VFTB Live: Chris Pinto — Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers / Steve Wohlberg — Avoid the Dead

Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers

CHRIS PINTO of Adullam Films discusses his latest DVD, The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, an expanded version of the presentation he gave in April, 2010 at the Last Days Conference in Nashville.

The faith of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin has been in the public eye recently, thanks to prominent conservatives who use their reported godliness to convince Christians to support a particular political agenda. Pinto makes the case that the faith of the founding fathers is not so clearly Christian; in fact, there is much evidence to suggest that for many of them, including the four mentioned above, the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

In the second hour, STEVE WOHLBERG, author of Demons in Disguise: The Dangers of Talking to the Dead and Exposing Harry Potter and Witchcraft: The Menace Beneath the Magic, talks about the inconvenient truth behind the masks on Halloween.

Plus the Bunker Intelligence Briefing and your calls.


No Comments

  1. Ah, wrong audio, this is the last PID show, seems like there was a mix up of some kind!
    Kevin the hapless french guy

  2. Well, typically it is Paul who has to air grievances. Now, however, I have to say something.

    Sigh. I’ve said this before and I will say it again.

    When you lift quotes from a broader textual gestalt and read them in isolation, they can be construed with an inordinate amount of interpretative elasticity. Such is the case with Pinto.

    Were the Founding Fathers all deists? The broader textual gestalt does not support that contention and, even if it did, it does not undermine the soundness of our institutions. But, since Pinto is insistent on making it the point of his argument, let’s look at a larger cross-section of the textual gestalt:

    “[W]hatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety [respect for God] and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength.” John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

    Sound like a deist?

    “[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality.” Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress

    Sound like a deist?

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.” George Washington, Signer of the Constitution, First U. S. President

    Sound like a deist?

    “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service.” Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Constitution, Signer of the Declaration, Governor of Pennsylvania

    Sound like a deist?

    “I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; . . . and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety.” Henry Laurens, President of Congress, Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention

    Sound like a deist?

    “[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer.” Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress

    Sound like a deist?

    “Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion.” John Hancock, Signer of Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts

    Sound like a deist?

    “[It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. I therefore recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U. S. Supreme Court, An Author of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York

    Sound like a deist?

    Moreover, even if every single Founding Father were a deist, that would not change the fact that Christian ideas pervaded the formative ethos of the American Revolution. The Founders posited a transcendent Creator as the ontological source of our liberties. Apart from the fact that such an ontological argument for liberty is irreconcilable with deism, the contention itself presupposes the truth of the Christian doctrine of imago viva Dei. It is painfully obvious that Pinto has never even cracked a book on political philosophy. If he had, he would know all of this.

    And, please, don’t invoke the infamous Masonic argument. Going to a Lodge no more makes one a fully initiated Mason than going to a garage makes one a car. Again, this is a non sequitur.

    Context is everything. By presenting the words of our Founding Fathers in isolation with no regard given to context, Pinto is able legitimize otherwise untenable notions about the men who gave us America. His work is replete with gross generalizations, oversimplifications, and non sequiturs.

    And, such logical fallacies are not restricted to Pinto’s “research” into the Founding Fathers. They are also painfully evident in his work concerning early Christianity. Pinto consistently attempts to rehabilitate transparently Gnostic sects, specifically the Albigenses, Cathars, Bogomils, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses, etc.

    Here’s a little info concerning these sects that Pinto tries to portray as Christian:

    “The word ‘Cathar’ probably comes from the Greek ‘pure,’ and the Cathar doctrines show the sect to have been Gnostic of the ascetic type. They believed that the world had been created by an evil being—that there were a series of spheres of being between God and the material world-that procreation was evil because it introduced another spark of the divine into matter. These are familiar tenets. In the Languedoc the Cathars flourished, until in 1207 Pope Innocent III solicited help from the magnates of the North to crush the dangerous heresy. Strictly speaking it was not a heresy, but a rival religion; and as such it was ruthlessly wiped out.” James Webb, author of “The Occult Underground”

    “Cathar belief, just like Bogomilism, to which it was heir, upset the structure of sacramental life in favour of one rite of supreme importance, the consolamentum; replaced a Christian morality by a compulsory asceticism, which made faults consist rather in a soiling by matter than an act of will, eliminated redemption by refusing to admit the saving power of the crucifixion; and rejected the Trinity in favour of a subordination of two persons to the Father. Cathars could not admit that Christ was God – an angel, perhaps, or a son of God, but still not equal with the Father. Nor could they logically admit that he was man, with a body like that of other men. So the hinge of Christian belief, the Incarnation, was destroyed. Radical dualism went still further in its destruction of the pillars of Christian belief, and can hardly be regarded even as an extreme Christian heresy. With its belief in two gods and two creations, it might almost be described as another religion altogether.” Malcolm Lambert, author of “Medieval Heresy”

    “Bogomils. Member of an heretical sect, which sprang up in Bulgaria in the 10th century, their name probably coming from Slavic Bog, ‘God’. One of their main tenets was that God the Father had two sons, Satan and Christ.” Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

    “In all areas methods of missioning followed the pattern of the Bogomils: there was a pedagogic progression from the generalities, which seemed to blend easily into the religious environment, to the inner mysteries, reserved for the perfect or for believers of long standing. The approach, natural to all sects influenced by Gnosticism, had the effect of concealing the profoundly heretical nature of Catharism from the neophyte until he was sufficiently detached from the influence of orthodox belief.” Malcolm Lambert, author of “Medieval Heresies: Popular Movements from Bogomil to Hus”

    Yet, Pinto would have you believe that these were Godly Christian sects by virtue of the fact that they were opposed to the mean old Catholic Church. This is another vintage non sequitur. Given his fantastically bad logic and feeble grip on history, one must ask if Pinto is even remotely qualified to make any sort of assessment concerning the faith of America’s Founders.

    This is some of the shoddiest research I’ve ever heard. Even mainstream secular historians reject this junk and with good reason.

  3. Gee, Derek.

    Why don’t you just interview the members of the Hutaree militia while you are at it?

    After all, they think state, local, and federal government are all representatives of the Anti-christ. No that much of a leap from what Pinto is saying.

    Let me ask you this: did you even back check Pinto’s sources to see who it is that wants you to believe this anti-American drivel? Or did you just accept what he said at face value?

    This has officially crossed the line from deep political research and entered the realm of paranoia, conspiracism, and fanaticism. I guess you wouldn’t have gone there if you didn’t want to, though. So happy hunting! Hope you enjoy the disinformation cul-de-sac!

  4. I notice there has been no response here from Derek, so any further statements I make, I must assume, are falling on deaf ears. That has become par for the course.

    But I got to ask, even if no answer is forthcoming, if Derek is aware of where this stuff first began to emerge.

    In the mid-1990s, when the militia movement was in full steam, Ralph Epperson was peddling this crap (which Derek refers to as “food for thought”) at the Prophecy Club in Topeka, Kansas.

    At the same time, “Rev.” Jim Ammerman, a former U.S. Army Colonel and chaplain was making his rounds at the Prophecy Club, claiming that the United States government was illegal. Epperson provided justification for that assertion by claiming that the Founding Fathers were Luciferians and that America was created to bring in the rule of the Antichrist.

    Both Ammerman and Epperson enjoyed a fair amount of attention in the anti-government militia circles.

    Journalist Anton Chaitkin also claims that Ammerman referred to Timothy McVeigh as “a real soldier.” Real nice.

    Epperson is a hack that seemed to go off the rails after his first two books. There’s no reason to believe he is anything other than another paranoid misfit.

    Ammerman, on the other hand, is a former Green Beret who claims experience with the CIA. He also says he had a top-secret security clearance. So, we have an individual possibly coming out of the criminalized portion of the Intelligence Community, spreading anti-government sentiments with Epperson’s slanders against the Founders acting as a glue for it all.

    Compare what Epperson says to Pinto’s “documentary.” Then ask yourself if Pinto’s work is really “food for thought.”

  5. Paul, you assume too much about what I think or believe. And I hear you loud and clear.

    I haven’t responded because I really don’t want to turn this into another public dispute with men I consider friends.

  6. “Paul, you assume too much about what I think or believe”

    And you assume too much about what the Founders believed.

    “And I hear you loud and clear.”

    If so, why does every exhortation I give you to be cautious about what you believe falls on deaf ears?

  7. I enjoy the subjects and listening But: i am very careful about what some write and say when they only quote what they want to make it fit what they are saying. then it becomes Dishonest and serves the wrong purpose and sends the wrong message. I did enjoy the lecture on Vampires, it is good that someone is giving an answer or thought to the what and why and how of the “Dark ones” for better lack of term. Michael Heiser and David Flynn are my favorite’s. Tom Horn also has some thought provoking material. I just found this station so i will be listening often.
    Creator/God has told us many things if we will just research and be honest about it.

  8. Are the Collins Brothers Jesuits??? Next on View From The Bunker!

  9. Wow. Accusing Derek that he can’t hear you when he said he did.. loud and clear? He also stated he wasn’t going to go back and forth because he considers you two his friends, don’t you think you should take this conversation to a more private level, rather than letting anyone read your rude behavior and accusatory mindset?

    Coming from a hearers standpoint, it seems the issue is Pinto’s stance on church/American history. You take issue with anyone that might have a poor perspective regarding the Catholic Church/Founding Fathers. I can read the same information both of you are citing and come to my own conclusions. I am sure that Pinto is just as adamant about his work of delving into history as you are..but I have not heard him say anything rude or un-Christ like about either one of you. Calling your brothers in Christ names and attacking their character for the world to see and hear, damages your credibility.

    All this aside, this is NOT glorifying to Christ to bite and devour one another. Kudos to you Derek, for not being a part of it.

    ct- you are funny. But, be kind.

  10. Ct,

    Last time we spoke, you said some offensive things about Phil and I. We took you to the mat on those things and you tried to pull back, attacking like you were being unfairly attacked.

    You forgot that you invited the rebukes. Just as you are doing now.

    Then, instead of admitting that you had made a complete heel of yourself, you tried to hide behind a barrage of scripture verses that didn’t have one iota to do with what we were addressing.

    If you are going to make accusations, you’d better back them up. What proof do you have that I’m a Jesuit?

    Furthermore, would that be a horrible thing if I were? I’m not a Jesuit; not even Catholic (although I acknowledge that yes, Catholics are Christians). But where’s the crime if I were one?

    Like most religious orders, the Jesuits are a mixed bag, with their share of the noble and the nefarious. You’re committing the cardinal sin a blacklisting an entire group of people based on the sins of a few.

    If a Scout Master turns up being pedophile, are you going to call the BSA a den of perverts? Following your logic (or lack thereof) one must.

    Pinto is a big boy. He can stand up for himself. He doesn’t need the valiant Ct, who hasn’t even checked Pinto’s source for veracity, defending him with cheap and cowardly little snipes at Phil or myself.

  11. Author

    For the record: I’ve talked with Phil and Paul a couple of times over the last few weeks and we’re fine. No hard feelings and we understand that we want the same thing: to wake up fellow Americans, Christians especially.

    Sharon and I admittedly get into a lot more speculation than Paul and Phil and there are times we appear to wander off the reservation.

    I love Paul and Phil like brothers. Sometimes siblings disagree. It’s ancient history in my book and they will be my guests on next Friday’s program.

  12. Derek,

    We love you back. Thanks for putting up with my sometimes combatitude (my own word to describe when I’m being a combative punk). You’ve been really gracious and we can’t wait to be on the show.

    But in the meantime, I think its more important to push tonight’s show. Nick Bryant is truly a man among insects in this field.

    For years, people have tried to characterize the events that took place in Nebraska as a “witch hunt.”

    Bryant shows that they were not, with actual Grand Jury documents. Whatever people might think about DeCamp (I’m suspicious. Too close to Colby for my liking) he was dead on with this one.

    But this is like a domino effect. It also confirms much of what Jim Rothstein and Noreen Gosch were saying concerning the disappearance of Johnny Gosch.

    There is also confirmation of very real SRA incidents to be found in the Franklin story. Remember, Paul Bonnacci testified that Oliver North met with Michael Acquino, the former head of the Temple of Set.

    No one likes to think that children were abused in such a horrible manner, least of all me. But Catherine Austin Fitts has an important saying: “God can’t fix it, if we don’t face it.”

  13. DootDoot,

    You are right in saying that our disagreements should be taken to a private level.

    Our credibility, however, should rest on our work.

    I’ve seen the crude anti-statist and, ultimately, anti-American and anti-government trajectory Pinto is headed down before. Trust me, it’s a place you don’t want to go (unless you want to become a tax-evader or militia type. I assume you don’t).

    You think I have been un-Christ like and accusatory. Perhaps you are right. But it’s not exactly Christ-like to portray the Founders as “antichrist.” The most questionable quotes of the Founders does not support that. Pinto is making an unfair extrapolation, something anyone who has taken a basic research methods class in college will tell you.

    That’s slander. And I recall that there is a Scriptural prohibition on that as well. Many of the 200 founders were Christians. Is it alright, therefore, for Pinto to attack his fellow brothers in Christ?

    Think about that before you portray Pinto as lily-white and my brother and myself as stained.

    But you’re right about one thing: Derek deserves much better. In my zeal for the topic, I didn’t exercise the prudence I should have.

  14. DootDoot,

    I will concede that my response was not stated in the most charitable of terms. So, since I made the mistake publicly airing misgivings in a less-than-Christian fashion, I will take this moment to publicly apologize to Derek.

    That being said, ask yourself this question… does the fashion in which my case was delivered undermine any of its points? Again, I maintain that Pinto has been intellectually dishonest with his method of selective citation. Moreover, his thesis is premised upon non sequiturs, generalizations, and oversimplifications.

    I may not have stated the case in the most gracious of terms, but the facts speak for themselves. In this sense, I am analogous to a doctor with poor bedside manner. I am sure that the Apostle Paul could have taken a more gracious tone with Peter when he rebuked him, but that didn’t change the fact that Paul’s contention was correct.

    Moreover, you’re not being consistent with your criterion for determining Christ-like conduct. Ct asserted that we were Jesuits. Implicit in this assertion are two claims:

    1. That we are acting on behalf of some nefarious and powerful interests (a laughable claim given the fact that I make less than $20,000 a year and drive a 1996 Ford Taurus that simmers anti-freeze like a crock pot).
    2. That every Jesuit is nefarious (yet another laughable claim given several historical examples of noble Jesuits, like Father Frederick Charles Copleston’s famous defense of the faith against Bertrand Russell).

    Does a Christian make such defamatory claims about an fellow brother? While I am at variance with Pinto’s position, I never once accused him of acting on behalf of nefarious interests. Nor did I once accuse Derek of any such wrongdoing.

    Now, since you were excoriating us for being accusatory, don’t you think that you should remain consistent and take CT to task for making a defamatory claim? What about the hurtful claims that he makes toward us and his Christian brothers in the Catholic world?

    Yes, I have not always been charitable when it comes to contesting questionable positions. However, Paul and I are very passionate about this field. It is a field that has always struggled for legitimacy and one of our objectives has been to rescue it from the conspiracy theorist and paranoid. We invested hours of research and study, which can be downright dull. So, when individuals like Pinto introduce questionable claims to the corpus of the field itself, we respond passionately.

    Sometimes, impassioned responses can be scathing. I have a BA with a minor in philosophy, so I have a pretty polemical mind. Polemics aren’t always genteel. Listen to any debate and you’ll see what I mean.

    As for my credibility, that will have to hinge on the work itself. Have you read any of my articles or my book? If not, then you might want to familiarize yourself with some of my material before you call my credibility into question.

    All this aside, I sincerely apologize to Derek for my less-than-charitable response. Believe it or not, my chief concern was maintaining the veracity of PID. While no one officially designated Paul or I as heads of the “quality control department,” we still want PID to remain at the forefront of other shows in its category. We don’t always air our misgivings in the most charitable of fashions, but we never intend to personally undermine Derek.

    Derek’s our friend (in fact, we thanked him and Sharon at the opening of our book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship). Moreover, he is a brother in Christ (a fact that has never been dispute with us). So, hurting him is never our intent. Again, the analogy of a doctor with poor bedside manner holds sway.

    At any rate, I am rambling now. So, I will just close by saying, “I’m sorry” to Derek and, DootDoot, while you may have some salient points, critically examine your statements concerning my credibility as a researcher and your double standard with Ct.


  15. DootDoot,

    By the way, if you think Ct’s pranks are funny, may be you need to review your attitude before you excoriate me for mine.

  16. Paul is right, we should forgive, move on, and look to tonight’s discussion with Nick Bryant. I’m only 20% into The Franklin Scandal, and already I’m convinced that this was a purchase worth far more than the asking price.

    As Paul correctly notes, the hard evidence Bryant provides — nearly 20% of the book’s page count is made up of scanned documents that support the otherwise unbelievable claims of the victims — establishes that skeptics who blithely dismiss SRA as
    “satanic panic” are either uninformed or dishonest.

    One hour will barely scratch the surface of this horror.

  17. Derek,

    If Bryant’s book is read by enough people, it will, in my opinion, give Kenneth Lanning a serious black eye.

    Lanning was, of course, a Supervisory Special Agent in the Bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit.

    His 1992 Study of Childhood Ritual Abuse was not entirely bad. I’m sure he did find some baseless claims. But the skepticism became pathological in nature. The report, as a result, was far too dismissive.

    So the FBI, in my opinion, allowed the satanic subculture here in America to go unexamined. The lack of scrutiny and investigation led to an occult explosion.

    That explosion didn’t only impact Goth kids cutting one another of lonely housewives watching Eric Tolle on Oprah. Evidence suggest that it even reached into elite circles.

    Here’s a link to Lanning’s report. I think it is important for PID listeners to read; not because it’s true, but because its flawed nature led to one of law enforcement’s major failures to protect the population from criminals who find their motivation in satanism. Here it is:


    Ultimately, as the deceased Rama Coomaraswamy pointed out, all pedophilia is satanism because it represents the destruction of innocence. Jesus was, of course, the ultimate expression of innocence.

  18. Thank you so much for taking the time and explaining your sides.

    I guess I didn’t realize the implications of thinking ct’s joke was funny; however, I laughed out loud at both ct and your introductions to the new “shows”. Humor sometimes to me breaks the ice, that is what I thought was funny. I did tell him to be kind, though. He wasn’t off the hook, so to speak.

    I appreciate what was said and I admit, I am ignorant of the type of relationship you two have with Derek. I am fairly new to PID, I am excited to catch up on the programs.

    I am looking forward to hearing the show 😉

  19. Maybe there should be a show with Chris Pinto and those who disagree. Let the chips fall where they may!

    Its not like the masonic connection is hard to see, nor the direction the country is heading. And many native Americans would certainly dispute the christian founding as well! if that was christian who needs it?

  20. I have seen some of Pinto’s videos and it matches pretty well with much of the other information, even if the claim is that he jumps to conclusions based on comparison to information that is corroborated several times over.

    As for SRA, I know it exists, because my sister-in-law was a victim of this and suffers from MPD/DID, seizures, etc..

    To the Collins brothers, this list of quotes you provide to support their apparent “Christianity” does absolutely nothing for me. Anyone that has studied this even remotely understands enough of the code that illuminati/freemasons speak in, to see how those quotes were used to gain support of Christians, while tipping their caps to Lucifer.

    The Jesuit connection is also pretty crazy to deny at this point with as many credible victims that have spoken about this over the years.

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.