Archive

Thomas Richards

Dude,

Your everlasting gall is hilarious – but to a point. This laughable video is not an “exposé” on me in any way, shape or form. That which I freely post on my website is in no way hidden so it is nothing you can expose in your amateurish attempts to joust with the jebbies.

(I know this is you as it has your paw prints all over it. If it is not you it is someone close to you who worked in tandem with you. It picks exact the same irrelevant points that you have already posted, er, “exposed”… All you do is attempt weak innuendos based on things that I have freely posted on the internet. Openly posted. Try a bit of honesty once in a while.)

If you were a man, at least an honest one, you would actually read the book then take me for task on anything that is false about the book. And by false, I mean factually untrue. You don’t do so because you cannot do so. You rely on irrelevant ad hominem attacks and now try to cloak your attacks by passing them off as someone else. The only thing you can point out is an interview that I posted on my blog. You have not even opened the book. The truth is you don’t care what the truth is because you refuse to even face it. Otherwise you would have answered to it when you were challenged on your lying about this before. It is odd to me how someone as dishonest with people as you are (regarding the crap that you disseminate) can do it with a straight face. If what I have written is wrong then prove it. Put up or shut up. And no more of your misleading agenda or cloaking your work by publishing videos that are under a different name.

So, post all you want to. Make false claims about me being a Jesuit Coadjutor as you have in the past. But you are a person lacking in integrity if you cannot open the book, look at the comparison of what the fraudster Alberto Rivera has said compared to historical truths. If you want to attack me then do it on the basis of the research. Otherwise the world will only be able to see you as the small man you are – the one who was such a bootlicker of that great prophet, Tony Alamo, (who conveniently became the rat jumping from the sinking ship when it became apparent to the world that ole Tony was going down for the same things these Catholics priests that Thomas rails about).

Do you have it in you or are you going to keep spouting the same old bunk that you have been putting out so far? Can you show the research to be false? Nah, I’m starting to wonder whether you have attention deficit disorder that filters out anything you find disagreeable.

So what’s it going to be, Alamo boy? Can you take on the truth? Will you ever? Please? Or will it be more “oh, he’s an alcoholic who puts dirty jokes and porn on his website…”? If you think you are righteous then stand up and show us. Prove me wrong. Where in the book, in the well over 200 pages, is it wrong? And don’t turn to my blog again and say “he interviewed a Muslim who works at a Catholic university”. If you had the book you would know that this was only an addendum. And if you do take that up, which is your lazy, dishonest, style, then at least point to where this guy has put out wrong information if you can find it. Turn to the book. I am standing by my story because I have done the research. Can you stand by yours?

Advertisements

Bernard LaZar Hoffman, known to his followers as “Tony Alamo”, is finally back off to prison again, where he belongs.  Hopefully he will be sentenced to the maximum 175 years possible if society is lucky.  Anyway, barring appeal it looks Tony Alamo will die in prison, where child molesters of all backgrounds belong.

In many eyes this conviction might have been less of a blow to religious fraudsters than to paedophiles and child molesters, but still a body shot nonetheless.  Yet in the case of Tony Alamo’s conviction in Texarkana, it is devastating to both the sex offenders and the religious fraudsters who exist on the fringe of sanity.

Why?

Because according to the testimony of the victims Tony Alamo committed his particular evil in the name of God.  God said the little girls had to marry Tony Alamo and have sex with him.  And Tony Alamo was the mouth of God.  That’s obviously been alright with his followers who have gone along with this for quite some time.  Sure…  It is an acceptable answer for the brainwashed but for us normal folk it’s disgusting, wrong and criminal.  And that’s why the Tony Alamos of the world belong in jails and nut houses, not churches.

“I’m just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel,” Alamo called to reporters as U.S. marshals escorted him back to jail.

“I’m just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel,” Tony Alamo called to reporters as U.S. marshals escorted him back to jail.

I know this verdict has to be very disappointing to crackpots like Thomas Richards out there who’d backed Hoffman’s cultish spew until Tony Alamo’s conviction was all but assured.  Some of the nuts with the harder shells probably are still backing Tony Alamo.  Surely at this point they must well understand that society frowns on cult leaders referring to themselves as “prophets” whose direct line to God allow them carte blanche to take any woman in their cult following.  I have to ask the question:  Is it a requirement to be psychologically sick to join such a “ministry” or do you just have to be callous toward common sense?

But again, some of these folks already have been counting their losses and licking their wounds in advance.  Thomas Richards has even threatened me in blog comments to my last post concerning when I pointed out that Richards had changed his position on his old pal, preacher Tony who reckoned himself a prophet.  Feeling obviously threatened by my post as usual Thomas Richards called me a “weasel” and promised to come up with some story “exposing” me as being connected with the Vatican.  (Have at it, Tommy!  You conspiracy guys eat up everything, crap it out, and expect others to suck down your concoctions, don’t you? Stop drinking the Kool Aid!) Thomas Richards then lashed out like a wounded animal and alluded that I liked little boys, for which he deserves one hell of a swat.  After Tommy’s comments, some nut from Tony Alamo’s “ministry” said that God was going to pop my head off like a cork from a champagne bottle.  (Wow!  How’d this whacko know what God is going to do to my head?  I guess God speaks not only to prophets but to nuts as well! These guys are just too much.)

Anyway, once Thomas Richards has proved to the world that the Catholic Church is pulling strings to use me in their grand scheme to rule the world then the rest of his kind will be busy explaining away Tony’s incarceration, putting the blame on the Catholics, mainly Jesuits, who wanted him gone because he was the voice in the wilderness exposing them for their crimes against man and God.  I expect the Jews to get mentioned a few times as well.   It’s all part of one big conspiracy against the true Christians – yeah, we know the story.  Maybe they can get Jack Chick to print up a comic about their persecution?

Anyway, the verdict is cause for sane people who think the Tony Alamos of the world should pay for their crimes against children.  While I am celebrating tonight over a beer or two with friends I am going to make sure to raise a toast to Thomas Richards and the rest of Tony Alamo’s sheep, bugle boys and guard dogs.

Oh, damn!  I almost forgot…  Didn’t that fraud “Dr.” Alberto Rivera get in bed with Tony Alamo some time back as well?  Sure he did!  You can even hear Alberto Rivera’s pontificating on Thomas Richards’s own YouTube channel.  Damn sure proves the adage about water seeking its own level, now doesn’t it?

Tommy, when are you going to realize that you keep betting on all the wrong horses?

I can just hear the joyful noise from the crowd outside the court house in Texarkana…

“Bye, bye, Bernie!”

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!


I believe in free speech and free self expression.  People have a right to believe in what they want to believe in.  But at the same time, in a libertarian way of looking at things, it is always wrong to try to force your beliefs on someone else.  You don’t have too far to look to see that the world is full of this today.

My first book, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, was written not to achieve any kind of best seller status and to make me famous.  It was written basically because there are scoundrels out there who create false histories all of the time and try to pass this off as a “hidden” truth.  A truth that the “powers that be” want suppressed.  They decorate their story in so many “facts” that there is no way you can sort through it all unless of course you do what I did and sit down and hash out the story line by line.  Then you see it is all a big lie.  But these window dressing stories tend to be far too big for average people to investigate.  We aren’t all history professors and most of us don’t have the time to go into all of the assertions and assumptions that these scoundrels make.  When the scoundrels are secular figures like David Icke with his reptilian theories then it is easier to brush this off and get on back to work.

But this isn’t always the case.

In many of these cases the purpetrators are non other than the ministers in churches.  Most of these guys pass on this bunk because it’s been passed on to them by people they have trusted.  They are like the rest of the community.  Not social scientists and not history professors.  But where these stories start are almost always in the imaginations of people who’s intent is not so good.  They tend to be megalomaniacal and use these stories to pull their flocks in further.  In the case of Alberto Rivera he was just on to the next gig.  Then you get the likes of the empire builders like Tony Alamo.  And these guys have a lot to answer for with the trash they put out, trying to mix it with religion to lead people off track.  As their tenticles spread out they surround themselves with apologists and dissiminators such as Jack Chick and Thomas Richards who act more like attack dogs and in my opinion are just as dishonest, even though they have been dupted themselves.

I have been working on a report on how to spot these guys.  I may post it on my website or I may make it into and e-book or e-mag.  It won’t be near long enough to be another book project as it doesn’t need to be but it will be an easy enough document to follow so that it will be simple to spot who the crazies are out there.   It will be out soon.  And I promise to make this as informative as possible.

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!


My good friend Thomas Richards is at it again!  I have recently learned that he has labeled me on his website as a “Jesuit Coadjutor”.  If you’d like to see for yourself have a glance down the lists on the left hand side of this page.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists two definitions of this word:

1)    One who works together with another: assistant
2)    A bishop assisting a diocesan bishop and often having the right of succession

The word comes from the Middle English coadjutour.  And before that from the Anglo-French which in turn is from Late Latin coadjutor (Latin co- + adjutor helper, from adjuvare to help).

So obviously, since Thomas Richards says it this must be true!  The simple fact that this guy would write such a thing has me baffled, but again, it proves my point.  These conspiracy theory folks, the people who actually listen to the likes of Alberto Rivera and his fraudulent ilk, will themselves say and believe anything.

Both I and an acquaintance of mine have contacted Thomas Richards about these asinine statements he is making regarding me and my book yet the poor devil doesn’t see fit to respond – only to claim that I work together with Jesuits, which couldn’t be further from the truth, or that I am even a bishop who is assisting a diocesan bishop – depending upon which definition Thomas meant to apply to the accusation.

He might as well call me the anti-Christ.  There would be just about as much validity to that statement as to Thomas Richards claiming I am any sort of Jesuit coadjutor.

Sorry, Thomas Richards!  The more I see of you the more I get the feeling that you were educated far beyond your intelligence but unfortunately not highly educated as well.  Such a shame, your efforts could have been better served with a little more honesty.

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!

Thomas,

How are you?  I hope well!

I just saw the below message from you which his reply to a post from a viewer in Melbourne, Australia:

—–
tlthe5th (1 month ago) Yes, I read through some of it. Some of it’s highlights. It’s trash. And i mean it. i was so happy to see that actually. What sources he used were very weak and most of it wasn’t sourced at all. The man is a total Vatican shill as well.
—–

For your reference, this was from this YouTube page.

I am writing this to you because a friend of mine in the United States just sent me this exchange between you and the viewer that concerned me directly.  I saw the link from her and at first I thought that I would just leave it but then I listened to your diatribe about “lying” in the beginning of this video.  As such I feel compelled to reply.

I am the author of the book in question, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam”, and after reading your comments I have to say that I really do not believe that you have actually even seen my book.  I personally think that you are lying.  I wrote a reply to the post which I hope will be posted.

Where do I start?

Besides calling the book “trash”, which I could be taken as a qualitative opinion on any aspect of the book (cover, artwork, writing style, etc.), I have problems with a few of your assertions.  You are free to call the book trash if you want.  I certainly don’t share this view but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

What set off alarms in my head was when you said that my sources “were very weak” and “most of it wasn’t sourced at all.”  You went on to say that I am “a total Vatican shill as well.”

First of all, I spent two years on the research of this book and there are multiple sources on almost every page.  I am very adamant that the sources are open and in order.  I hereby request you to point out exactly which sources were weak.  I ask you in the process to point out exactly what segments of the book were not sourced at all.  I think the onus is on you here due to your unwarranted comments though I seriously doubt that you will take up the challenge.  Case in point, in your own video you don’t source your own assertions about Leo Ryan, the CIA, Jim Jones, Gary Metz, etc.

As for me being a “Vatican shill”, I am not a Catholic, have never been a Catholic and on top of that I am highly critical of the Pope and the Catholic Church on almost all of their positions.  I was raised in an Evangelical church.  My book had nothing to do with defending the Catholic Church at all.  It was solely about taking all of Alberto Rivera’s claims regarding the Vatican and the birth of Islam and looking at them one by one and examining them for the historical truth.  If you have indeed seen the book, which I doubt, you will note that include Rivera’s entire testimony word by word broken down by chapter.  In fact the opening of every one of my chapters that discusses Rivera’s testimony in the book are Alberto Rivera’s own words, as published by Jack Chick, laid out for examination by the entire world.

Personally I do not believe from reading your comments about my book that you have even been in the same room with my book.  (If so can you tell me where you saw this book?)  I recommend that you have a look at the book yourself.  Once you have actually seen and examined the book (and hopefully you will even read it as well!), compare it to your comments.  I think then you will see who is a bullshit artist and who has done their homework.

Best regards,

Gary Dale Cearley

This open letter is directed to Thomas Richards.

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!