VFTB 064: Joe Ortiz — The Flag and the Cross

Joe Ortiz

ANOTHER EXAMINATION of the priorities of American Christians. When it comes to God and Country, how many of us actually live as though country comes before our lives as followers of Jesus Christ?

Joe Ortiz, author of The End Times Passover and Why Christians Will Suffer Great Tribulation, has a unique perspective on the convergence of Christ and politics: he was a political activist in California in the ’60s and ’70s, an evangelist after he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, and a 35-year veteran as a radio and television reporter, newspaper columnist, and talk show host.  We discuss the conservative reaction to President Obama, immigration reform, patriotism, and the ecumenical call for revival by Glenn Beck.

Sharon and Derek will speak at the Supernatural Science and Prophecy Conference in Canton, Ohio October 1 and 2. Other featured speakers include Tom Horn of Raiders News Network, Russ Dizdar of Shatter The Darkness Ministries, and Jeff Radt of Look Up Fellowship. Details at www.ControlledMinds.com.

The Revelations Radio Network has a new website! Take a look and check out a great group of like-minded Christian podcasters.

Click the arrow on the player below to listen now, or right-click (control-click if you have a Mac) the “download” link to save the mp3 file to your hard drive.


No Comments

  1. What a very enriching interview. I enjoyed every minute of it. I have to admit I was afraid it was going to be bible quoting. But I was wrong it was much deeper. True life experiences of the Chicano movement. Thank you for sharing a real human experience. It really touches the heart. Thank you Joe Ortiz and Thank you Derek Gilbert. I enjoyed Derek’s questions as well. Deborah Yanez, On Facebook

  2. He actually said that immigrants pay Social Security, so they are not a drain on our economy. Never mind that they don’t pay any other taxes. He didn’t point out that Social Security is bankrupt.

    He blindly asserts that illegal Mexicans do not send a significant amount of dollars back to Mexico. There are major studies which show this to be false. Then he says that illegal Mexicans circulate money, so they are helping the economy! This is classic socialist economics, and it has always failed. We need to CREATE WEALTH, not CIRCULATE it. Circulating it accomplishes nothing. Then he says that having illegal Mexican children in our schools is good (!) because those schools get more federal and state money. So, by increasing our tax burden and making our schools bigger, by breaking the law, our nation, economy, and schools are BETTER.

    You could not make up something this wrong. Joe Ortiz has no concept at all of where money and wealth come from. He thinks the government magically produces them and hands them out to all of us like Santa Claus.

    He said that God tells us to be nice to aliens! FIRST OFF, this is an instruction for Israelites who have just conquered the land God promised to Abraham. Does Joe refuse to wear clothes of mixed fiber? Does he eat shellfish? Does he sacrifice animals? No? Then why is he quoting the Torah to me? SECONDLY, it is a conditional instruction. Be kind to aliens IF – IF they adopt Jewish culture, religion and OBEY JEWISH LAWS. How can a Mexican who is illegally in America, be obeying American laws?

    Then he says that borders are useless, because people are poor. This statement is so stupid and nonsensical, it’s hard to respond. Borders are useless IF we negelect them. That is exactly what Joe Ortiz is telling us to do. Our Constitution, our laws, our families, our lives are also useless if we neglect them. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we just all lived in one, big, borderless, open country? A one-world-government? Joe Ortiz says this is what God commands us to do.

    He blatantly states that the movement back toward moral restraint and spiritual life (“American culture”) is based on racism. I just don’t have the stomach for any more of this.

    The worst episode of VFTB yet, full of anti-logic and with almost no spiritual content at all. Not one question about Joe’s two books which claim there is no rapture. Not even mentioned. I am throwing out his unread ebooks and avoiding any future appearances he makes here.

    1. Author

      Except for sales taxes at the gas station or grocery store. And they’re not alone in avoiding income tax–about 47% of American households pay no federal income tax.

      Social Security is bankrupt, no doubt. But is that the fault of illegals?

      In response to a research inquiry for a book I am writing on the economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.

      That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund’s total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.

      Now, the role of the church in circumventing immigration law is something else again. Churches that break the law are following a different gospel, conveniently ignoring Romans 13:1-2. But the fact remains that we’ve got 12-20 million people already here, and advocating a policy of deportation isn’t any more practical or Christian than suggesting that we solve the problems in the Middle East by turning it into a sheet of radioactive glass.

      Debating this issue without recognizing that powerful and wealthy forces are encouraging this left/right, La Raza/Minuteman fight misses the real problem. And if you find fault with Joe’s assessment of the situation, then I’m curious to know your opinion of prominent and very conservative evangelicals like Richard Land, Lou Engle, Ken Blackwell, and Mat Staver, who are openly calling for amnesty and immigration reform. Are they, too, hoping for one big, happy, Kum Ba Yah world?

      Well, yes, in a way they are. Sorry you’re disappointed about the content of this show, but the issue of how we American Christians prioritize our patriotism is crucial. Our pride in being American is being used to lure us into a “Kingdom Now” heresy that will be the foundation of the one-world government.

  3. I must say after listening to to this show I had to rethink my position on illegals and immigration! The enemy will make us argue and fight amongst ourselves so that we cannot be of one accord ..also if we feel that illegals are our enemies (I don’t)Jesus tells us to pray for them and share the gospel I guess what I am trying to convey is that we need to be reading the Bible and be in prayer on these matters because our flesh and emotions will lie to us that is after all what the enemy uses our emotions.

  4. “Our pride in being American is being used to lure us into a “Kingdom Now” heresy that will be the foundation of the one-world government.”

    This is not true. The dominionists are way behind the curve.

    Sometimes I wish Phillip and I never broached this topic, because people are now using our research over dominionism as a vehicle for outrageous assertions.

    Dominionism is periodically used by factions of the elite (namely neoconservatives) to mobilize unsuspecting Christians behind elite agendas.

    They are managed and will never be allowed to grow into a force to be reckoned with. Even if they did gain a degree of sovereignty, their outrageous antics will always put people off and leave them on the fringes of the political landscape.

    Dominionists mostly serve as shock troops; the sans culotte of the neo-Jacobins we know as neoconservatives. Behind closed doors, however, they are laughed at. David Kuo, Bush’s former Special Assistant, made this abundantly clear.

    Like a prostitute, the dominionists are used and then jettisoned by forces greater than themselves.

    Most people today find Rushdoony laughable and a bizarre curiosity in religious history. Other dominionists such as Pat Robertson, Rick Joyner, et al, are a laughing stock in the mainstream.

    You’re using some truth to make a high dive into conspiracist fantasy here.

  5. That’s exactly my point, Paul. Well-meaning Christians are, as you say, lured into supporting elite agendas by being told they’re advancing the kingdom of God. They’ll never actually succeed in creating a one-world *Dominionist* theocracy–they’ll be thrown under the bus before that.

    But they may well support the construction of a political infrastructure that will be useful to the elites who build their world government.

  6. “Paul. Well-meaning Christians are, as you say, lured into supporting elite agendas by being told they’re advancing the kingdom of God.”

    You could not have stated the truth any better. The problem is that you recognize Dominionism as an “elite agenda”, but you do not recognize the Joe-Ortiz-ethnic-liberal-Christian position as an “elite agenda”. You seem to think it’s really admirable, even though it leads to exactly the same result as Dominionism: A one-world government.

    Wanting to enforce our borders is not any kind of push toward an American theocracy. That is what you are claiming, and it is absurd on its own face. Enforcing our borders is simply recognizing the necessity of an admissions process to our country. The only other possible, ultimate alternative is globalism.

    You explain in the interview that you changed your view on illegal immigration when you “learned” that Bush 43 wanted to join North America into a single country. This is like drilling a hole in the bottom of your boat when you learn that there will be a swimming party. You are going to get wet either way, but at least there is order at the swimming party.

    Our borders must be enforced. We have no alternative. If you choose to stand with Joe Ortiz, against this necessity, you will be actively supporting the destruction of the United States of America. Your goal will be no different than the jihadists.

  7. I enjoyed this interview – gave me more to think about – keep my focus on Jesus Christ and His teachings not on the political divisions and hatreds. If we turn to Christ, those who seek to control others through hate and fear would find their ability to do so would just fizzle out.

  8. Sorry, I know I am gaining a reputation for what I say and how I say it. But I got to say Joe Ortiz is just one more in a mountain of examples of how the Christian establishment and the Protestant version of Christendom here in America is melting down.

    In our book and several articles, Phil and I addressed the issue of a racist, elite-controlled fifth column within the immigration reform movement. The research we did shows that Ortiz’s assertions cannot be dismissed entirely; there are sinister factions within the movement to secure our borders.

    That being said, Ortiz’s attack on border integrity, a fundamental in the preservation of national sovereignty, shows that he is merely a product of a dialectic climate cultivated by elites and humanity’s desire to inhabit the extremes poles.

    The Chicano movement is almost entirely the La Raza cult, which asserts that the southwestern United States is the original homeland of a once-great Aztec people. The racialist mythology the Chicano movement thrives on is comparable to the Aryan myths of Hitler’s variety of fascism.

    A passing perusal of tax-exempt foundations’ contributions to groups like MeCha and Maldef also reveal that the Ford Foundation virtually owns the movement. It is nothing more than an elite manipulation meant to misguide the disenfranchised with demagoguery.

    It’s really time to start striking a balance when we approach these issues. Otherwise, they should be addressed by more sound and capable people. I’m afraid that Ortiz disqualifies himself from that category.

  9. Author

    Weigh in any time, Paul, and share your honest assessment. You and Phil keep me on the beam.

    Skeptical: you’re not reading me, or maybe I assume you know what’s in my head. I don’t support open borders; America became what it is because of immigrants who wanted to become Americans. I just no longer support busing on an apocalyptic scale.

    You can’t rationally expect to deport 20 million people. So let’s secure the border and figure out a practical way to make these people Americans in a way that benefits them and us. The real “them” in this equation are the elites who benefit from the Balkanization of the country.

  10. Great blog and stimulating comments. The Word does say that His house shall be a house of prayer for ALL people. Wouldn’t it be a boring world if the Lord had created only white flowers? The fact that the Lord loves variety in people should tell us all something. Lord bless this discussion. Ken (I know Joe Ortiz and his wife and they are wonderful and unselfish believers in Jesus. In fact, my wife and I have been guests in their California home and we have enjoyed their warm hospitality.)

  11. We totally agree, Derek. It’s really a shame that you didn’t make this clear while speaking with Ortiz for more than an hour. He was openly and clearly against border enforcement. You never disagreed in the entire interview. You said you changed your opinion on immigration. What was that change?

    Securing our borders is job one. The fate of the 20 million illegals is a very secondary issue. Ortiz was not advocating secure borders. He was advocating *against* them.

    I don’t understand how you could listen to Ortiz for more than an hour and never disagree with his positions or claims. I sincerely doubt that anyone who heard this interview would come away thinking that you are in favor of border enforcement. Perhaps you can listen to it in six months and hear yourself more clearly.

    Such is life.

  12. I’ll agree with you there. In future, I’ll make better use of the closing segment with my comments to clarify things left unsaid or unclear during interviews.

    My position on border enforcement hasn’t changed. What has changed was my belief that we can pack up 20 million people and move them back to Mexico–or wherever they’re from, since some sources indicate that a disturbingly high percentage of those intercepted by the Border Patrol are OTMs (Other Than Mexican).

    This is a belief still held by a fair number of conservative Christians in America, and that’s the idea I intended to challenge.

  13. Derek,

    Thanks for the vote of confidence.

    If we can get the John Tantons and Richard Mellon Scaifes of the world out of the immigration reform movement, then we’ll have an effective force for the preservation of border intergrity.

    We also need to start inviting legal immigrants to our cause as well. They, after all, should feel short changed; they jumped through the hoops, while others did not follow the law and that’s not fair by them.

    I want to take the time to also suggest a guest. Philip Lee, a Presbyterian minister, has written an excellent book that I think captures the problems faced by the American (and possibly western in general) version of Christendom. The book is entitled Against the Protestant Gnostics. It goes into how gnosticism is insinuating itself into our religious institutions.

    You’ll be surprised by just how many gnostic ideas churches have unwittingly absorbed. I have even subscribed unknowingly to a few gnostic ideas in the past. I noticed that Ortiz has posted Paul Washer’s materials before, and that guy has espoused patently gnostic ideas before.

    If we could, as Lee prescribes, carry out a process of degnostification in our churches and religious institutions, I think we would be one step closer to being on the same page.

    “Securing our borders is job one. The fate of the 20 million illegals is a very secondary issue.”

    I don’t know if I necessarily agree with this statement, Skeptical, although I could be misinterpreting it. I think we have to be humanitarian in our approach to the situation, remembering that illegals are globalism’s victims, just like us.

    I have no problem, for instance, with Christian groups that go out and make sure that people trying to cross over do not dehydrate in that unforgiving climate (and, believe me, I used to live in southern California, so I know from whence I speak when I say the climate can be unforgiving in that region of the country.)

    Thanks so much, gents, for including me in the discourse.

  14. First of all, “Thank You” Derek for allowing me the opportunity to share with you and your audience. I have always felt that ‘great communicators’ are those who are willing to listen to ALL points of view, regardless whether you agree with them or not. Your audience will always choose to believe what they want anyway.

    Let me first address the issue where it was stated that
    “Ortiz’s attack on border integrity, a fundamental in the preservation of national sovereignty, shows that he is merely a product of a dialectic climate cultivated by elites and humanity’s desire to inhabit the extremes poles.”


    “The Chicano movement is almost entirely the La Raza cult, which asserts that the southwestern United States is the original homeland of a once-great Aztec people. The racialist mythology the Chicano movement thrives on is comparable to the Aryan myths of Hitler’s variety of fascism.”

    That sounds well and good; however, if anyone has any doubts as to where I stand (on border security), I will always be first in line in supporting the protection of all peoples and against any form of crimes being committed against any human being.

    When (and if) I was directly asked if I support border security, my response was that there exists a higher principle concerning the entire issue of “borders.”

    If anything, I believe I said it would be impractical to send 12 million illegals back to Mexico, could cost over 2 billion dollars per year, and would take over 20 years to accomplish. But not once do I recall stating I was against any form of security. I also said it would be more practical to offer amnesty to those undocumented human beings, integrate them into our society, and to put our American ingenuity thinking caps on as to how we can develop an immigration system that works without dehumanizing any one particular group.

    Concerning La Raza and the Chicano Movement, I clearly stated that most of the rhetoric you here from commentators such as Pat Buchannon, Glen Beck, and otherss, that Mexicans plan to take back this country, through a “Reconquista (Reconquer)” agenda is sheer lunacy. Having worked with numerous Mexican American organizations for over 45 years,including one year as the Director of Fund Raising and Special Events for MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Foundation), never once had any of these organizations advocated such nonesense. To marginalize MALDEF as being a Nazi-like organization says more about a person’s stupidy and their lack of knowledge as to what that organization does. But, what else is new? The predominate society has been stereotyping and marginalizing Mexicans for over 200 years, and it continues today.

    Now, while many Chicano student organizations boast about such “Reconquista” efforts,(as I said on your show), there is no way this could ever happen. That noise you hear from a very small majority of students is sheer bravado. But yet, those talking points are used daily to marginalize the Mexican (legal or illegal) community ad nauseum infinitum.

    Your theme for our interview was, “The Flag or the Cross.” I responded throughout your entire interview and basically stated what my stance is: It has always been that God’s will, laws and precepts stand far above humanity’s will and its efforts to govern itself. It stands far above nation and nationalism. Does this mean I am anti-American? Not in the least. But, like any good citizen, I will always point out evil when I see it.

    While many may feel that my trusting the Cross, Jesus Christ, God and His laws and His will above nation and nationality, including culture, may not be practical in today’s world, one never knows until they try it.

    If we (as Americans) would truly abide by God’s will, laws and precepts (as many claim when they state that America was founded on God’s principles), this country could return to greatness!

    Now, what does God say about the alien, poor, downtrodden, widows, orphans and homeless?

    “You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel, (Ezekiel 47:22).”

    “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God, (Proverbs 14:31)

    He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished, (Proverbs 17:5)

    Now, if you have any qualms about these three groups of scriptures, click on the link below and read another 225 similar verses in the Bible concerning how God feels about those less fortunate than you. These verses were not created by me, MALDEF, Mecha, nor any other Mexican organization. Therefore, if you have any concerns about their veracity, ask God.


    By the way, He misses you. Seems like you never come around and visit Him like you used to.

    In His Peace,

    Joe Ortiz, author
    The End Times Passover (Author House)
    Why Christians Will Suffer Great Tribulation (Author House)
    Saved? What Do You Mean Saved? (GBM Books)

  15. Ortiz,

    Your self-righteous sermonizing is high on emotionalism and low on facts.

    I do not derive what I know about the Aztec supremacists from Buchannon or Glenn Beck and it is extremely asinine to assume I do. Most of the critiques of these groups that I draw from are found in ADL and SPLC publications… not exactly a bastion of right-wing thinking.

    But, as those who read my writing will tell you, I prefer primary sources, so let’s go to one to dismantle your holier-than-thou rant.

    In the MECha “liberation” document, El Plan de Aztlan, we read the following:

    “We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent. Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against foreigner ‘gabacho’ who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our hearts in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture.”

    Replace “mestizo” with “Aryan” and “bronze” with “white,” and this reads just like Nazi literature.

    You say these groups are on the fringe with no power. Yet former lieutenant general of California Cruz Bustamante and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa were both active members of MEChA. These are just two examples of Aztec supremacists that have gained political capital.

    Now onto your precious MALDEF. Did you bother to tell Derek’s audience that MALDEF is almost entirely a creation of the elite Ford Foundation? Did you bother to share just how much money MALDEF has received from this Establishment tax-exempt foundation? No you did not.

    Did you bother telling the audience about MALDEF drawing its ideological foundation from the National Lawyers Guild, a communist front that has represented Castro’s Cuba and called for a boycott of Israel because of the flotilla incident? No, you did not.

    Did you bother to share with Derek that MALDEF supported plaintiffs in Lau v. Nichols, intentionally misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s words to push for a bilingual education system? No, you did not.

    Did you tell the audience that MALDEF has attempted to amend the Bilingual Education Act so that general instruction in the education system can be carried out in several other languages? No you did not.

    MALDEF’s above initiatives are classic social engineering. Without a single language unifying a nation, there is an erosion of social cohesion as separatists (e.g., black, white, and chicano) splinter from the larger culture and form racialist enclaves. This social fragmentation eventually leads to the atomization of a nation. So, in a way, you and your MALDEF friends are no different from racist neo-Confederates that seek to splinter the American republic.

    What I find particularly disturbing is your contention that “higher principles” govern the border issue. Your holier-than-thou rant aside, this is definitely not Christian.

    You’re essentially pushing a hyper-gnosticism that spiritualizes everything to the detriment of the physical world, national governments and civil authority included.

    You are arrogantly implying, “I have reached a spiritual stage of existence that exempts me from the laws that govern your world.”

    You, sir, are not different from the Perfecti priest class of the gnostic Albigensians who believed they had spiritually evolved to a point where the law no longer applied to them.

    Well, Mr. Ortiz, the rules do still apply to you. If I were to relocate to Osaka, Japan, I would have to obey Japanese law and learn how to speak Japanese. I could not argue that my rights were being violated. Those rules are in place to maintain order and to ensure social cohesion, so I cannot consider myself exempt. The same principle applies to you.

    In my book and my writings, I have taken John Tanton, Richard Mellon Scaife, Chris Simcox, and others to task for subverting the immigration reform movement with a racist fifth column.

    It would be wrong if I didn’t do the same with Chicano supremacists; they are part of the same dialectical climate that is tearing America apart.

    It is also cowardly and cheap, sir, for you to hide your support for Chicano radicals and Aztec supremacists behind Jesus and the Cross. If you want to spar with me, you will jettison all pretense.

    Paul Collins

  16. For those who wish to transcend the madness of the racial dialectics being promulgated by the power elite, read the following articles:


    Ortiz merely represents one polar extreme in the racial dialectic being promoted by the oligarchs. The racist fifth column within the Minutemen, composed of radical environmentalists and Malthusian population control advocates, represents the other pole. As is the case with all Hegelian dialectics, adherence to either pole results in cognitive dissonance and a gradual migration towards an equally undesirable synthesis.

    Until we learn to stop gravitating to either of these poles and de-racialize the discourse concerning immigration, the true issues of national sovereignty and border integrity will not be addressed. Those who seek to instantiate a supra-national form of global government don’t care about the Chicano or the Caucasian. They seek to enslave us all.

    Whether he is aware of it or not, Ortiz is merely perpetuating a racial dialectic that will advance the cause of the globalists.

  17. The last time I went to Mexico, I had to present a valid passport. Had I been caught in Mexico without having processed through their security system, I would have been jailed. That is, after all, what they do with poor Columbians, Guatemalans, Venezuelans and others of their “Bronze” brothers.

  18. I call the fate of the 20 million illegal immigrants “secondary” because in 80 years, they will all be dead. That only works IF we secure our borders for the next 80 years. 80 years is a long time, but not in the big picture of world history.

    For the next 80 years, we can keep using the existing mechanisms to either legalize or deport illegal immigrants. If we stopped the influx tomorrow, current provisions would be more than adequate to handle the necessarily dwindling number of remaining illegals.

    The resident illegals are a problem that takes care of itself, if we can only have more patience than a 24 hour news cycle or a 4-year election cycle.

  19. Thanks to Paul and Phillip for standing up so admirably to Joe Ortiz. He revealed his true colors in his response here. Derek, you can see how close he gets to the Dominionist heresy. If we would all just ignore borders and share everything with each other, we would live in a better world. Very reminiscent of Benjamin Creme and Share International, with Ortiz standing in as a minor Maitreya, teaching from his enlightened state.

    1. Author

      Dominionist? There’s a huge difference between encouraging hospitality and leniency to illegals and using the apparatus of the state as an instrument of salvation.

  20. Phillip I’m glad you keep us on our toes and give us the information required to kick start our brains to be used as God intended 🙂

  21. @eyesofGreen and skeptical,

    Thanks so much for all your kind words! Paul and I aren’t trying to toot our own horns, but Ortiz is guilty of either intentionally or unintentionally overlooking the excluded middle and gravitating towards one of the polar extremes in a racial dialectic that has been promulgated by the elite. As researchers, Paul and I always work to elucidate that excluded middle.

  22. “Dominionist? There’s a huge difference between encouraging hospitality and leniency to illegals and using the apparatus of the state as an instrument of salvation.”

    I think I know what Skeptical meant when he said Ortiz and the dominionists are not too far apart; both flirt with the gnostic heresy.

    Ortiz would also transform government into an instrument of salvation by expecting the federal to provide for illegals indefinitely.

    Also, while acknowledging the impracticality of sending all illegals back, we must also acknowledge the fact that it is not cost-effective to keep them all here. This is a situation that will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Maybe some can be given citizenship, but others will have to return to their country. The decision on who stays and who goes would be determined by looking closely at the situation of each family or individual. Who has become a productive member of society? Who has not?

    Naturally, criminals would instantly be excluded from consideration for citizenship. There goes MS-13 and a number of other street gangs.

    Finally, I have done a little study into Glenn Beck and found some problems; but they are certainly not what Ortiz or the junior heresy hunters claim.

    Beck is supported by Goldline, a company born out of Deak-Perera, a firm founded by Nicholas Deak.

    Deak was a top intelligence commander for the OSS, the precursor to the CIA. His firm, Deak and Co., was accused of laundering drug money for Colombian drug cartels before it went bankrupt.

    This may go a long way to explaining why Beck is limited on what he can say. He always hovers right above the heart of the truth, and is careful to pull away so that he doesn’t make certain interest angry.

    Mark Ames has written a good article about this topic for the New York Observer. Here’s the url:


    I’ll be writing about this topic, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future.

  23. “Hospitality and leniency to illegals.” No. Joe Ortiz advocates destroying the borders between countries. It’s now clear why you didn’t object to a single thing he said. You agree with him.

    I honestly can’t tell if you are one of those pathologically political people – the kind who say whatever they feel the room wants to hear at that instant? With no regard to your past or future statements?

    Or maybe you are just really, really slow. It’s hard to tell.

    I do know that your interviews are painfully empty and totally open forums for a wide variety of heresies, crackpots, and blasphemers. There are obvious and welcome exceptions. I will miss those exceptions, as I abandon this disaster-turned-blunder-turned-teachable-moment-returned-disaster.

  24. Skeptical,
    Can you do any better? Or do you enjoy shooting from cover? It is very easy to criticize what others have labored to create.
    This is a complicated issue. I don’t agree with Ortiz’s take on border issues, but the man left what could have been a highly lucrative position in order to preach the gospel of salvation. And he opens himself up to people like you.
    That takes guts all around. I admire them all and pray for wisdom; sparks fly when iron sharpens iron.
    You accuse Ortiz of wanting to destroy this country, but ignore his passion for people.
    You accuse Derek of weakness and people-pleasing, but gloss over his desire to have an open forum for ideas and discussions, which absolutely requires a free flow of ideas and the time to elucidate them without attack. That does not mean he agrees with them; it means that he knows how to interview people so others can think clearly and deeply about what is said.
    Do you live your life in such a transparent fashion? Could you withstand the scrutiny and criticism you’ve doled out to these people? Do you pray for them?
    Or are you satisfied to spew vitriol and move on to harrass some other forum?

  25. “I don’t agree with Ortiz’s take on border issues, but the man left what could have been a highly lucrative position in order to preach the gospel of salvation. And he opens himself up to people like you. That takes guts all around.”

    There’s nothing impressive about what Ortiz did. There are many people that are bold, but lack any knowledge of the topic they are speaking to; Ortiz definitely falls in that category. Not once did I hear the man bring any facts to his defense. If you are light on facts, it’s best to stay silent.

    What Ortiz was doing was manipulative, because he was appealing to emotionalism.

    “You accuse Derek of weakness and people-pleasing, but gloss over his desire to have an open forum for ideas and discussions, which absolutely requires a free flow of ideas and the time to elucidate them without attack. That does not mean he agrees with them; it means that he knows how to interview people so others can think clearly and deeply about what is said.”

    This is not my show, but if it were, I wouldn’t have everyone and anyone on it. The focus must be narrowed. Sometimes there are good guest on who come at a topic from scholarly perspective. Other times, it’s a circus. You have self-described exorcists and “spiritual leaders” with no real credentials. A guy who calls himself the “Demonslayer”? Are you serious?

    Or how about William Ramsey? He tries to draw a non-existent causal connection between Aleister Crowley and 9/11. What’s his evidence? A bunch of numbers. Are you kidding me? How many times in a day do I come across those numbers just by running the radio dial? Besides that, its sacrilege; 3000 people lost their lives that day. They didn’t die so some peddler of sensationalism could weave a bizarre conspiracy web for the purposes of marketing. Talk about irresponsible!

    Open-minded is fine. But you should only be open to the truth. Dizdar, Ramsey, “Demonslayer,” and Ramsey don’t even ring true.

  26. Scripture and the history of the church are rife with examples of people who pursued the truth and got the details wrong: Luther wanted to jettison the book of James because he felt it was too “works” oriented and not based on faith. Who could blame him in his culture? Peter was bold but oftentimes clueless. You might call him an early dominionist until Jesus set him straight.
    Paul said we see through a glass darkly, and he understood more than any of us.
    Jesus also said that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing – the people who educated the vast majority of us are in this category. Therefore, all of this conspiracy/demon/nephilim/supersoldier etc. information seems patently absurd. But is it?
    Should we trust our feelings on this or what we’ve learned in our textbooks at grad school?
    Maybe we should all spend a week with Russ Dizdar and see if what he does and says is real.
    I like to listen to all comers (at least for awhile), because truth does come out of the mouth of babes, or, in this case, Kuba the Demonslayer.

  27. “Peter was bold but oftentimes clueless. You might call him an early dominionist until Jesus set him straight.”

    You need to qualify this statement. Give me examples of Peter expressing ideas similiar to dominionists.

    “Maybe we should all spend a week with Russ Dizdar and see if what he does and says is real.”

    I don’t have to. The guy made claims about the AFOSI that I know to be patently false because I have family members who were with the AFOSI.

    When I first got into the research field, I looked into mind control, MK-ULTRA in particular. There are no references to a “black awakening” or anything similiar in any of the available documents over mind control. What? Did it appear in the documents that Richard Helms destroyed? And if so, how did Dizdar learn about it? I seriously doubt the guy has an “inside track.”

    This whole idea of an army of mind control zombies is a strange mixture of George Romero and John Marks that doesn’t have a shred of proof to it. But it’s fun, exciting, and sensational enough to be marketed to the fantasy-prone, and you’d better believe that Dizdar knows that.

    I’m sorry, I think he’s just cleaning up with yellow journalism. It’ll put his kids through school and buy him a nice ride, but we’ll be left to wade through a sea of disinformation.

    “I like to listen to all comers (at least for awhile), because truth does come out of the mouth of babes, or, in this case, Kuba the Demonslayer.”

    Again, what truth did Kuba the Demonslayer share with the audience? If what he said was true, why was he not concerned about putting people off with a name out of a comic book.

    I wouldn’t carefully study a topic and then put together a book full of primary sources and citations and then put the book out under the name of Spider-Man or Conan or Batman. People would think me certifiably insane and they would be right to do it. The book wouldn’t get read because people would think it was written by someone who was delusional. I wouldn’t read.

    PID is a great show. The program with Joseph Farrell was a great; so was the interviews with Bill Kennedy. I think Sharon and Derek have gotten some important information out to people in the past. These latest guests are very questionable, however. They give pathological skeptics ammo to conflate responsible researchers with paranoids. I don’t think there would be any problem with placing a filter on the tap.

    Nothing I say here is a jab at Derek. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I have already crossed the line in any way. It’s the latest guest I take extreme issue with, because the waters shouldn’t get muddied by rumor, innuendo, and disinformation. That’s all I’m saying Rose.

  28. I call Peter an early dominionist in the simplest meaning of the term: he wanted Jesus to take “dominion” of Israel and oust the Romans. Peter was attracted to political power and wanted to use it to bring in Christ’s reign, and rule with Him. (Remember the quibbling about who would sit at Jesus’ right hand. All of the disciples were ambitious.)
    Jesus stomped this out when he healed the man’s ear that Peter had cut off in Jesus’ defense and reprimanded him; Jesus later told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world and his followers would not rise up politically or militarily.
    Peter revisited this theme when he wanted to side with those who demanded circumcision for the Gentiles, and Paul had to publically reprimand him. Peter was severely tempted by political power and influence.
    I have not studied Russ’ materials yet, but I have heard him speak, and I will hear him again in two weeks. I am going to chase down the references you made in the earlier post, and if I have the opportunity, I will ask him.
    I will say that he impressed me as being an honest man with a passion for people who are in torment.
    As to Kuba, I have to smile. The man drove me nuts; he wouldn’t answer a direct question and wandered all over the place. When Derek asked him, “What is a ghost?” He said that he started as a Catholic in childhood… or something to that effect. Aaargh… I thought I heard frustration in Derek’s voice, but I could be wrong.
    So, why do I defend him?
    He said (eventually) two things that are directly relevant to the people with whom I work: ghosts are not the spirits of dead humans but are demons, and that there is indeed a supernatural world and he can prove it.
    The young adults with whom I come into contact tend to come in two groups: the pure materialists and those who are enamoured by the paranormal. These are not dumb kids, but college graduates who are headed to law school or premed (to become a coroner, in one instance. This young woman was in love with death.) We tend to wrangle most on three fronts: whether the Bible can be taken seriously, whether there is a supernatural world and anything after death, and whether these “entities” are good that some of these people, usually the women, conjure up. They take people like Kuba very seriously because he has “feet on the ground,” as it were. They have great respect for people who don’t just talk, but live out what they believe. (I don’t mean that as a shot to anyone. That’s how they feel.)
    Comic books aren’t the same to them as they were to us (I’m assuming you’re over 30). Graphic novels are an art form to them, and are suitable to carry any message, philosophical or entertaining. Using the “comic book” analogy with them about Kuba would not translate well.
    However, I understand your point.
    I abhor the idea of filtering information. Yes, some may lump you in with someone they deem a crackpot. You and your brother have invested thousands of hours in study and careful research, and you don’t want that scorned simply because of the other speakers. It’s a risk. But no one who really listens to either of you and studies what you say will take you lightly. If they do, they will do it in any forum in which you appear because it means they have no interest in seeking the truth, as hard as it can be to fully understand.
    Thank you for clarifying your thoughts of Derek. “Skeptical”‘s ad hominem attack really irritated me.

  29. Rose,

    Thanks for being gracious. A few points:

    I don’t think Skeptical’s response constitutes and ad hominem attack. I do think he was frustrated and he could have expressed that frustration a little better.

    I sympathesize with him; I know what its like to try to follow solid evidential threads while other people want to look at the fantastic and tangential. 9/11 is a great case in point.

    “Peter was severely tempted by political power and influence.”

    This may be true. The Pharisees political ambitions, however, were much greater; to me they are a better illustration of dominionists in antiquity, given their desire declare anyone who promised to overturn Roman occupation as messiah.

    1. Author

      Hi, Paul,

      Thank you for being gracious. I appreciate the way you and Phil keep us firmly grounded in the evidence, which helps to keep us from drifting too far into the realm of the fantastic. (As if what you guys have documented in your research wasn’t fantastic enough for most of us!)

      I’m willing to go a little farther out on that limb and have thus offered a forum for points of view that you might not. That’s fine; we’re all a bit like the proverbial blind men trying to discern the shape of an elephant from their various positions around the animal. I like to hear what the guy on the other side of the animal perceives now and again as long as that perspective isn’t fundamentally flawed. For example, you won’t hear a guest promote the Serpent Seed doctrine or a New Ager talking up channeling on PID Radio or VFTB.

      I’ll make mistakes, miss points that should be corrected, and sometimes invite guests that make me wish for do-overs. Which is why Sharon and I have said dozens of times over the years, don’t take anything we or our guests say as gospel.

      Take the Gospel as gospel. Everything else needs verification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.