ. his son is a
Knight of Malta and high up executive of Blackwater.

"Now Paul is always speaking at JBS events and even appeared on an old
propaganda piece for the JBS which is on youtube and after Paul speaks a
Catholic priest speaks.

"This country is screwed because of the Vatican. They were the power and
organizing behind WWII, WWI, The Civil War, the Viet Nam War, the
Revolutionary War. Because we got tired of King George over there
charging us taxes without allowing being represented for our needs in
England. King George was a Papal puppet who was at war with France
because France had just expelled the Jesuits out of their country."

Furthermore, Paul has praised his real masters in the Vatican on
numerous occassions, hoping America will never catch on to Papal Rome's
authority and connection to his hidden NWO agenda.

But it's impossible to fool all the people all the time and it's obvious
Paul is working for Vatican Illuminati interests because he never will
respond to his critics, including numerous attempts by the Arctic Beacon
to get an interview.

For example, Paul as well as Alex Jones claim to Christians and
Protestants but refuse to talk seriously about the true beliefs of
Protestant Reformers and how they clash with Vatican interests.

Please read this article and then question Jones and Paul about it as it
easy to see they are not only political hypocrites but Protestant
hypocrites as well:

THE INQUISITION:
A Study in Absolute Catholic Power
Arthur Maricle, Ph.D.

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the
blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great
admiration." {Revelation 17:6}

Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad
groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final
authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final
authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as
"Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best
represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and
most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always
boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also
accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict
exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter
of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being
higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has
been constantly evolving over the centuries.

This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between
Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent
spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react
adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal,
changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a
trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the
Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the
Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic
people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious
system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His
Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join
local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of
individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a
flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As
with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and
propagation.

The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers
is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture,
the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's
ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the
intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies
could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians
10:4 ("For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..."), Catholicism
built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal
(fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.

Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a
theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the
Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to
the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of
bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas
forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the
political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she
achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her
secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus,
down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which
Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not
hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews,
Moslems, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special
fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective
challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate
changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient
to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we
see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by
Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree
of control.

To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to
repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of
Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of
history.

When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor
Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately
achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government.
As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of
Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable
potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in
varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.

By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the
Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very
antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began
utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as
their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the
crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were
raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept
was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other
words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole
communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible
believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

[Pope] Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse
than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the
unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to
exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis
VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist
him.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach
all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an
army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take
part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the
same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Moslems (i.e.,
forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning
messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers
a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed
populaces.

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and
murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The
whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were
being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on
killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears,
noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A

This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic
atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing
Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming
during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.

It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term
"heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University
Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial
opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of
the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a
Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another
summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was
required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance
to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by
death."C

From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the
Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole
policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly
consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon
the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of
completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ...
contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to
our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the
ancient Church.D

Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy
in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the
founder of the Dominican order of monks.

The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was
founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in
Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread
out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th
century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in
Spain until 1820.E

The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in
areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not
only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's
Catholic powers.

The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually
early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish
and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used,
which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or
the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and
aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever
since.

Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that
"conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial
governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket
ball or of baptism."

Everywhere it existed, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition spread its
tentacles of fear.

When an inquisitor arrived in an area he called for reports of anyone
suspected of heresy, sometimes offering rewards to spies who would
report suspected heretics. Those suspected were imprisoned to await
trials. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as
judge, prosecutor, and jury. The accused had no lawyer. It was often
simpler to confess to heresy than to defend oneself, especially since
torture was often employed until the accused was ready to confess.

Because church and state had not been kept separate, the church powers
could call upon the government to use its power against the convicted
heretics. Anyone who fell back into heresy after repentance was turned
over by the Inquisition to the regular government to be put to death.
Most of those condemned to death were burned at the stake, but some were
beaten to death or drowned.

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because
the church considered its work so praiseworthy.F

Even after the death of a victim, his punishment was not ended. The
property of condemned heretics was confiscated, leaving his family in
poverty.

It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the
Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it
was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to
excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the
leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of
the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes,
but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians
claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope]
Innocent III expressly states it."G

In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was
pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit
genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear
of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their
kingdoms.

Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests
to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods,
imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence
on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"H

Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which
"ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of
religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without
examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider
Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture
as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override
canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men
to torture.I

The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the
bizarre.

When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued
requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge.
Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the
inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings
under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested
was ever acquitted.

Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt
duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any
deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the
torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant
lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred
innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the
Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition
exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who
had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.J

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic
theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and
other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much
more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815,
Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The
Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is
the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution;
you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has
power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed
as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to
Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who
would challenge the Vatican's authority.

Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian
nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the
Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of
this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of
Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and
commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the
kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by
immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L
Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy
in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in
the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure.
Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a
Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and
persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of
mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."M

Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the
Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly
affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can
be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the
count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of
human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts
instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does
it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led
by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their
modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans
instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the
first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and
Eichmann."N

Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again
rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again
wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy
Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today
as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in
which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic
weekly declared:

Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are
more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the
state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the
same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and
death over the archtraitor.O

The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession
of absolute power. Is it any wonder that in the 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan
Guinness preached the following:

I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the
smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that
Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl,
that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear
their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them
worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions,
bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried
slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the
infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear
the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the
victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the
interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that
inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St.
Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that
endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it
all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the
world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has
defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the
name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered,
the millions it has damned; with holy confessors, with noble reformers,
with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the
masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist."P


The challenge I give to Bible believing Christians is to respect the
heritage we have been given by those who suffered for Biblical truth,
that we may be prepared to suffer ourselves. Ours is the generation that
may yet again be afflicted for the faith once delivered to the saints.
If such is to be our privilege, let us face our trials with this promise
of our Lord fresh upon our hearts: "Blessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven." {Matthew 5:10}

The challenge I give to Roman Catholics is to take up the New Testament
of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to speak to your hearts.
If a Catholic remains skeptical about this brief treatise on the
Inquisition, he is certainly welcome to examine for himself the record
of history. If he remains unmoved by my conclusions, he is welcome to
draw his own. But of far greater import is his need to examine the
teachings of his church in the light of God's Word. Jesus leaves you
with this warning: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the last day." {John 12:48} You to whom the Bible was so
accessible will not be able to plead ignorance in that terrible day of
judgment.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Close Window
Footnotes:

A Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; The History of the New Testament Church
(Bible Believers Bookstore; Pensacola, Florida; 1989)
B Ibid.
C Dave Hunt; A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest House Publishers; Eugene,
Oregon; 1994)
D J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; The Pope and the Council (London, 1869); as
cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
E Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; op cit.
F Laura l-licks, editor; The Modern Age: The History of the World in
Christian Perspective, Vol. 11 (A Beka Books Publications; Pensacola,
Florida; 1981)
G J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; op cit.
H Ibid.
I Dave Hunt; op cit.; quotations from Will Durant; The Story of
Civilization, Vol. V (Simon and Schuster, 1950); and ibid., Vol. 4
J Dave Hunt; op cit.
K Comte Le Maistre, letters on the Spanish Inquisition, as cited in R.W.
Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in
Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
L Jean Antoine Llorentine, History of the Inquistion; as cited in R.W.
Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in
Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
M Will Durant; The Story of Civilization, Vol. IV (Simon and Schuster,
1950); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
N Ward Rutherford; Genocide: The Jews in Europe 1939-45 (Ballantyne
Books, Inc.; New York, New York; 1973)
O The Tablet, November 5, 1938; as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the
Beast
P H. Grattan Guinness, D.D., Romanism and the Reformation; Focus
Christian Ministries; Lewes, Sussex; as cited in Michael de Semlyen, All
Roads Lead to Rome?

Editor's Note:

On January 10th 2008 on the Fox debate in SC the second question asked to Ron Paul was the following as transcribed here, and on video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzML_39hQsI

"Many of your supporters call themselves 911 truthers. They believe that the US government was in some way complicit with the 911 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it? Or divorce themselves from your candidacy?"
"I can't tell people what to do, but I've abandoned those viewpoints. I don't believe that, and that's the only thing that is important. And so I don't endorse anything they say," he said without officially asking his backers to cease that type of rhetoric.
"Sir would you ask them to cease that rhetoric on your behalf?"
"Well, it doesn't do me any good, so if they care about me, they should. But the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say," Paul said.

How can 9/11 truthers still support him?
 

ggggg