Charlie Johnston -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity

Charlie Johnston of Colorado in 2015 during FOCUS TV interview
Charles Johnston and the upcoming Storm -An alleged prophet with a critically important message for humanity
By Glenn  Dallaire

We report; you discern.
Update Jan 1, 2018: Concerning Mr. Johnston's alleged prophecies and private revelations, from early on this writer often commented that time and events (or lack of events) will clearly reveal whether Charlie's prophecies are authentic, or not.  In other words, time will tell. 

Well, as of today (January 1, 2018) time has clearly revealed that Mr. Johnston's numerous prophecies have ALL been shown to be completely false, most notably his predictions concerning the Presidential election, the great worldwide "Storm" which he foretold would bring global economic collapse and civil strife, toppling governments throughout the globe, war with political Islam resulting with the mass conversion of most Muslims, then a war with China, and generalized global chaos resulting in 26 million dead, all culminating with the miraculous "Rescue" apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to all of humanity, all of which was prophesied by Charlie to occur by the end of 2017. 

In conclusion, since Charlie's prophecies have now all been shown to be completely false, he joins the list of recent failed visionaries whose stories have been highlighted on this site, such as "Locutions to the World" and "Maria Divine Mercy", and together they provide a strong cautionary warning for all of us in regards to purported visionaries and mystics of past and present, urging us to be very cautious and prudent in our discernment concerning such persons,  reaffirming the statement and warning of St Paul of the Cross, the founder of the Passionists and great mystic himself, whom once stated that 9 out of 10 purported visionaries are false.  Perhaps this estimation from St Paul of the Cross is a bit high, but then again perhaps not. -Glenn Dallaire

Updated Jan 2017, and also in 2016 on Oct. 27th, Aug 28, July 2 and Jan. 16,  and on October 17, 2015. Originally posted on January 1, 2015 -The Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God

***January 7, 2017: See also update on Charlie Johnston and the "Presidential Prophecy"

As the introduction of the home page of this website declares, this website is devoted to the Mystics of the Church; not only those who have been approved by the Church, but also those who thus far have not yet been approved--In fact, from the beginning my primary goal for this website was to help spread knowledge and devotion to the little known Mystics of the Church. And this mission, I believe, is still ongoing. So long as a particular mystic/visionary/prophet has not been officially condemned by the legitimate authority within the Catholic church, or has stated/published anything contrary to Church doctrine, then I am willing to publish their life story and/or their message here. However, as one can see by my articles on this website, I normally stick to writing about mystics/visionaries who have passed into eternity.

With all of the above in mind, I have contemplated and prayed about writing this particular post concerning Mr. Charles Johnston for about a month. I have reflected upon and studied Charlie's writings and prophetic message since my friend Gretchen kindly told me about him, and his website, back in mid-November 2014.

Charlie Johnston during his 3200 mile pilgrimage
To be very honest, I have hesitated to write and publish information about Charlie here, because over the years I personally have had some very spiritually painful experiences with living visionaries/mystics, and am therefore very cautious and reserved when it comes to speaking or writing about such persons. Yet, at the same time it must be acknowledged that Charlie's message, if authentic, is extremely important for humanity, as it concerns the time period in which we are presently living, along with the very near future.

His prophetic message primarily concerns the salvation of souls during the "Storm" which according to Charlie is said to be soon forthcoming, and which will be overtaking the entire world. And so, after weeks of prayer and reflection, I will file this report trusting that the Holy Spirit will guide you to proper discernment.

By way of a very brief biography, Charlie Johnston is a 60 year old (as of 2016) Roman Catholic layman currently living in the diocese of Denver, Colorado. Born and raised a Christian Fundamentalist, in 1991 he experienced a powerful conversion into the Catholic church. He claims to have been receiving heavenly visits from Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Archangel Gabriel, and other heavenly visitors since early childhood, that is for over 50 years, and has been guided in his prophetic mission for 20 years by three Catholic priests who are his spiritual directors. It is the Archangel Gabriel, whom Charlie calls "my Angel", whom has prophesied the majority of the events which we will detail below.

Charlie suffered a severe neurological event at 9:03AM on Good Friday, 2003, which still affects him physically to this day. Although suffering from this painful nerve damage, from Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012 he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. Charlie states that is was God who willed that he make the journey, and so he simply obeyed. So that they might accompany him in spirit, a couple of friends suggested that he post updates of his pilgrimage on a Facebook page, which he entitled Abraham's Journey. The pilgrimage culminated in a partial climb up Mt Meeker, Colorado, upon which Charlie has been told by his Angel that one day a Shrine will be built. There is a very extraordinary reason as related here as to why he was unable to summit the mountain, but suffice it to say it was not God's will.

Charlie Johnston 
Summary of Charlie Johnston's prophetic message for these times:
It is not for me to give an in depth analysis or commentary of Charlie's alleged mission and prophetic message for these perilous times in which we are living--I leave it to Charlie to speak of his mission for himself. If interested, you can visit his website entitled "The Next Right Step" here.

But here is a summary of what I personally have perceived the most important parts of Charlie's message and mission to be, garnered from in his writings and video talks:

The Storm
Charlie professes to have been foretold by the Archangel Gabriel of  a "Great Storm" that is now coming upon the world which will affect all of humanity. To be precise, he has stated that the Storm started in May of 2009, but has not reached it fullness yet. Concerning this, he has stated: "I tell people that we have entered the beginning of the greatest crisis in the history of Western Civilization and their imagination fails them."
He explains that it will consist of a series of  grave catastrophic events, one in succession upon another, each with progressively greater intensity and affect. He has described the forthcoming Storm as like being similar to a combination of the Great Depression and the Civil war all wrapped up into one, but each much worse than the original ones, because they will not be confined just to the USA, but will take place on a global scale. He states that Governments will topple, economies will collapse and currencies will fail throughout the world. He emphasizes especially also that there will be some "false dawns" in between the series of calamities.

One part of this predicted "Storm" will be that humanity will be at war with itself, like one great civil war upon the whole of the earth. Specifically he says "Our civil societies will degenerate into a global civil war fought along cultural lines". He states that North Korea is the "dragons tail" and while things will start from there, the countries to really watch for is most especially China, whom he calls a "bad actor". But, ironically it will be Russia that will eventually unite with the USA and other countries to help us in the battle with China at that time. The miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which I will speak more about below, will actually come in the midst of this global civil war. The first initial battles of the Storm however will be with Islamic forces, which will eventually be overthrown, but this will be another false dawn, as the battle with China will then arise, showing the Islamic conflict to have only been a cub of a challenge. Charlie states emphatically that the allied countries of the West will not win the battle against China, but that they will simply endure until the great miraculous Rescue comes through the Immaculate Heart of Mary (more on this miraculous Rescue below).

Charles Johnston
In fact, according to Charlie the Great Storm will begin to enter its fullness with a Muslim jihad. In a interview in July of 2012 with Michael Brown of Spirit Daily here, we read: When everything "explodes," a Muslim jihad will be in the first series of events, he believes, but "that's not the real danger. The real external threat comes from the Red Dragon, China."  Now for some specifics, he adds. "From the beginning I had insisted that there would be a rise in wide-scale stark terror as a primary method in this storm. I had written in ’01 that we would see a significant warming in our relations with Russia for a while, followed by them dramatically hitting the rocks again. But I told the priests [who serve as his spiritual directors] to keep their eye on Russia, because in the end she will be our most steadfast and reliable ally. As I have also said since the start, the storm '…will break through North Korea, but will not be centered in North Korea.' "  

Concerning North Korea he stated: "The signal event with North Korea has already happened - in May of 2009. I have written several times that I was told the nuclear test then was actually an audition to be nuclear arms merchant and technical consultant to rogue regimes in the Middle East. Just a little under two years ago, our intelligence services confirmed that that is exactly what happened. Now there may be more things ahead from North Korea, but the fundamental matter has already passed."

And again he wrote: "I long ago said – and often repeated – that I had been told the Storm would break through North Korea but would not be centered in North Korea. It already has. Back in May of 2009. Not to worry, I did not recognize it when it happened, either. Rather, while discussing in June of that year with someone else about “when the Storm breaks…” my angel interrupted and told me it already had. He explained that the nuclear test that North Korea did in May of 2009 was more than it seemed…that it was actually N. Korea’s audition to act as nuclear arms merchant and technical consultant to some Middle Eastern rogues, that representatives from several nations, including Iran and Syria had been present – and that agreement had been reached. The Storm had broken. I told my priests but otherwise downplayed it. Last year, American intelligence confirmed that Iran and Syria had been present at that test and that N. Korea had been engaged as technical consultant and supplier to Middle Eastern maniacs. It may be that N. Korea will commit some new showy atrocity to herald the fulness of the Storm, but whether it does or not, the Storm broke in May of 2009.

As with the 2009 nuclear test in North Korea have we also not seen the beginnings of the predicted Muslim jihad with the great ISIS advance in Syria and into Iraq, and their perceived establishment of a Islamic caliphate? Let alone all of the other extremest Muslim jihadist attacks that have been occurring throughout the world?

During this "Great Storm", many, if not all, of our support structures will successively fail, specifying for example technology and the economy, which will be very gravely affected throughout the entire world, and he also foresees the collapse of entire governments. Humanity will lose confidence in most--if not all--of the current global currencies, causing most of the world to return for a time to a barter based system/economy, until a new system of ownership and new currencies are developed and promulgated.

Charlie's mission and message, as I personally perceive it, is to firstly to warn of this upcoming "Great Storm", just as God, in His infinite love and mercy, has always done with the prophets going back to the Old Testament. Charlie says that when the Great Storm comes, people will think it is the end of the world. But he insists that it is not the end, and that it is not God's punishment, but it IS the consequences of what we have done. It is---and these are Charlie's words--"Our reclamation"---it is God, in His infinite love and mercy, calling His people back to Himself.

-The second part or facet of Charlie's mission is to point out how we are to live and act during these perilous times. It is a simple message: "We are to acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope to those around us. Trust-Do-Love, knowing that God is always close at hand for us"

When the Blessed Virgin Mary said, “I am the handmaid of the Lord,” She was acknowledging God. When She said, “Let it be done to me according to your word,” she resolved to take the next right step. When She went to visit her cousin, Elizabeth, to help her with her pregnancy, she was being a sign of hope.

And so it is with Charlie's simple message for us: “Acknowledge God; take the next right step; and be a sign of hope to those around you, knowing that God is always close at hand." And this, according to Charlie, is how we are to weather the "Great Storm" that is soon to come upon us.

-According to Charlie, throughout the period (but most especially during the peak) of the Great Storm, the overwhelming vast majority of humanity will "lose hope"--these are Charlie's words, and for sure many will have their faith shaken, like all of the apostles during Jesus passion of whom all (except John) ran away and abandoned Him. Charlie states that we will lose hope in our own ability and/or the ability of humanity to actually recover from the devastating events during this time period. The point is, as much as we think we will be always be faithful and a sign of hope for others no matter what befalls us, it seems that when the horrible time of the Storm and Its unimaginable sufferings comes upon us, those who will be the great heroes of faith-hope-and-trust in God will be very, very few among us, like John vs. the rest of all the other apostles who ran away and abandoned Jesus. So Charlie insists that we not kid ourselves thinking we will be always faithful like John, but warns us, like Jesus did with Peter at the Last Supper with the prophecy of the rooster crowing three times, that we too will abandon Him for a time when the passion and confusion of the Great Storm comes upon us, for "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is very weak." 

During this purported "Storm", while Charlie foretells of the collapse of  governments throughout the world, concerning the United States he specifically foretells of a "Regency period", whereby he states that there will be no US President or elected leader, but an appointed "Regent", and he further suggests that there will actually likely be a series of Regents in succession.

The eight public prophecies that have purportedly been given to Charlie
In his article entitled "Go Forth", Charlie reveals eight worldwide events that are said to occur. He states:
"I only have eight public prophecies that I insist on. Only the visible, miraculous Rescue by Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception in late 2017, is time sensitive. Five things must happen between now and the Rescue, but can happen at any time during that period. They are:

– The continued toppling of governments throughout the world, including that of the U.S. The toppling of a government does not mean the nation shall fall.

– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.

– The mass conversion of most Muslims

– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.

– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.
Then there are two prophecies that happen shortly after the Rescue. They are the unification of the faithful into one flock under one shepherd and the building and location of the Shrine of thanksgiving for the Rescue on Mount Meeker in Colorado.

Remember that when (or if?) the predicted "Storm" comes upon humanity, that God has a plan
Yet, this loss of hope-most especially in humanities ability to recover from this Storm--is so that we might turn to God and put all of our hope and trust in Him. Until we lose all hope in our own ability to recover and rebuild through our own ingenuity, we will remain in rebellion against God. But when we finally lose that human hope, we will be forced to turn to something greater than ourselves, if we are to have any hope at all, and that is when we will turn a desperate hope towards God, and will find that THAT hope is well-founded. In other words, Charlie points out that we must lose most, if not all, of our current confidence in human supremacy, and then at the end of the Storm when all will seem lost, there will come the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which will be a miraculous visible sign that everyone in the world will see that will be given through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, of which I will speak more about below. But concerning this loss of hope, may God help and strengthen all of us. It is comforting to note that God forewarns us of all of these things ahead of time, that we might recall it when the time comes, so that during and afterwards we might take courage knowing not only that God forewarned all of it, but that God has a plan, and that we are to have faith and be a sign of hope for others. In every single one of his conferences, Charlie always emphasizes that "We are to trust in God " and that "God has a plan." This is key to everything.

Charlie has stated that while things will get progressively worse during the Storm, there will be "false dawns" wherein people will think that the worst is over, but such will not be the case. The false dawns will only be short pauses in the Storm, somewhat like the eye of a hurricane passing directly overhead, then the Storm "winds" rage on from the opposite and unexpected direction.  

More  recently, on June 30, 2016, he commented:
"When I speak of the Rescue I always call it the Rescue. I have said consistently that God will intervene in the midst of the Storm for all who call on Him and will see. If it were not so, none of us would make it to the Rescue. I want everyone to know God is right at hand right now. There are a whole host of things we must deal with. After the full crash of society, we must get to our feet again to confront both Islam an finally China. This is NOT just one big event. It is a series of events. One battle does not win a war. So press on with the work – and don’t waste too much time savoring the victories when they come, for they will be followed by even starker and greater challenges UNTIL the Rescue. The Rescue is our definitive last chance to get it right."

This writer with Charlie Johnston in July, 2015

Another interesting point that Charlie revealed concerning the Storm is that:
"I have been told that 26 million will die as a result of the Storm. I believe that to be a rare instance where the angels are specifically speaking of temporal physical casualties..."
He states that his intention in revealing this number is to show how small the number of actual physical casualties will be for such a large conflagration of horrific worldwide events. This is not to downplay the great significance of 26 million deaths, but to convey that as serious as the events of the Storm will be, the actual physical casualties will only amount to about a third of what they were in World War II, which thus puts the number into an important context. Charlie has also stated: "It is the sustained, unrelenting terror that is the hallmark of this crisis, not the death toll."

I would add that in light of the terrifying prospects of a global economic collapse coupled with a global civil war, the fall of many governments and societies etc., I believe that this particular part of Charlie's prophetic message has actually been a source of consolation to some, given the potentialities involved, especially in this nuclear age.

In a post on his blog on July 11, 2015 called "The Summer of our Discontent"  Charlie shared some of his perceptions concerning the beginning of the "fullness of the Storm".  According to Charlie, very significant things will start happening from this point on (July 2015) as " convulsions shake the world and the Church every week".  He ended this article stating:, "We have entered into the summer of our discontent. It will be marked by convulsions, confusion and terror throughout the world and the Church. But after the summer comes fall…and great will be the fall."

A few other quotes from Charlie pertaining to the Storm: 
-"Many continue to think that the Storm is God’s punishment of us. IT IS NOT. Get that out of your head. The Storm is what we have brought on ourselves. It is an evil that is entirely wrought by our hands. God has nothing to do with it. If you don’t firmly get that right, you will get almost everything else wrong. The great evil is that we have convinced ourselves that we are sufficient to ourselves, that we are masters of our destiny with no need for God, whatsoever." 
-"Through the means of the Storm, God is giving us another chance to get things right, and this time we had better get it right."
-"The Storm is the beginning of our reclamation, not our destruction." 
-"We will begin to rebuild from the chaos DURING the Storm, as we must to confront certain things. I do not speak much of these times, only that God has specific plans to help us back onto our feet to face the real trials of the Storm. I will play a role in this. After the Storm, the whole culture will be in a rebuilding process as an era of great peace begins."
-"God is not punishing us through the means of the Storm. We have brought it upon ourselves. But God has a plan for us and for our reclamation."
-"There is no place of safety, except in God, as the darkness surrounds us – and that does not guarantee temporal safety, only spiritual safety.

...and do not think your faith, however abundant, will provide you with a get-out-of-jail free card from the temporal suffering that has begun...The rain from this Storm comes and, as it is written, falls on the just and the unjust alike.

...this will truly be worldwide, there will be no place of safety, and no family will be left untouched by the Storm."
-"I have told you before and I emphasize it now: devote yourself during the period of early chaos to caring for those around you. It is obviously good for them, but it will also keep you from obsessing over what is gone. Do that enough days, just doing what the day holds for you, and hope will emerge from the ashes."

Charlie predicts that President Obama will not complete his 2nd term and that the next leader will not come from an election
Both on his website and also in at least two videotaped conferences (Birmingham video from 46:00-50:00, and also the Santa Maria Vineyard video at 1:23:30) Charlie has emphatically stated that President Obama will not complete his 2nd term as President, and that the next leader will NOT come from the normal political process. He stated that while it is possible that there could be an election, whoever the person that will be nominated will not be sworn in on January 20, 2017. Specifically, on his website he stated:
August 2, 2015 at 9:30 pm
Donette, I said bluntly on the Birmingham Video that President Obama will not finish his term. I said that he would be eledted [elected] before he received the nomination to my priests, that he would lead us into the fullness of the Storm, that he would leave office in chaos and disgrace before his term was finished, and would live to convert in the end.
And again on Jan 8, 2016 in his post entitled "Through a Glass Darkly", he states:
"I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process. You could have an explosion of events after an election and before an inauguration. You could have Obama declare a national emergency, cancel elections, extend his term and then depart before the extension was up. The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be." 
Elsewhere on his blog Charlie elaborated that not only will be no next elected American President, but during the Storm there will actually be a succession of interim national “leaders”, something like what regents would be to a monarchy.

On August 28, 2016 in a post entitled "The election...and other potential triggers", Charlie stated:
"....If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true." 

And as a footnote to the prediction concerning Obama, Charlie has stated the following: "I was told Obama would not finish his full term, that he would ultimately repent and convert, but not until long after he had left office and left the world in ashes."

The "Jericho Walk" to Washington D.C.
In his September 27, 2016 post entitled "Semper Fidelis, Adeste Fideles", Charlie states: 
"So today, as we get deeper into these times of fulfillment, I contemplate some stark possibilities. If free and open communication is suspended for more than a day, I will set out on foot toward Washington, D.C. It will not be my sole means of transportation (at least I hope not), but will be how I start. I will not broadcast my route, but I will travel in plain sight, unarmed. If the politico-media complex which currently occupies the governing and cultural institutions of this country seeks to take by force what they cannot win by persuasion, let’s see how they handle a 10-million man march. I do not expect to walk alone."

Why, though, only a 10-million man march in a country of nearly 400 million? Most people will have other, vital things to do to begin restoration of a genuinely civil order. Those who walk will mostly be comprised of unattached men.

The man named Menses
Charlie foresees a man whom the Angels call "Menses." This is not his given name, but just a contemptuous nickname the Angels use to refer to him, for the the Latin word "menses" literally refers to the flow of blood from the uterus during a woman's menstrual cycle. Charlie does not see the man as being specifically the anti-Christ. He will be a man who seems entirely orthodox and will seem to be a great defender of the Catholic faith. He will particularly deceive for a time many who are considered "conservative" Catholics. Charlie has stated "He is given over entirely to the spirit of antichrist and to satan...He is a very bad actor who plays at being a very good actor...He has, with full knowledge, given himself over to the satan. I do not believe he is the personification of the antichrist, but I do not know that he is not. He is a particularly charming, deceptive and malignant minion of satan." He will be revealed for who he truly is only as the Storm ends---right up to the moment of the Rescue.

The Rescue
When all will seem lost, towards the end of the year 2017 will come the miraculous "Rescue". It will come directly through the visible intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, coinciding with the 100 year anniversary of Her apparitions at Fatima in 1917 in which She promised that when all seems lost humanly speaking, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."* 

During the time of the Rescue there will be a miraculous visible sign that everyone in the world will see, and all will recognize it as coming through the heavenly intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Concerning the "Rescue" in late 2017, Charlie states that it is the one large scale prophetic message directly from heaven that has not been subject to any interpretive efforts on his part. It has been revealed to him bluntly and plainly, along with orders to let everyone know of it.

After the "Rescue" through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, the now completely renewed humanity will have to rebuild its societies and structures once again, but this time it will be done with a profound humility, trust and love for God and the Blessed Virgin Mary, while seeking always His holy will in all things, just as in the Lord's prayer: "...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven".  Immediately after the "Rescue" will come a prolonged - but natural - period of peace, joy and prosperity. 

Remarkably the Rescue in late 2017 will also mark the 500 year anniversary of when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church--the seminole event which marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Charlie states that the miraculous Rescue will reunite Christianity into one faith, that is, one flock under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ. After the miracle, Christianity will no longer be fragmented into various denominations, and the vast majority of Jews and Muslims will almost immediately be converted to Christianity, along with all other peoples of other religions. Charlie states that one of the things that greatly offends Jesus is that His Mother is not loved or respected by most of those outside the Catholic church, so this is one of the reasons that God wills that the Rescue will come directly through the heavenly intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and thus it will give evidence of the role God has bestowed upon Her as our heavenly advocate, and that it be a concrete sign of Her love and concern for all of humanity.

Charlie Johnston
Concerning this reunification of Christianity, Charlie states that: "The re-unification will not be like a victory celebration where one side wins and all others surrender. Rather, it will be like a joyful family reunion where everyone brings a dish. Our Protestant brethren will regain the structure and foundation they lost at the Reformation, while we Catholics will regain important charisms we have so neglected they have practically been lost to us. No one will feel defeated; all will be overjoyed that the family is back together again."

Recently Charlie explained why he believes that God, through the Angel Gabriel, insisted that Charlie make known the time period of the Rescue, that being in late 2017.  He writes: "Just before I embarked on this new pilgrimage, I read a story that fired an idea in my mind as to why I am told to give such a specific time-frame. The story was about shipwrecks near shore in a blinding storm. In such a shipwreck, most who drown do so within easy reach of the shore. Because of the fury of the storm, they can’t see the shore and lose hope, giving up. It ignited a great notion in my mind. I think I am ordered to give that specific time-frame because the Storm will be so furious near its end that many will have lost hope. Since we won’t be able to see the shore of peace, I think it pleases God to direct me to tell you this so that you know in the most furiously tempestuous moments, that the shore is very close, to give you hope to hold on just a little longer. It is a merciful grace, I think."

The great Shrine to be built on Mount Meeker, Colorado
Also after the Rescue there will be a great Shrine-Church built on Mount Meeker in Colorado, which will be one of the many great signs of God's infinite love for us during this upcoming time of renewal for humanity. According to Charlie, the Shrine at Mount Meeker will one day become the "...great Shrine of thanksgiving, and the premier place in the world for people to make a pilgrimage in thanksgiving for the Rescue."

And he adds: "I know little about what happens after the Rescue – but I have been told it will usher in a “prolonged” period of peace, prosperity and authentic brotherhood. I have also been told that in the century after its dedication, the Shrine at Mt. Meeker will be the most visited Shrine in the world. That, along with my angel’s emphasis all my life that this is NOT the end suggests that it will be much longer than a few years."
If you do choose to visit Charlie's website, I humbly suggest that you may first want to read the "God's Plan" link at the top of the website, because it gives a good overview of Charlie's alleged mission. I would suggest also that you read the "comments" section beneath each article for many detailed perspectives from Charlie and many others.

As with all mystics and prophets that are not yet approved by the Church, CAUTION and CAREFUL DISCERNMENT are the guiding principles. We should not be too quick to approve, nor quick to condemn, unless in the latter case there is solid evidence and justification to do so. One important thing to consider is the fact that unlike some recent alleged visionaries like "Maria Divine Mercy" and "Locutions to the World", both of which have turned out to be not authentic as I have revealed on this website, Charlie on the other hand uses his own name and identity, and puts his personal reputation on the line and out there for everyone to research and consider in all sincerity.

In the end, the near future will tell whether Charlie's prophecies are from God, or not, and to those who may object to my posting the above information on this website thinking that to do so is imprudent, I respectfully reply with St Paul: "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21), and then elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures we read: "Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7), and so with this in mind I leave everyone free to respectfully post their comments/opinions below.

"My purpose is to reassure people of God's loving intention for them in the trials that are now breaking, to help strengthen them to endure until the time of deliverance." -Charlie Johnston
Charlie Johnson, 2015
Also for those interested, here is a video of Charlie Johnston in Alabama on July 2015 talking about his experiences:
*At Fatima on July 13, 1917, the Blessed Virgin Mary stated in part "If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father (Pope) will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated.....In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me. Russia will be converted, and a period of peace will be given the world"
Some additional quotes from Charles Johnston:
-"I am sent to be a sort of sherpa, a guide through treacherous times, to help encourage and rally people to endure – to trust that rescue will come."
-"At Easter of 2008 at the Vigil, the Lord appeared to me and said, “Now the hour of darkness comes upon the world. But be not afraid. The darkness shall not prevail.” I was given an image of the Garden of Gethsemane, the sense that this was prelude to the world’s passion. I did not assume that meant the world would be plunged into darkness within a few days."
-"People ask how to prepare. I mix some facts with soothing words because people just can’t get their mind around how radically different things are about to be. Faith, family, a defensible shelter and food are the only real assets you can bring to bear. For a short time, it will be primarily a barter economy."
-"The desperation of the war with the Chinese government is what leads up to the Rescue. After the Rescue, remember, comes an extended era of peace, prosperity and true Christian brotherhood."
-"God has a plan to carry us to safety and He is ALWAYS close at hand to YOU. God will never leave us bereft.
-"Be not afraid. God calls all men to salvation."
-"We do not get heaven until we actually get heaven."
-"In God's economy nothing is ever wasted, and we are never left bereft.
-"If you want to interact with Christ, for it to be fully fruitful, He insists you stretch out your hand in faith."
-"Gird your loins, acknowledge God, take the next right step, be a sign of hope to those around you, and be deliberate and steady, knowing that God is always close at hand."

The Prayer Of Miraculous Trust which Charlie states was given to him by heaven:

In “The Prayer of Miraculous Trust” post, I specifically relate that Gabriel told me that that prayer would be particularly needed when everything was taken away from people…their jobs, their money, their medicines, their homes…and that it will open up a new age of miracles. 

The instruction is NOT that you must cease praying for the particular intention after saying this prayer, but that you must not say this prayer more than once for a specific intention. 

Why? Because there is a great ill in our times that restlessly seeks our own will without taking time to consider God’s will…that we say the words but don’t really believe. 

This specific prayer is designed to steadily increase actual trust and abandonment to God’s will. Once is enough…and then truly trust.

This prayer is to help you turn things over to God, trusting that once you have done so, whatever He then allows is for your eternal good and that of those you love.  It lets you ask what you want of God, then closes by abandoning yourself to what God wants of you.  Do not say it more than once for any particular intention, as this is an abandonment to trust.

Begin by asking for the help of Our Lady of Tepeyac, then cross yourself and say:

By the power of Our Lord, Jesus Christ; to the honor of Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception; in service to her Immaculate Heart; I ask you Lord (state intention here and ask for the intercession of the saint of your choice).  I thank you for hearing my prayer.  Thy will be done.  Amen.

Cross yourself again, and give it over to God entirely with trust. 

***Update: March 7, 2016: Archdiocese of Denver Statement on Charlie Johnston

***January 7, 2017: Update on Charlie Johnston and the "Presidential Prophecy"


«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 809   Newer›   Newest»
L Spinelli said...

I know about sin - as I have said candidly before - I was an aggressive dater until a decade ago (the full-service variety).

L Spinelli said...

Why I wrote the above: All of us are sinners. We all, myself included, have sins in our past that we regretted and (hopefully) confessed. But I'm not someone who is claiming to be a messenger of God. The simple fact that Charlie was doing these things when those "visitations" were taking place greatly harms his case.

Anonymous said...

I took a course a while back that focused on the Book Of Revelation and apacolytic biblical literature in general (e., the Book of Daniel).

A major point of the course was that the overall purpose of apocalyptic literature was that its intent was to give Christians hope in the future. The writers of that literature did not intend to give specific details about coming trials but rather spoke of particulars in coded language. The specific information that was there was typically tied to some reality at the time; for instance the famous "666" of St. John's Book of Revelation was probably a coded reference to Nero.

I think all the predictions that have come from Fatima, Medjugorje, Garabandal, and on and on, if authentic, refer to the same thing, couched in and filtered through the visionaries' very human point of view. The point is not to put too much emphasis on exactly what is going to take place or when it will occur. Charlie has given one date when a "rescue" will come and certainly that should be a point of reference with respect to the truth or falsity of his prediction.

But in these private revelations there is no new theology. We already know there will be "persecutions besides." We should always be ready. The end is always "near."

Glenn Dallaire said...

Concerning the matter mentioned in comments above concerning a number of years ago wherein Charlie himself states "I know about sin - as I have said candidly before - I was an aggressive dater until a decade ago (the full-service variety)",
-while also at the same time he was purportedly receiving heavenly "visitations":

It is not my purpose or intention to either defend, or to defame Charlie in such a matter. I merely seek to consider and discern only the circumstances and implications of the matter.

So, here is simply my thoughts concerning this matter, for whatever it is worth. While like most people I like my mystics/visionaries to be pure as the driven snow, studying the lives of such persons I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary that an authentic mystic necessarily ooze piety and virtue. Venial sin is part and parcel with everyday life, even for the greatest of Saints, for as Scripture says, "the just man sins seven times a day".

HOWEVER, mortal sin (ie. serious/grave sin) is of course a whole different matter. In Charlie's case, we do not know what category--if any--his actions while dating fell into, for it definitely was (and is) not a sin for him to date, if he so chooses to do so. In the 1990's he requested and received the "Petrine privilege" from Pope John Paul II, so he was, and is, certainly free to date, and even free to get married if he wanted to, given that his first marriage was essentially annulled by the aforementioned decision.

When we reflect for example upon the biblical story of the turbulent life of David, prophet and later King, and consider his actions of adultery and murder, and his incredibly deep repentance afterwards, it is difficult to outright exclude the possibility of God's direct (and indirect) interaction in certain cases with such persons. Now obviously Charlie has not committed such heinous acts as King David, but the point is that in certain situations, God can interact in some very remarkable ways, even in situations where a person is not necessarily "living a life as pure as the driven snow", so to speak.

Now, whether strictly speaking a prophet can remain an authentic prophet even if engaging in mortal sin--well, one would have to recognize that the Church seems to think otherwise, given the statements I have read on this matter. It seems that the action of willful mortal sin would inhibit and preclude God's direct action in such a person commissioned to prophesy. For example, after David's sins of adultery and murder, it seems that God no longer spoke to him directly, but spoke to him through the prophet Nathan.

Again, just my .02 cents based upon my own personal reflections and considerations.
-Glenn Dallaire

Leila@LittleCatholicBubble said...

I am very confused. One of the reasons that I like and refer folks to this blog is because of your very clear stand about obedience to the local ordinary. If and when a bishop speaks on a case, we all (and the alleged visionary) submit and obey, no matter what. In fact, that obedience is a key to finding out who is or is not authentic.

The Archbishop of Charlie Johnson's diocese has spoken clearly (see his recent statement) on this particular man and his visions, and has forbidden Mr. Johnson to be booked as a speaker anywhere in the diocese. So, why is this post still up? Why is it not already deleted, instead of simply having a barely-noticed "update" added at the bottom of the piece? If you will not delete, then at least put the entire content of the Archbishop's letter at the very top of the post, before anyone can read the rest. Thank you!

Jackisback said...


The issue with Charlie's quote isn't with the phrase "aggressive dating" though clearly that is a euphemism. The truly problematic part his what Charlie put in parentheses "the full-service variety". The "full-service" phrase is a term of art in the world of prostitution - i.e., in the realm of so-called "professional escort" services. There's an outside chance of course that Charlie was not referring to any habit of hiring hookers to provide "full-service" - but the tone of his remark (that tone being one of self deprecation) would certainly lend itself to the notion that that is precisely what he was implying. It is a verbal wink that Charlie is employing here (he doesn't have to define "full service" in complete detail, because he assumes the reader knows what he means). Charlie would have to clarify to be absolutely certain, but even then I'm sure there are those on this blog who might make an argument that such endeavors are still venial and not mortal in terms of their nature of sin. I make no pretense of being an expert in such matters.

Again, your habit of drawing analogies between Charlie and any authentic prophet of the past, in this case to David of the old testament, is inappropriate because it smacks of both the logical fallacies of "begging the question" and "appeal to authority." I understand you were just trying to draw an analogy to one notorious sinner who was still a prophet - you get credit for seeming to acknowledge that there should be a caveat to your defensive analogy in that God stopped talking directly to David, directly at least, after the worst of his sins. But I respectfully point out that David began his career being pulled from the field and having his head anointed with oil by another authentic prophet (who was recognized as authentic at the time). That clearly hasn't been the case with Charlie - he has not been anointed by anyone - and all of us, while still in the process of discernment, are not served well by such comparisons.

It is of course still the case that Charlie's admission of sin in this particular case gives the impression that he's being completely open and honest about his past, and this is always commendable in general terms. But the commentator who raises this as a problematic issue in the discernment process has a valid point. It is one point, among many, to be weighed by the discerning individual observer. I infer from what you wrote an attempt to minimize the impact of this particular issue of Charlie's past, but perhaps you were/are not aware of that phrase's particular meaning. I'm not precisely certain what weight to give it. I still stand in the shoes of one who refuses to condemn Charlie.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Leila@LittleCatholicBubble,
Concerning the Statement from the Archdiocese of Denver, it should be noted that there is no restrictions or sanctions whatsoever put upon Charlie through this Statement. In short, a restriction or sanction consists of taking away (removing) or limiting a existing privilege. For a layperson like Charlie, the Archbishop could have put a whole host of restrictions or limitations on his work, but chose not to do so at this time.

It seems that a couple of folks are misinterpreting the "will not be an approved speaker" statement as some sort of restriction or sanction. Yet, just like every other layperson in the Diocese, Charlie was never a approved speaker in the first place. By default, no one is an approved speaker, other than priests and deacons. So this is not a restriction or sanction, given that it was not a privilege that he was given in the first place.

Ultimately the thrust of the matter is, the Statement did not contain even one restriction or sanction against Charlie. Every single thing that Charlie was able to do or say the day before the Statement came out, he is still completely free to do or say now.

As I have stated elsewhere on a few occasions, it is not my intention to defend Charlie or his purported prophetic mission or message. As host of this website I simply am called to defend the truth. And the truth is that the Archdiocesan Statement is essentially cautionary, and contains no formal sanctions whatsoever against Charlie. To frame it otherwise is being disingenuous.

Simply put, the Statement from the Archdiocese is a strongly cautionary Statement that does not contain any formal judgement. And this is why I personally remain neutral and am taking the "wait and see" approach.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
-Glenn Dallaire

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Jackisback,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, and to be very sincere, in my commentary above I did not intend to seek to minimalise the potential gravity of the situation. Really, I think that it all boils down to the fact that concerning Charlie's actions in this matter, there is simply not enough information to make any sort of discernment on. It is, and perhaps likely will always remain, a matter between Charlie and God.

Now, on another note, did we ever get to the bottom of our apparent disagreement concerning Charlie's prophesy, where he says:
"I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process. You could have an explosion of events after an election and before an inauguration. You could have Obama declare a national emergency, cancel elections, extend his term and then depart before the extension was up. The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be."

My take was that there actually could be still be an election in November, and yet the prophesy could still be completely fulfilled afterwards. Like the example that he uses that there could be an "explosion of events after an election and before an inauguration."

If I recall our previous discussion, you got caught up on the idea of "no election", and you were repeatedly insisting that Charlie was "backtracking", yet Charlie himself states that:

"What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process."

-So, what say you? For the prediction to be true, does there have to be a election, or no? Given the words that he was allegedly told, do you still think that it is "backtracking" for Charlie to state that it is still possible to have an election?

Jackisback said...


Charlie's conduct "until about a decade ago" is not solely a matter between Charlie and God. Charlie volunteered the information, and under the Norms, it is a matter to take into account in our discernment process.

I think the above quotation about the election from Charlie comes from his post "Through a Glass Darkly" on his blog. That quote is itself a shift indeed from previous quotes of his where he was fairly emphatic on a declaration of "no elections" this year (and he directly admits this is the case in the first line "I have often said there will be no presidential election this year"). I'll see what I can do to search his blog and find the various times he made the earlier claim and for how long he made it (and whether on those earlier occasions he directly attributed the claim to something "he was told"). It may be buried in the comments Charlie makes in response to the comments of others on his blog, or it's possible it's part of one of his video taped talks (perhaps the Birmingham talk). Assuming I am successful finding the earlier declarations, we can all compare & contrast them from the most recent assertion. Part of the troubling part of the discernment process here is how insistent Charlie is with any given claim, which often gives the air of him having gotten the information from his alleged interlocutors from on high, only to have Charlie later "clarify" the earlier statement in such a way as to imply that his earlier insistence was actually derived from an interpretation Charlie made himself rather than a direct reporting of an alleged heavenly message. [And then of course, we become subjected to the tedious admonition that we all need to stop "focusing so much on the details" of a prediction - when it was Charlie who was the source of the detailed predictions.]

So, according to Charlie, NOW, yes, there "could" be an election in November, but that does not make his original prophecy valid, because that was not his original prophecy. Making amendments to earlier adamant prophecies is bad form, indicative of fraudulent locutionists' tactics which inevitably arise as the time approaches for the original prophecy to be put to the test. Fear takes over and the original prophecy is conveniently adjusted so that, when the adjusted prophecy comes true, the claim can be made that he was correct all along. The key phrase above is "What I was told was...". Told when? just before writing "Through a Glass Darkly" or originally? The original claim of no elections, I think, came up in Charlie's descriptions of the severity of the so-called "Storm." So it was originally one point of emphasis about the alleged "Storm." Things were going to get so ugly in the "fullness of the Storm" that there would be no presidential elections this year. But as I say, give me a bit of time to dig/research the original wording of the original claim.

It's the next part that I had such a big issue with: "You could have Obama declare a national emergency, cancel elections, extend his term and then depart before the extension was up." I'll not belabor once again the silliness of the "extend his term" assertion, as even Charlie has since backed off of that in his blog.

Leila@LittleCatholicBubble said...

I have to tell you, your answer still troubles me. No one is an "approved" speaker, necessarily, in any diocese (is there a list of "approved" speakers in your diocese? I'm a regular speaker in my diocese, but I don't think I'm on a list). The point is, the Church is very cautious, as you know. They don't even like putting out statements to begin with. The fact that they did, and it was not favorable but restrictive, actually means something. (I'm guessing he was speaking here and there, before this statement, or they would not have warned against it.)

On your excellent page, "Obediece to the Church, Judging Private Revelations, you said this:

While we are free to have an personal opinion regarding a private revelation, we must submit to the judgment of the Church with practical obedience. What this means is that while we are free to disagree privately with a Bishops decision, (the Bishop is not infallible these matters), we are obligated to obey with practical obedience, that is, we may not act against the Bishops decree or judgment; we may not propagate the private revelation or alleged messages that the Bishop has judged negatively, or continue to say publicly that you regard it as genuine. No private individual has the authority to judge definitively and officially which private revelations are true and which are not. The authority to rule on the authenticity of a private revelation rests solely with the local Bishop. - See more at:

I'm not saying that you are claiming Johnson's visions are authentic, but leaving up his post after what the archbishop wrote is, at best, confusing to the faithful.

I hope you reconsider.

God bless!

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Leila@LittleCatholicBubble,
Thank you for your comments. I sincerely appreciate your very valid concern. Now, if the Archbishop had actually come to a negative decision and actually sanctioned or restricted Charlie, then I surely would have taken this page offline, and I would have published the letter from the Archbishop along with perhaps a commentary strongly exhorting people to obey the Bishops decision. HOWEVER, since the Archbishops Statement essentially simply urges caution (albeit strong caution), I follow suit.

Now, what you may not know is that this article (the one we are currently commenting on) HAS NEVER BEEN linked to on this website. It has never been, and cannot be found on the HOME page, nor has it ever been linked to in any other page, EXCEPT the article I just published concerning the Archdiocesan Statement. In other words, there are essentially no links to this page on this website--the only way you can get to this page is to Google or Yahoo it, or to go to the search filed and type "Charlie Johnston" or something along those lines.

The reason for this is since the local Bishop had not made any Statement (that is up until just last week,) I did not want to preempt in any way any decision from the Church. And so I kept the article off the HOME page and did not link to it, yet those who were seeking information could Google it and find it.

However now that the Archbishop has come forth with a Statement which simply urges caution, one is therefore free to publish information concerning Charlie's alleged prophetic mission and message, so long as it is done so in a spirit of caution as the Archdiocesan Statement urges, which I definitely think that I have done so with this article.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Steve said...

Hi Leila,

Let me respectfully disagree with your comment to Glenn that "leaving this blog up after what the Archbishop wrote" might be misleading. The fact is the Archbishop has allowed Charlie to leave up his blog! At least Glenn's blog allows for public disagreement and gives all of us who are trying to figure this guy out the opportunity to share what we think is right or wrong with his purported messages.

Leila@LittleCatholicBubble said...

Respectfully, I don't think any bishop would go so far as to tell a citizen that they cannot write a blog. Catholics write blogs all the time that don't have proper doctrine or are controversial, but I've never heard that a bishop would "demand" or "command" that a blog (free speech) be removed? Never.

Steve said...


When the Bishop of Brooklyn condemned the apparitions to Veronica Lueken he directed people not to "promote or disseminate literature" related to Bayside. Now that was 1986 and I'm not sure the Internet or Blogs were even around> But had they been, and if there were a Bayside blog where people were getting most of their information about those apparitions, I can't imagine the Bishop of Brooklyn not extending his prohibition to the Bayside blog as well.

I don't think our Bishops or Cardinals think in terms of freedom of speech when it comes to the promotion of mortal sin. Certainly nobody has the right, if we believe that rights come from God, to promote (for example) abortion. And by the same token nobody has the right to promote false messages from heaven. So I think if the Archdiocese was convinced that Charlie Johnston's message was false, they would have certainly asked him to no longer promote his message by public speaking or by blog postings, and they certainly would have directed the faithful to steer clear of his blog.

Leila@LittleCatholicBubble said...

Steve, asking others to not promote certain seers (which could be akin to saying, "Don't have this person speak on diocesan property") is not the same as ordering a citizen to close down his blog. I've never heard of such a thing, and blogs have been around for quite a while now, as have Catholics peddling bad doctrine and bad "visions" on those blogs. Dioceses give caution and warnings, and that's about it.

I'll let you have the last word.

Glenn Dallaire said...

As you may know, a Bishops authority pertains strictly to matters of faith and morals, and he has the duty to guide and to protect the flock within his diocese. Now, he could have ordered that Charlie cease writing about anything concerning faith and morals, which obviously concerns the majority, but not all, of Charlie's writings oh his blog. In other words, hypothetically speaking if such was the case, Charlie would then have to be simply a secular writer. And for the Bishop this restriction, if he chose to declare it, would be well within his authority to do so, and it would be up to Charlie to obey. And if Charlie did not obey, he would automatically disqualify himself as an authentic mystic/prophet in the eyes of the Church.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Leila@LittleCatholicBubble said...

And the bishop was no doubt already loathe to do the one thing that he did do (the letter), much less go farther (even though he could). Bishops don't really look for more and bigger ways to censure or censor folks, for many reasons.

God bless you and your family as well! As with Steve, you can have the last word.

Steve said...

As I think of it, Leila makes an interesting point. She is correct that the Bishops are often disinclined to censor people. Might that apply in the case of Charlie Johnston?

Consider all the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage "Catholic" politicians. Can we name a single such politician in the US who has been excommunicated? How about any Bishops who've instructed the priests within their Archdiocese to enforce Canon 915 and prohibit such politicians from receiving Holy Communion? Consider Pelosi, Biden, and Cuomo who have apologetically promoted these evils for DECADES and yet there's silence on the part of the Bishops.

Even if the Bishop of Denver believed Charlie to be false would we really expect him to step up to the plate and clearly and unambiguously denounce him? Perhaps that statement from the Archdiocese of Denver was the best that Bishop Aquila could muster.

Jackisback said...

Fair point Steve. Witness what is the latest scandal at my alma mater Notre Dame: Father Jenkins, the current President of Notre Dame, has made a dual invitation/award of the "Laetare Medal" to former Speaker of the House John Boehner and sitting Vice President Joe Biden. The Laetare award is supposed to be for ostensible faithful Catholics who have a positive Catholic impact in the culture. Note: the award includes an actual medal and some time at the pulpit to speak at the commencement in May to the graduates. I'm not certain if Mr. Boehner is an appropriate choice for this, but I'm certain that Mr. Biden is not.

The most that the local Bishop Rhodes in Indiana could muster in terms of opposition and rebuke was to discuss the inappropriateness of such an award for Mr. Biden directly with Father Jenkins and then, when Father Jenkins proved to be unmoved by that conversation, a letter which was recently re-published by the Sycamore Trust (an organization of Notre Dame alumni determined to try to re-assert some action by Notre Dame to regain its "Catholic identity" (meaning by attaining and retaining more than 50% of the faculty being faithfully Catholic - which it currently is not)).

For any reader here who doesn't think this is a big deal, consider that not only has Joe Biden steadfastly supported abortions-on-demand without restrictions of any kind, he also steadfastly opposes religious freedoms and conscience protections for the University of Notre Dame vis-a-vis the Obamacare mandate on abortifacients. He even openly lied on stage in a debate with Paul Ryan on this very point in a debate during the 2012 election cycle, claiming that the Affordable Care Act exempted Catholic universities from the abortifacient mandate. I'll never forget Ryan's reply "then why are they suing you?"

In 2009, the originally invited Laetare Award winner was an actual faithful Catholic named Mary Ann Glendon. When she later found out that President Obama was being invited to give the commencement address and being awarded an honorary degree in law at Notre Dame's same graduation event, she withdrew, writing one of the best open letters I've ever read (published at the time in First Things). She could not understand why Father Jenkins would so overtly disobey the published guidance of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - that Catholic universities refrain from heaping awards upon individuals who espouse policies antithetical to Church teaching. Bishop Darcy at that time voiced his opposition, but nothing tangible occurred to smite Father Jenkins' decision. The ironies then multiplied as Obama's speech was rife with conciliatory tones about "common sense conscience protections" for Catholics, only to renege on all of that in the Affordable Care Act. Apparently, Father Jenkins feels no pain from being stabbed in the back in that regard. Instead he's doubling down by giving Biden the Laetare medal. Father Jenkins learned something from his experience of flaunting the local bishop in 2009: nothing bad happened to him or the University. So, he's doing it again.

Anonymous said...

JackIsBack, Obama and now being invited to speak at ND is simply unbelievable but proof of the diabolical times we are in. My father is rolling over in his grave at the goings on at his alma mater.

Re. Charlie, I think Glenn's approach is fair. Charlie's predictions will be known to be true or not very soon, so what harm is there to leave the info up for each to discern?

But if you are truly discerning with an open mind, then it's got to be clear to you that Charlie's prediction of there being no election and that the next leader of the US will not come from the electoral process is unfolding daily right in front of our eyes. Everything is setting up for this to happen. Hillary may be indicted after she is nominated and before the election and Trump will be displaced by the Republican establishment who seek to unseat him. Can you imagine the civil chaos that will erupt when they stab Trump in the back and nominate someone else to take Hillary's place when she is indicted? Believe him or not, look at the daily events and you can see it happening in real time

Jackisback said...


Taking your last paragraph point by point, not to say you are absolutely wrong, but just to analyze a bit further the likelihood of each item (and yes I do have an open mind):

1. Re: "no election...the next leader...will not come from the electoral process" -- The current "chaos" vis-a-vis the election process is an exercise in civics, and I interpret that as a healthy exercise - and that an election, having been organized by all the states and other electoral districts, with both absentee and in-person election day balloting, is still very likely to take place. So someone is going to win that election. Whether that is Rodham-Clinton, Trump, or a 3rd party candidate remains to be seen.

2. Re: "Hillary may be indicted..." -- If Ms. Rodham-Clinton is indicted (whether before or after being nominated), she may still be elected. There's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent her from taking the oath of office next January, even with an indictment against her. But is an indictment likely with the current leftward-politicized Justice Department? I think not, at least not before January 20, 2017. Even if indicted, Congress has no authority to impeach her in advance (and I doubt they would have the sand to try, even if they could).

3. Re: "Trump will be displaced..." -- Trump is unlikely to be displaced by nefarious means by the Republican party; Reince Prebus has said they are not going to abrogate their own process. If Trump arrives at the convention without the magic 1237 delegates, then all bets are off and he may lose on the floor by the time some number of successive votes are cast, but someone will get the required number of delegates on the convention floor eventually. This is not without precedent. Abraham Lincoln came in fourth out of four on the first vote at the convention of 1860, but then won the majority of delegates several votes later. But that won't be Trump getting "stabbed in the back", it will be the delegates from the 50+ electoral districts voting for someone else to get to 1237. As I say, that is an exercise in civics, and a healthy one. Things were plenty chaotic at that convention in 1860, but the front runner somehow got over not being nominated.

So, even though I have an open mind, I do not "see" the things you "see happening in real time." I see the normal things happening in an election year, with the one novelty thrown in of the possibility of a "contested convention."

Ergo, we are back to the old argument. If there will be "no election" then it will have to be because of some extremely dire cataclysm (having nothing to do with the conditions as they exist today). Charlie won't be specific about that, and now he's backed off to say that there are some narrow circumstances where there "could still be an election, but the results will be irrelevant." Again, for the results to be irrelevant, then some dire cataclysm would have to occur to prevent the winner of the election from taking office on January 20, 2017. Charlie won't be specific about that either. But the point is that the current level of "chaos" in our electoral process is not in any way indicating to us that this prophecy is "unfolding daily right in front of our eyes." Something much, much, much worse has to occur for Charlie's original or amended prophecy to become reality.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Jackisback,
Firstly, I wanted to tell you that while I may differ with you on a few perspectives concerning Charlie and his purported mission, I sincerely respect and appreciate reading your thoughts on these things. Hearing other peoples opinions helps one to get a more well rounded perspective, I think.

Now, about Charlie's prophesy that "Obama will not finish his term and that the next leader will not come through the normal political process", I found a comment from Charlie concerning this which I though you and others may be interested to read, if you have not done so already. Essentially it confirms his other statements on this matter, and it also adds some more details surrounding the predicted events.

"FatimaPilgrim said:
Charlie, another unrelated question for you that I thought about yesterday. Do you still think that Obama will not finish his term and that there will be no presidential election held next year?

(Charlie Johnston reply:)

That is a definitive statement and not subject to change, FP.

But holy cow, I say EVERYTHING is going to be upended and people here keep looking for who will be in charge based on the current system, which is going to be upended. Really?!

What I have said - numerous times - is that we will have a period of chaos which could stretch out for up to six months (most likely two to four) in which we will have a procession of would-be "leaders." But then God's plan will begin to emerge and we will regain stability as we rise to face the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church. I know very little detail about the period of chaos - but much about God's plan following it. I am not allowed to speak of it - but I CAN tell you that God's plan of succession has NOTHING to do with that provided for in the current system that is already collapsing around us.
Charlie Johnston, Oct 22, 2015

This comment can be read in its context on the Mother of God forum here: Statement concerning Obama not finishing his term and the next leader will not come through the normal political process

One of the things that we both agree on Jackisback is that for Charlie's "Obama not finishing term/next leader no election" prophesy to be authentic, then one way or another some very, very dire events will have to occur before January 20, 2017, otherwise Obama would finish his term and a newly elected President will be taking office, nullifying the prediction.

So, as far as I can surmise, the latest possible date for a "crash" is Jan 20, 2017, and very likely sooner, since even Charlie himself stated that its likely that the crash or "collapse" will come before the election in November, and that therefore mostly likely will be no election.

Thanks again for your comments and may God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Jackisback said...


I appreciate the effort to find common ground. The troubling part of Charlie's exchange with "FP" back on October 22, 2015 is how definitive he was on the question of no elections and Obama not finishing his term (of course he doesn't discuss the source of the information in detail here - he doesn't use the phrase "what I was told was..."):

"That is a definitive statement and not subject to change, FP."

So that is declaring with significant emphasis no elections and Obama not finishing his term. Contrast that with the tone in his "Through a Glass Darkly" post:

"I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process."

Oops - what happened to "not subject to change?" So that creates a huge gap, and, as well, it leaves the reader with the idea that something even more dire may occur post election, but pre-January 20, 2017 so as to make the winner of the November election and maybe even his/her running mate somehow unavailable to take office. This suggests that they are either dead or incapacitated - because who would abdicate taking office at a time when Charlie claims the world will be in crisis? But if you end game that, the Presidential Succession Act should take over so that someone legitimately in line behind the President-elect would take office on January 20, 2017. So, in reality, it shouldn't matter how much "EVERYTHING" in our current system becomes "upended". The Presidential Succession Act is designed to eliminate the possibility that there would be no one at the helm of the office of the Presidency (at any time). At noon on January 20, 2017, That person might not come from the list of persons on the ballot for President in November, but that person will likely have been elected to high office if they are within the first three positions on the succession list: Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate. After that, a series of cabinet members is named to succeed to the office of the Presidency.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Jackisback,
Thanks for your comment.

Well, in the end there is only roughly 2 months between November 8 election, and the January 20 inauguration, so the difference in time frame is therefore not very substantial, and this is why I personally am not getting too hung up on the difference.

Since the prophesy in Charlie's own words is:
"What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process."

Reading this statement above, it is wrong to assume that no matter what there will not be an election in November. The key point is really January 20 date, because no matter what it is the latest possible date that the prophesy could be fulfilled. Of course if the prophesy is authentic then it is very likely that very grave things will start happening much before then, and probably even BEFORE the presidential election in November, but nevertheless the latest possible date for the fulfillment of the prophesy given Charlie's statement above is January 20th, 2017. Agreed?

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Jackisback said...

The only way to agree with your last sentence Glenn, is to completely devalue everything Charlie said right up until the moment he changed it in the "Through a Glass Darkly" post. What he had repeatedly said prior to that - no elections - he characterized on October 22nd (in response to Fatima Pilgrim) as a "...definitive statement, not subject to change;" until he changed it in January.

This would lead one to have to go along with the notion that Charlie was misled by his alleged heavenly interlocutor for several years, only to have said "angel" correct or amend what he previously told Charlie in January 2016. Either that, or Charlie misinterpreted what his "angel" told him many years ago, repeated the error on multiple occasions, but the angel never bothered to correct him all the many times he repeated the incorrect interpretation. How many other mystics similarly make a claim to having consistently repeated incorrect information from their "angel" only to report correcting the original "message" or having it corrected by the "angel" several years and several faulty reiterations later? Charlie was adamant in October. He is just as adamant in his alteration in January. These can't both be correct, and Charlie doesn't get to decide which one is correct arbitrarily and with no detailed explanation. Charlie claims to be visited by his angel quite regularly. Why would said "angel" wait until January 2016 to correct him, if that is what Charlie means here? Of course we don't if he means that or not because he won't discuss the details.

Charlie doesn't get to characterize something as definitive and not subject to change all the way until October 22, 2015, only to change it three months later, and maintain credibility on this prophecy. My opinion - my discerning opinion: That is goal-post-moving, clear and simple. It's designed to buy time by someone who is clearly starting to become fearful that the so-called "storm" hasn't come into nearly the "fullness" that he thought it would by now.

To put it in other words, assume someone is elected President and Vice President in November. What would stop them from taking office? It would have to be something unimaginably dire. Yet Charlie would have us look past that as an "unimportant detail." The more important thing is to "acknowledge God, etc., etc., etc.".

So, no. I can't come along the road you want to take me. If there's an election in November, that will be a failed prophecy. While that won't matter to his incorrigible supporters, it will matter to people seriously attempting discernment. It will be a strike against him, just as the attempt to change the prophecy is a strike against him. If the President-elect does take office, that will just be a confirmation of the already failed prophecy. But even that may not matter to Charlie's supporters. Who knows, Charlie may change the prophecy again by then.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Jackisback,
Thanks for your comments.

I think I have narrowed down the issue here. One has to recognize that not all of Charlie's comments on his blog and elsewhere are prophesies---in fact, the vast majority of his comments is not prophecy, but is simply his own assessment from what he has allegedly been told. And it seems you are taking some of these comments to be actual prophesy, strictly speaking.

Please correct me if I am wrong but the only prophecy concerning Obama and the next leader is the following:
"What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process."

The other comments from Charlie that you cite and refer to are not prophesy at all, but are simply Charlie's own assessment from what he has allegedly been told.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

In his blog Charlie "stakes his credibility" on the fact that Obama will not finish his term as President:

"charliej373 says:
April 24, 2016 at 10:07 am
As I explained in this piece, some things can change, others are set. It is tough, but I have been trained all my lifetime and am expected to have a fair hand at telling the difference. The business about Obama not finishing his full term is one of the things that I submit as absolute...and one that I stake credibility on."

also here:

"charliej373 says:
April 23, 2016 at 11:38 pm
For what it’s worth, I did say and maintain that I have been told that Obama would not finish his full term, but would live to fully convert long after he had left office. That is by revelation and is a specific thing I must be judged on. So while Chuck was wrong on the details, he was right on the fundamental point he was making as to the accountability I have."

So, if Obama completes his presidential term then Charlie by his own statements and admission would have to concede that his alleged revelations are false.

Anonymous said...

What does Charlie mean with Obama not finishing his full term?:
- The actual 2nd term (before January 20th 2017)?
- The future 3rd term (after January 20th 2017)?

Jackisback said...

Even Charlie is aware of the Constitutional prohibition against a president serving more than two terms. So he meant the former. He used to argue that their might be a scenario where Obama could "extend his term" beyond January 20, 2017, but he no longer makes that assertion. See my previous posts as to why that is the case.

Anonymous said...

concerning these comments....

Concerning this reunification of Christianity, Charlie states that: "The re-unification will not be like a victory celebration where one side wins and all others surrender. Rather, it will be like a joyful family reunion where everyone brings a dish. Our Protestant brethren will regain the structure and foundation they lost at the Reformation, while we Catholics will regain important charisms we have so neglected they have practically been lost to us. No one will feel defeated; all will be overjoyed that the family is back together again."

sounds like the One World Religion

Anonymous said...

See this link from Denver Archdiocese

Marie Bee said...

It's been said before: Charlie Johnston is the real deal. For anyone who has been half awake these past few decades, it should be obvious that the secular world is self-destructing. Charlie succeeds in being a sherpa or guide to us who are wondering how to live and serve in these times: acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope to others. This is prudent advice every and any day of the year. I praise God that He has given us this man, who I believe one day will be called a saint and possibly canonized for His radical obedience to God and the Church.

Anonymous said...

To Unknown, while I agree that the secular world seems to be self destructing that does not necessarily validate Charlie as a true seer. The Locutions to the World "seer" was right on the money in terms of the state of the world, and how did that work out?

Boo said...

Well then, I guess you can chalk up the locutions in the comment above to be completely false. Add that to the list of false prophets Jesus is warning us about.
Please people! I say this as one who has had an interest in private revelation but you know what? We are being faithless to Jesus when we put our trust in these things. He warned us!
Charile is very well spoken and makes many good and balanced comments. And here is the danger. Because most of us who are well schooled in our faith can pick obvious frauds, (eg. If there is anything contrary to scripture and magisterial teaching) but we are more likely to be fooled with people who uphold Church teaching. When the US election happens this year, will that be proof enough for everyone that Charlie (God bless his soul) is not a real prophet? And what will our foolishness have wrought? Distraction at best, losing our faith at worst. To what end?
To be honest, I wanted what he said to be true, because this world seems to be getting worse and worse and I am appalled with so many things I see around me (for the record I'm under 40 years old.... ) and Charlie's messages seemed to give me a solution, an 'out'.
But that's not what we are called for. The first 300 years of Christianity there were countless martyrs. And many more since. There have been countless trials, storms and persecutions. Jesus told us there would be too. Now, here in the 'first world' we are getting a taste of increased suffering, which we are trying to avoid - (understandably!) But we have to go through the cross like all souls who want to follow Jesus.
And so, these are hard times. But we have ALL we need in the scriptures, sacraments and in Jesus Himself.
For my peace of soul and to avoid the vice of 'curiositas' (curiosity) I am trying to avoid lots of blogs, opinion pieces, prophesies and private revelations (except Church Approved, and not even those 'pending' approval). Scripture and the lives of the saints have enough for us to keep us close to Jesus. And PRAYER!!!!!!
Please people, before you get burned, stay away from these 'prophets'. If you follow Jesus, it won't matter whether they are true or not.

Anonymous said...

July 13, 2016 - Cries for restraint and for revolution after the murder of 5 police officers in Dallas. Race relations grow steadily worse. Brexit signals the economic unrest in the world. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president is let off the hook by a corrupt FBI (corrupt or too spineless to actually enforce the law) and our Justice Dept. is complicit. These are facts. As someone who has lived through 5 hurricanes in my lifetime, I know when to prepare, when to flee and when to pray. Blessed Mother Mary, be our safe refuge amidst all the storms of our lives. Protect us under your mantle of peace.

Ruth said...

I only today heard of Charlie and found my way to this website. I am amazed people are taking this as revelation from God. I don't disagree we are heading for some serious situations. I don't disagree with Charlie's assessment bad times will not be because God is punishing us. "We, the people" are absolutely going to bring it upon ourselves!

Our country and world is becoming more divided. We believe OUR beliefs and way of life is the ONLY WAY. We take the words of scripture out of context to fit our needs, yet can't follow the simple words of Christ to Love our Neighbor! I AM ESPECIALLY disappointed at mine and Charlie's generation, The Boomers. WE were given a better life than most of our parents had. We had an opportunity to do so much for the world. But we have failed. We are leaving behind a world of more hate, less belief in God, more destruction of the earth, etc. etc. We are the "leaders" who are guilty of preaching words of intolerance against those who are "different", refusing to even try to understand. Where is the Catholic Church I grew up in? The Church that opened her arms to all and asked each of us to sacrifice for the sake of others? Several years ago, after 64 years of being a Catholic, I found myself praying during my Adoration Session as I was thinking the unthinkable!!! I was honestly thinking about leaving the Church I loved so much because of the rhetoric coming from her leaders. Until...... God gave us Pope Francis. A man who I would honestly give my life for.

I worry about the state of our nation. We show our ugly side when we speak so ill of immigrants, the police and our President. We show our ugly side when we don't believe problems in some of our communities simply because we have never experienced them ourselves. Our media is successful in shaping our minds so that most of us can't even think for ourselves. We, as voters, don't research things to get the full story. We simply take sides as others spoon feed us because we are too lazy to eat on our own. When was the last time you HONESTLY sought to find out more about a story and from an opposing point of view?

I remember many years ago my husband and I traveled to South Texas for pleasure. We decided to visit a state park on the border to visit a very old, small Catholic church. The park was on the Rio Grande River. You could stand on one side and look across to a park on the Mexico side. We left shortly before sundown and the departure road took us very close to the river banks. As we drew close to the river we saw, in the bushes on the Mexico side, a collection of 5 people...A younger man and woman and a child of about 5 years of age. With them was another young man who was helping an elderly woman, probably in her late 70's. They were waiting for the sun to go down enough so they could attempt to cross the river. At that moment I felt my heart HURTING and a voice in my head and I began to cry. Real tears of real sadness. The words..."There but for the grace of God....." I will never forget that day!

Love of God and our fellow man will get us out of the mess we are in, both in this country and all over the world. But you cannot love if you will not even listen. Find the time to get out and interface with those you think you know. Spend time speaking with a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant if you don't know their religion. Live like our Pope and stop being so willing to judge others. God is Mercy, Christ is Forgiveness. Thoughts are Actions and what we think about is what we will get, in our private lives and in the world. If you want the world to be better, start making it that way. Now! Tomorrow! And then, whatever happens will happen but at least we can say we did our part.

Glenn Dallaire said...

On August 28, 2016 in a post entitled "The election...and other potential triggers" Charlie stated:
"....If, next January, Barack Obama peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I will declare myself unreliable and go away. But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history. I appeal to you to quit trying to flatter yourself that you have figured out how God is going to accomplish this, for that way leads to destruction. Trust Him and follow Him whatever happens. I have told you true."

I would add that his post from a few days prior to this entitled "All in" is also very noteworthy.

It is of course completely uncertain at this time as to whether or not his prophesies will come to pass, but for sure one really has to give him a good deal of credit for his courage and faithfulness to this work to which he believes he has been called to, for he has given himself completely to mission over the years, and has staked his entire reputation upon it.

But time will very soon tell whether he truly has been sent by God, or not. Meantime we watch, wait and pray.
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I see Charlie Johnston to be a prophet of doom. He brings anxiety, worry, and concern to people. He disrespects and hurts those who disagree with him. He is proud, and at times his language is curt, common, and unloving. Is this the kind of messenger that God would send us? I don't think so. I've prayed about Charlie, and what I get from the Lord, concerning, him, weighs heavy on my heart. He travels all over the U.S. warning people about the supposed on-coming storm. His news is that millions will be killed, that there will be a massive economic downfall,that many of us will go hungry, that many will lose their homes. He talks about riots in the street. This is frightening talk. I don't believe that God usually reveals the future to us, like this, because He is merciful, and doesn't want us to worry. This is why I don't believe what Charlie says is true. Again, he is a prophet of doom. I, myself, prefer to look at the private revelation messages of Garabandal, where Our Lady says we can avert any kind of future difficult world events, by our prayers, and the rosary. Charlie does not speak of the averting of this "supposed" storm he predicts, by our prayers. He claims the storm WILL happen, and there is nothing that we can do about it. Our Blessed Lady gives us "hope," and says that our prayers to, God, can change the course of future events. Now who are we Christians to believe, and follow, when it comes to the course of future events? Are we to believe Our Blessed Mother, or are we to believe a man, and supposed prophet,
who has already predicted things that have not come to pass? This man, Charlie Johnston, has already upset and negatively affected the lives of many people who have heard his messages. He needs to stop. God will hold him accountable at the Warning, or the Illumination of Conscience. Enough is enough. Dear Lord Jesus, Charlie Johnston needs to stop.

Dom said...

To anonymous above, what if the chastisement was truly about to befall us? At some point God will say enough is enough. We abort babies by the millions and have enshrined sodomite marriage in our law. Our Bishops allow the politicians who support this to receive Holy Communion. And society is now even confused as to what constitutes being a male versus a female, and you can be fined or go to prison if you question a man going into a woman's toilet. No, a correction as an act of mercy is certainly coming. Why is it so hard to believe that God would want us to maintain hope in the midst of the storm. The Triumph of Our Lady foretold at Fatima is soon to happen.

Anonymous said...

In one of the videos Charlie posted recently on his website, he begins by saying he had nerve damage in 2005 and can't stand up for more than five minutes without great pain ensuring. He explained that was reason he was provided with a chair. He then proceeded some time a bit later, to stand up for a full twenty minutes (I timed it) giving forth his speel on the way of the world and God, laughing, speaking evenly and with no indication verbal or nonverbal that he was experiencing pain. Moat interesting....

Anonymous said...

I think he has a problem standing in the same position for more than a few minutes, as long as he is moving he is OK.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Yes, Charlie has explained on a few occasions how it is painful for him to stand still---for the most part he can walk, or he can sit just fine. However, if he sits for an extended period, like in a car, it can be painful for him for a few moments when he goes to stand up (and I have seen this first hand, as he may sometimes uncontrollably let out a sort of "youch" when getting out of a car). But according to Charlie, standing still is the most difficult for him, so if you notice in the videos when he is standing he often shifts from one leg to the other, back and forth.

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to open up their eyes, and see... Charlie Johnston is false... He comments on things unfolding, and says that it will be this, way, but possibly not... A true Prophet of God, if he has truly been hearing from God, Mary, and his angels, would know the facts. There would be no vagueness. A prophet would be sure. Lucia, at Fatima, knew the facts. She knew for SURE what had been told to her by the Blessed Mother. It is this "vagueness" in reference to Charlie, that lets me know he is not a true Prophet. Also, his often egocentric, and uncharitable attitude toward others, let's me know he is not a true Prophet. And we can make excuses for, him, and say every prophet is human. But my belief is that usually God picks holy, humble, and loving people, with the best of virtues, to speak His messages that come to the world from His Mother. And if Charlie's truly been seeing God,and Mary, wouldn't His heavenly visitors have corrected Charlie about his unkind, and hurtful,attitude, toward those who may not share his view? If so, we would have been seeing an improved Charlie in this respect. And I don't think we have. Because, in my opinion, there have been no heavenly visitations, for Charlie. Soon we will see the supposed prophecies,or predictions,of Charlie Johnston, deteriorate and die. And Charlie will have much to regret. And the people who have been following, him, will have much to regret.

Helen I said...

I say it,again, Glen. You are much too "pro Charlie Johnston," in your posts, to truly be neutral in regards to him. And this is not fair to those who post, who question what Charlie does,or do not see him in a favorable light. Glenn, in your posts, you say to us you are "neutral," when it comes to Charlie, but from what I have read from your posts,you have made it CLEAR that you are not. A person such as, yourself, who overseas such a blog, needs to be TRULY neutral. Please provide, this, to the people who post, and read your blog. Otherwise, your words that you post regarding your being neutral, are JUST WORDS. Thankyou.

Anonymous said...

I agree Charlie can be cranky and short with people. But sometimes God chooses to write straight with crooked lines. He has certainly done so in my case. Despite what any of us think, the fact is the Archdiocese of Denver put virtually no restrictions on Charlie and has opted to take a wait and see position. From what I see that's the approach Glenn seems to be taking. I do appreciate that Glenn does not censor the comments on this blog. I have not made up my mind so I like to hear what other people are thinking.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree Glenn is not "neutral." Disagree about the Diocese and restrictions. The Diocese does not allow Charlie to speak on church property, the property the Church owns and has jurisdiction over. That is a fairly hefty restriction. The Church does not have jurisdiction over The Hilton or other non-Church venues Charlie speaks in because the Church does not own or manage this property. To twist this into,"Charlie has not been banned or had restrictions placed on him because the Church has not banned him from speaking in non-Church property, " is a nonsense. The Church cannot tell The Hilton, Holiday Inn or any other non-Church property who they can have speak on their premises. But it can stop people it is concerned about from speaking on its own property as the Diocese has done with Charlie. Appallled by the rant he let loose when someone suggested he had been banned at a recent "event." So much for loving your neighbour and taking the next right step.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous (October 17-th), as far as I can see, Charlie's lines are only crooked. I do not see any straight lines. And his behaviors of "cranky and short" are not acceptable. God calls people to holiness- especially those people who he has chosen to be prophets, and who are to carry the messages that come from His beloved Mother, and Himself. Cranky and short, are WAY understatements, for the unkind, and very unloving way Charlie has treated, people, who question him, or choose not follow him. And as far as the Archdiocese of Denver, Charlie DOES have restrictions. He is not allowed to speak in any of the Catholic Churches there, and people are to use caution, and prudence, when it comes to Charlie Johnston. For me, personally, I do not need a "wait and see" kind of approach to Mr. Johnston. For I feel that he is not a true Prophet of God,and l believe that his supposed prophecies, or predictions, will come to nothing. I have praying about this for a very long time, and my discernment regarding all of this,comes from really seeking God, and following what I believe the Holy Spirit has shown me in my mind and heart. God bless you.

Anonymous said...

The Archbishop did not tell Charlie to take down his blog or to modify the content in any way. Nor did the Archbishop tell the faithful not to read Charlie's blog or not to attend his conferences. These actions were certainly within the Archbishop's jurisdiction. And while the Archbishop didn't endorse Charlie's messages it's my understanding that he didn't find anything therein that contradicts Catholic teaching. So we're free to cautiously follow Charlie and pray for discernment.

If you don't believe Charlie that's absolutely fine. We are free to ignore private revelation, even approved private revelation.

But if in the unlikely event that sometime between now and 1/20/17 (Inauguration Day) there's a major world catastrophe, e.g., the stock market crashes and money becomes worthless, nuclear bombs are traded between countries, a comet strikes the earth, or whatever, and the world descends into wide spread panic and despair, simply live one day at a time, take the next right step, be a sign of hope for those around you, and know that we will eventually be rescued by Our Lady.

Helen I said...

Charlie's message of acknowledge God, take the next right step, and be a sign of hope to your brother, is something we Christian Catholics have known, or should have known, since we opened up our first Baltimore Catechisms. This message is nothing new to us. We did not need Charlie Johnston to tell us, this. WHATEVER evil may befall us in the future, God has already equipped us with the faith,to handle, as Christians, and as Catholics. Charlie is not presenting us with a new concept. This same idea of loving God, our neighbor,and doing the right thing, is found over and over, again, in the Holy Scriptures. Again, this is nothing new. We also have the messages given to us by Our Lady, that encourage us in these end times- to pray, pray, pray, to say the rosary, to receive the Eucharist, and to make sacrifices. All of these, things, Mother Mary tells, us, will prepare us for any difficult things to, come, and may even avert these difficulties. You can either listen to the words of Mary and Jesus, or you can listen to a false prophet- that is YOUR choice. I choose not to follow Charlie Johnston, who I believe to be a false prophet. And as far as the Archdiocese of Denver, I will follow their statement to be cautious, and prudent, when it comes to someone like Charlie Johnston, and I think others should heed that, also. God bless all who read,here, and may we always follow the leadings of our dear Holy Spirit, when it comes to our lives, and our faith lives. Thank you, Lord, for helping me to do this.

Jackisback said...

Here, here, "Helen I"!

And, I note, here we stand on October 19, 2016 - and from all appearances, so far, we would appear to still be in the period of time referred to by Charlie as the "Summer of Discontent." We are not, at least I assert as much, in the "Fall" because, if we were, things would objectively be very, very much worse in terms of financial markets and international relations. There's still time yet, of course, for Charlie's prophecy concerning the "Fall" and the "fullness of the storm" to come to fruition before the "end of 2017". Charlie makes no official claim as to the actual timing of the "Fall" or the "fullness of the storm" (however much he strongly implied that the "Fall" was imminent in the chronological fall of 2015 - which I wrote about at that time) - only that both will occur sometime prior to the "Rescue" at the "end of 2017." That said, this is the usual point in the debate where several less-than-charitable commentators (i.e., Charlie's staunch defenders and apologists) pipe up to chastise me with words hard as steel about how I am stupid for not recognizing the "fact" that the "Fall" began long ago and that the "Storm" is in full swing, if not yet in complete fullness - and that I must be a complete moron to not have noticed.

I also note that, as of today we are just a bit more than 13 weeks away from the crucial watermark of inauguration day - January 20, 2017. At noon of that day, the office of the President of the Unite States becomes vacant, i.e., the current President's term comes to an end (a vacancy that normally lasts only for a few seconds of time during which the President-elect is sworn into office) via the Constitutional "term limit" as expressed in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution. So as to be perfectly clear, that particular Amendment XX has four relevant sections (i.e., Sections 1 through 4), which I quote here in their entirety:

- begin quoted text -


The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.


The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.


If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.


The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them."

- end quoted text -

See continued discussion in next post...

Jackisback said...

…continued from previous post:

So even for those previously uninformed about Amendment XX, I hope this makes it clear that it is not possible for President Obama to, by any action (e.g., Executive Order or otherwise) "extend his term" of office beyond noon on January 20, 2017. Mr. Obama will be out of office, that is, the Office of the Presidency will, by operation of law, be vacated - and it won't matter if Mr. Obama tries to stay, physically, inside the White House, or even if he might be successful in convincing the military or other armed personnel to stand guard outside the White House, refusing to let the successor to the Presidency enter (a la in the style of the ancient Roman Caesars). Obama's term of office comes to an end as of noon January 20, 2017, as a matter of Constitutional law, period, end of story, bye bye, see you later.

Also note, that as of today's date we are just one day shy of three weeks until election day (Tuesday November 8, 2016). Now, as for the prophecy that the next national leader "will not come from the election process" and, taking into account Amendment XX of the Constitution (as well as the extreme unlikelihood that Amendment XX could be repealed or replaced or superseded between now and January 20, 2017) we must necessarily believe a few things about the election on November 8th.

First, let's assume that, for argument's sake, that all the states and other voting jurisdictions necessary for one of the candidates to actually get to the necessary 270 electoral college votes certify their positive results on or shortly after November 8, 2016 as we would normally expect, and thereby we have a new President-elect and Vice President-elect. If that occurs (and I'm not even going to address here the fact that Charlie initially described part of his original prophecy that an election would not occur at all - and he even described that part of his prophecy as "definitive" on his blog in response to a questioner), then the only ways for the next national leader not to "come from the electoral process" at that point would be for both the President-elect and Vice President-elect to either:

1. die
2. resign
3. be removed from office
4. suffer from some "inability" to serve, or
5. fail to qualify

It is highly unlikely that both the President-elect and Vice President-elect would both "resign," be "removed from office" or suffer from some "inability" to take office, though I concede it's possible. It is slightly more realistic, though again unlikely that both the President-elect and Vice President-elect would die or fail to qualify to serve in the interim period between November 8, 2016 and January 20, 2017.

If, however, both the President-elect and Vice President-elect are unable to serve come January 20, 2017, then Congress, under the authority under Section 3 above, exercises its authority of "declaring who shall then act as President" by virtue of the enactment of the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947" which has been revised from time to time and is now embodied in the text of Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Section 19, which states in its entirety as follows:

See continued discussion in next post...

Jackisback said...

…continued from previous post: - begin quoted text -

"Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act:
§ 19. (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. (2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President. (c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that (1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President of Vice President qualifies; and (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals. (d) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service. (3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President. (e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them. (f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.

See continued discussion in next post…

Jackisback said...

...continued from previous post:

- quoted text continued -
Resignation or refusal of office:
§ 20. The only evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaring the same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the Secretary of State.
§ 21. As used in this chapter the term -
(a) “State” includes the District of Columbia.
(b) “executives of each State” includes the Board of Commissioners * of the District of Columbia.
See continued discussion in next post...

* The functions of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia are now performed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia. (Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, Section 401, 81 Stat. 948: Pub. L. 93-198, Sections 422 and 711, 87 Stat. 790, 818.)"
- end quoted text -

It's helpful to note a few things here that can put into question what Charlie's "angel" or other "supernatural interlocutor(s)" actually meant by, as purportedly revealed to us by Charlie, the concept that "our next national leader will not come from the electoral process." That's because, first, many of the people on the list of whom would take office would be persons who would have been elected on November 8, 2016 (as "part of our electoral process") and who would have taken office on January 3, 2017 (one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate). Those elected persons are

1. the Speaker of the House of Representatives
2. the President pro tempore of the Senate

If it were to come about that the Succession Act would have to be utilized, would that person, in their role of "Acting President," have attained the position of "national leader" as "part of the electoral process?" The answer could be "no" by virtue of the fact that each of these office holders would have been required to resign their House or Senate office position and then serve as Acting President according to the provisions of a statute (Title 3, U.S. Code Section 19), not by virtue of having been elected President via the Electoral College. But I assert the answer is "yes" and let's assume for a moment at least, that even Charlie would agree (again for the sake of argument) because these office holders were in fact elected on November 8th to their House and Senate offices - and the Succession Act is in place as the primary safeguard of the electoral process. Ergo, under these very reasonable assumptions, this means that for the prophecy of "the next national leader will not come from the electoral process" to be fulfilled, it would mean, as a necessity, that at least one of the following events will have had to occur between November 8, 2016 and noon January 20, 2017 with respect to the a. President; b. Vice President; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the d. President pro tempore of the Senate; their collective:

1. deaths
2. resignations
3. removal from office (e.g., impeachment)
4. inability, or
5. failure to qualify

See continued discussion in next post…

Jackisback said...

…continued from previous post:

What does "failure to qualify" mean, you might ask? First, that phrase is meant to convey the various qualifications for office as enacted by the laws of the voting jurisdictions of the states, etc., but also refers to situations where there is an election controversy, or, where no candidate receives a majority of the electoral college votes (and in that case, where Congress also deadlocks on its choices of whom to vote for President). The final and most bizarre way for a failure to qualify is where the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate are all unable to assume office due to one of the first four causes, and this occurs just moments before inauguration and the taking of the Oath of Office (such as in a successful terrorist attack, for example) - in such a case succession by a Cabinet member is not possible because the new Cabinet is officially nominated and confirmed by the Senate only after the new President takes office. Thus, all individual Cabinet hopefuls named in the Succession Act would "fail to qualify" for office, a situation that could not quickly be rectified on inauguration day. It's likely then that the office of the Presidency would remain vacant for some short duration of time in which the House would elect a new Speaker and the Senate would elect a new President pro tempore, who would then immediately resign and then respectively become the Acting President and Vice President. [Note the source for my assertions about the workings of the Succession Act, to the extent I have not directly quoted a statute above, are derived from the Frequently Asked Questions portion of the website for the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration -]

So, why go through this exercise? My answer is for the purpose to show how very, very unlikely it is that such scenarios will play out in the way that Charlie's so-called "prophecies" describe. Standing in the situation that we now find ourselves on October 19, 2016, I assert, not-a-little-confidently, that one would likely have to be characterized as an incorrigibly gullible optimist with respect to the belief that Charlie's prophecies regarding Obama remaining in office until the end of his term and regarding the elections will come true:

1. that of Mr. Obama leaving office in disgrace prior to noon January 20, 2017 (Obama is spending virtually all of his time "legacy mongering" and will likely do nothing controversial to jeopardize his future on the "rubber chicken" speaking circuit)

2. that of the next "national leader" not coming from the electoral process (as that requires more than one person to be unable to serve after the election on November 8, 2016, and perhaps as many as four persons unable to serve)

For you Charlie Johnston apologists out there, who are holding out the belief that events will actually still proceed as Charlie describes, according to his own stated timeline (which is now much more compressed than it was just a year ago, when I first started commenting on this thread) all I can do is put on my best Chris Berman (of ESPN fame) voice impersonation and say to you, "tick-tick, tick-tick, tick-tick!"

See continued discussion in next post…

Jackisback said...

…continued from previous post (last part of post):

For those whom I may have upset by my analysis here, I truly mean no harm. And, I reiterate here what I have said about Charlie's prophecies in the past and about Charlie himself: I see him as relatively harmless in general because he does not purposefully lead any of the faithful into error or confusion on a per se basis (despite the fact that much of his advice could lead you to some amount of unnecessary expenditures at the "Peppy Prepper" website) and because following his advice, should his prophecies actually come to fruition, is also harmless from a faith perspective - though I have never been impressed nor, as Glenn and others claim, "edified" by his recommendations, precisely because, as "Helen I" points out, "WHATEVER evil may befall us in the future, God has already equipped us with the faith to handle, as Christians, and as Catholics." Indeed, nothing that Charlie recommends wouldn't also be heard in a sermon from your least-able Catholic priest or deacon on any given Sunday.

I look forward to re-posting some thoughts after Tuesday November 8, 2016 and again a little after noon-time on Friday January 20, 2017. I shouldn't feel the need to post about this topic ever again after that, assuming Charlie truly holds to his pledge to "go away" - if Obama is still in office at 11:59:59 a.m. east coast time on Friday January 20, 2017. For at that point, the tedious "wait and see" approach taken by some, regarding all this, will be over, and Charlie will be in need of our prayers, not rebukes.

Blessings to all,


Anonymous said...

Her prophecies have never failed- Google Glenda Jackson- 2016 Election Interview

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above,

Glenda Jackson ministers with Benny Hinn. Remember, you're known by the company you keep. Ever heard of Benny? He's the protestant preacher whose net worth is $42 million. Benny is only exceeded in net worth by Pat Robinson ($100 million) and Kenneth Copeland ($760 million). Nice work if you can get it.

But this blog posting is about Charlie Johnston so we are getting off topic.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous above, if we are to be TRULY echumenically minded,we need to consider our Protestant brothers and sisters, and the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them. We need to look at Glenda Jackson, because as a Prophetess she has NEVER been incorrect about any of her prophecies. Now is the time of these elections, so I thought that those who read here, might like to hear what she has to say. She is the third in her family, who has a special annointing, that has been passed down to her. It is unfair of, you, to relate other people to her Ministry. You are standing in judgement of her, and those people from other ministries. It is God's place to judge, not yours. She strikes me as very humble,and holy,and one who constantly seeks the Lord in terms of her ministry, and her gift of prophecy. She has made it apparent, that she greatly cares about those people who follow her ministry. She advises them to stay in the Word, and she gives God all the glory. Please don't be so closed minded, that you cannot listen to her prophecies, with an open mind. She is a true Prophet, and Charlie Johnston is not. He has been shown to be wrong in some of his prophecies, as many people have presented on this blog. Glenda Jackson's prophecies have NEVER failed. God has given her a genuine, beautiful, gift in,this, shown to be true through the passing of many years. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit, in standing in judgement of this true servant of God. It really is not the kind, and Christian thing to do. I'm sure that Glen would not be so narrow minded, as to not let those who read, here, hear the prophetic utterances, of this wonderful Sister in Christ. We Catholics are not that way. Let the people who read, here, decide if they want to hear Ms. Jackson, without being swayed in a negative way, by you. Again, do not grieve the Holy Spirit. People should have the chance to hear what a Prophet says, (whether that Prophet be Catholic or Protestant), and decide for THEMSELVES what they think. Many people talk about things on this particular site, on this blog, that are not DIRECTLY about Charlie Johnston. If Glenda Jackson has been given some prophecies, that are something important, that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us about the upcoming, elections, it is only fair, loving, and right, that readers on this blog,be provided with the opportunity to investigate these prophecies, without your negatively swaying them. Again, it is God's place to judge, not yours. God bless everyone that reads, here.

Anonymous said...

What exactly are Glenda's prophecies that you say have "never" failed?

Anonymous said...

When Glenda Jackson was 25 years old, she said that Jesus came to her, and He told her that she would be like the Prophet Samuel, and that not one of her prophecies would fall to the ground, withot them coming to pass. And that is exactly what has happened. On a Sunday evening, at Church, she prophesied that God was telling her that President Reagan would be shot, but that he would live. She had the people stand up and pray. Before the week was up, Reagan was shot. She prophesied that the Berlin wall would come down, and it did. She prophesied about the Iraq war, and what it would be called, and it came to be, exactly as she prophesied, and she did the same with the Gulf war. She prophesied that the Gulf war would end soon, and it did. She prophesied that Obama would win a first term, and she prophesied his winning a second term, and both came to pass. And now, she is prophesying regarding the upcoming 2016 elections- Google Glenda Jackson- 2016 election interview. I believe that she is a true Prophet of God, and I believe that all those that try to attack her, or her ministry, will come to naught. For "no weapon formed against her, will prosper." I believe she is a true Prophet, of God, and she has God's holy annointing on her. Thank God we have her as a precious prophetess for these end times. Thank you, Jesus. Lord, Jesus, continue to put a hedge of protection around her, and bless her ministry. Glenda Jackson gives God all the glory, and we do too. Amen.

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, Jack. I also remember you saying that you would lose all respect for Charlie if he "moved the goalposts". That's exactly what he did. His time was supposed to be up on Election Day!

If readers go back to Charlie's site and read the transcription of the now famous (or infamous?) Birmingham dinner (it's in the Visit Video section), Charlie emphatically states This next one we’re going to skip over because we’ll be in the midst of crisis. Now, after moving the goalpost on that statement in January, he points people to January 20, Inauguration Day, instead. He got annoyed when he was challenged on that statement - just as when the Christmas 2014 "last normal Christmas" prophecy didn't pan out, and he wrote an overheated and garbled defense of that failed prophecy.

Is he getting visitations? Most likely, but they're not from where people think they're coming from.

Helen I said...

I worked in the mental health system for many years, and it is very possible that Charlie Johnston is not well. Mentally ill people can be very intelligent, and can present themselves, well. They can write, well, and be good speakers, and can be professionals in the workplace. But they can also be very mentally ill. Charlie's visitations may very well be a part of a mental illness. He is the only one who has seen these visitations, so how can we know that they really happened? Everything that Charlie tells, us, is heresay, in terms of his supposed visitations. His priests that he has talked to, all these years, regarding his visitations, have never seen them. It appears that even Charlie, himself, at certain points in his life, doubted, or felt unsure about what he was experiencing. Many people are following, him, on his cult-like site. If some of the things, or all of the things he's predicted, or supposedly prophesized, about the future, don't take place, he's going to have a LOT of angry and upset followers,on his hands. But whether Charlie is mentally ill, or not, I will pray for, him, for the result of his being wrong concerning future events,is still going to have its same TERRIBLE result, to the lives of many people, and Charlie is going to have to be accountable. I believe Charlie Johnston is not an actual prophet, and I believe that he is false.

Anonymous said...

Helen, back in 2013, Charlie was told that Christmas that year would be "the last normal one."

Christmases 2014 and 2015 came and went as they normally do.

In spite of that failed prophecy, Charlie continued to gain followers, quite the opposite of Maria Divine Mercy and Locutions to the World (which bottomed out spectacularly). People are frightened and confused by everything that's going, so they turn to him because he appears to have all the answers via these so-called visitations.

Many signs point to his not being authentic: no humility; threatened critics with lawsuits; didn't appear to lead a holy life during the time of the most important "visitations". None of that dovetails with the lives that authentic mystics led.

I think there are going to be many disappointed people out there come January 20. The answer is simple: follow approved apparitions only and this kind of thing won't happen. Since that's what the Church advises, one can't go wrong.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous October 28-th, you are a very intelligent, insightful, person, who has discerned well, and correctly, what the Holy Spirit has shown, you, about Charlie Johnston. Charlie Johnston is a false prophet, and soon, we will all see how false. True Prophets are blessed and annointed by, God, and their prophecies hold, true, and none fall to the ground. They have true humility, and have many virtues, and they are kind to others. Charlie argues with, others, and puts them down, if they don't agree with him. Charlie displays a lot of ego. Charlie does not display the qualities of a true Prophet of God.I really feel for the people who are following, him, for they follow him out of, as you say, confusion and fear, during these difficult times. But they are clinging to "a sinking ship." Charlie will always have an excuse for, himself, even as his ship is sinking, and going under. He is proud, and can never be wrong. A very bad sign. Let us follow Our Blessed Mother, in the already Church approved apparitions, and do the things she has asked us to do. Let us receive the Eucharist, say the rosary, do sacrifices, and pray, pray, pray... These are the things we need to do in these end times. Lord, Jesus, and Mary, be our guides. We can never go wrong with this!

Anonymous said...

Dear Glenn, I feel the Holy Spirit prompting me to tell you to wake up! God wants you to truly open your eyes when it comes to Charlie Johnston. You have been led astray. You appear to have an allegiance, or loyalty, to Charlie Johnston, that is unfair to the readers on this blog, and it is also unfair to yourself. For time, and time again, you have shown yourself NOT to be neutral, when it comes to Charlie. Please really, pray, about what I am saying, and ask God to show you the TRUTH. You may have become TOO CLOSE to Charlie,and everything related to, him, to really see the truth. I have been praying to, God, for you, for God to "enlighten" you, and show you the truth. And I bind Satan,and his evil cohorts, to try to come against what I've said, here- and I say it in Jesus' name. The truth WILL set you, free, Glenn, if you are open to receiving it. I ask God's Holy Spirit, Glenn, to provide the GRACE for you to see the truth. You don't have to respond to what I've said, here,but you might want to think and pray about it. This is NOT meant as an, attack, but is meant for your welfare. I feel that I am following the Holy Spirit,in telling you this, because I CARE about you as a fellow believer in Christ. God bless you, Glenn, and may Christ give you His peace!

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Anonymous (directly above),
Thanks for your comments and for sharing your concerns. As for myself, as I have said all along concerning Charlie Johnston I am neither for nor against him, but I am simply neutral, awaiting the outcome of his predictions. Time will very soon tell, as I have been saying all along--all one needs to do is wait and see what comes of it. No need to come to any hasty judgement, for events, or the lack of the prophesied events, will show very clearly the definitive truth, one way or the other.

And regardless of how things turn out, for my part I will have presented the facts truthfully and fairly, that Mr. Johnston may have been given a just hearing, so that those interested might discern for themselves, for as I wrote at the very beginning of this article above (which I wrote almost 2 years ago) "We report, you discern".

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above,

Rather than asking the Holy Spirit to provide Glenn with "...the GRACE to see the truth" in regards to Charlie, you should be asking the Holy Spirit to enlighten Charlie's Bishop. Remember that Charlie's Bishop has jurisdiction over Charlie. Charlie was investigated by his Archdiocese and has been allowed to continue his ministry and to keep his blog up. The Bishop certainly could have told Charlie to take down the blog and told the faithful to not attend Charlie's conferences and to ignore his writings. But instead the Bishop decided to take a wait-and-see attitude. This is exactly the approach Glenn has taken. God bless.

Anonymous said...

Dear Glenn, and anonymous October 29-th, (just above),I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten your minds to the truth- His truth- concerning Charlie Johnston. Whether God's truth comes to you, now, about Charlie Johnston, or whether it comes to, you,with time, and the unfolding of events, makes no difference. It is my belief that Charlie Johnston is false. As I've said more than, once, on this blog, I will pray for him, for he is certainly going to need prayer,when all of his future supposed prophecies, do not come to pass. Glenn, you are not neutral, concerning Charlie Johnston. You speak the WORDS of neutrality, concerning him, but you have shown yourself to not be neutral in action,concerning, him, on this blog. And anonymous October 29-th,(just above), the Archbishop of Denver, made it VERY CLEAR that Charlie was not to speak in any Catholic churches, in the Denver Archdiocese, and that we are to exercise caution, and prudence, when it comes to Charlie Johnston. I will pray for you, both, as fellow believers in Christ. And may God bless you, both! - (Anonymous October 29-th, 5:51am)

Jackisback said...

Anonymous (from October 27th at 9:14 AM)

You said, in pertinent part:"Excellent analysis, Jack. I also remember you saying that you would lose all respect for Charlie if he "moved the goalposts". That's exactly what he did. His time was supposed to be up on Election Day!"
"...when the Christmas 2014 "last normal Christmas" prophecy didn't pan out, and he wrote an overheated and garbled defense of that failed prophecy."

Your tweak of Charlie by use of the word "garbled" is not lost on me. In prior posts I wrote at length on the goal-post moving aspect - in particular Charlie's "no elections" prophecy, later changed to "well there could be elections, but the results will be irrelevant." Glenn doesn't believe this is goal-post moving, and he's never fully explained why. I can only infer that Glenn ostensibly believes that Charlie's "amendment" to the earlier "definitive" prophecy also has the potential of being the result of divine revelation.

If my inference is correct(and it may not be) about Glenn's reason for accepting the "amended" prophecy, then I assert, with no malice at all, that there are two problems with this.

First, as others have noted, there is a "dance" that is engaged in by any would-be prophet involving "ipse dixit" ("because I say so" – logical fallacy) communications to a large audience. The dance proceeds with a denial of any ipse dixit nature to what the would-be prophet says, with the notion promoted that he/she isn’t actually the one providing the information – e.g., “don’t believe what I am saying because I am saying it, but believe me because I am simply repeating information given to me by the angel Gabriel.” Taking such an assertion at face value involves participating willingly in at least two additional logical fallacies: (1) the "appeal to authority" (it must be true because it comes from the Angel Gabriel); and (2) “begging the question” (a circular argument: “I believe Charlie‘s prophecies come from the Angel Gabriel because the Angel Gabriel identified himself to Charlie” – failing to realize that all the information being relied upon within this circular reasoning came from Charlie – which is itself de facto ipse dixit).

So there’s that. Second, this dance becomes an odd looking and out of rhythm kind of two-step when the would-be prophet engages in goal-post moving: “when I change a previously announced prophecy that was very specific as to its character and timing, it’s not because of any fear that the due date was getting too close, it’s simply because my angel said that I had misunderstood what he originally told me during the first two years’ worth of discussions. Trust me, this time my angel has confirmed to me that the new information I am now relating/repeating to you is correct – the prophecy now has x number of additional months/years until it might be fulfilled. Remember, God doesn’t have the same sense of “time” that we feeble humans have”.

This second problem disqualifies the would-be prophet in the mind of one who, like me, discerns with a skeptical eye. That is because (and isn’t this obvious?) any would-be prophet can use this technique to defer the ultimate test-date of his prophecy out into the future indefinitely. So the question must be asked of the group of believers in Charlie’s “amended prophecy:” how many times can Charlie move the goal posts before you begin to discern that you are being played? Is twice enough?

I won’t be played; I stand by my argument that Charlie disqualified himself in January. I have faith that in ten days there will be an election and we will have a new President-elect. If the elections are cancelled, then I may take a closer look at Charlie’s prophecies again and proceed with due haste to the Peppy Prepper to stock up on survival items.

Anonymous said...

I was tending to believe him until I started blogging on his site. He's very pompous. He's pompous on his blog and he's pompous to those who respond that he disagrees with, if he even lets you. He even lied on another blog stating that he has only filtered out a "handful" of comments. If you post something intelligent and against his point he as you say becomes " over heated ". however, your comment will generally not see the light of day. He doesn't let you talk negatively about someone but he does to you and he lets his favourites knock other people. He can never admit when he's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree, he even said to one person, you have no RIGHT ( his emphasis ) to blog on his site. This indicates that he is screening responses to his blog and does filter out many more comments than we know. I personally have dropped off his blog because of these issues. However, he gets away with it because of a cult like following which usually follows these "mystics" or "prophets".
On the other hand the followers do provide good resource material as they are probably Catholics looking for a place to vent and Charlie generally allows it.
However, at this point his following has died out in my area because he trampled on a few people here, we no longer discuss his material like we used to.

Anonymous said...

To the previous Anonymous: he "trampled" on people? Did he come to speak in your area? Please clarify.

More dioceses are becoming aware of him and sending out notices to their parishioners telling them to be cautious. Billings, MT, New Orleans and Green Bay, to name some.

Anonymous said...

No, one of his speeches was played through the internet at a Catholic Resource Centre.
What I mean by "trampled" was that there were a few groups of us following him and some people were blogging on his site. A few of us received and one person in particular was getting his comments blocked by Charlie all the time - Charlie said they were over the edge, so I presented the comments to another in our group who is very active in the Knights, RCIA, and a catholic historical researcher and he was offended that the remarks weren't allowed by Charlie. He wanted to confront Charlie but I said don't waste your time, he may well have, but I insisted he leave it. What Charlie was doing was actually quite sinister. When I responded to an article, more often than not he would not allow the comment if it contradicted him or made him look bad, however if I followed up he would only publish the comment that I had made later if it was able to make me look bad because he had deleted my previous well thought out comments. Example: I said the earth is green with proof, Charlie wouldn't publish it because Charlie said it was red, if I later commented that Charlie " you're an idiot for not allowing me to comment", he would post that and say it's because of posts like these you are screened - a real game player and then other people agree and it pits them against you - he knows how to play that tactic because they believe Charlie is god and can do no wrong. He also allows people to post sometimes stupid comments that are critical of him so that he can rebuff them and make himself look good. If it is intelligent and backed with facts it won't see the light of day until such time that he has thoroughly demonized you in front of everyone so that whatever you know comment on is looked like a joke because he has controlled you. Charlie is not stupid, he knows how to play people, he worked in the political sphere and was radio guy for many years. said...

Jack Gallagher,

I've been reading Charlie Johnston for about ten months. He's consistently said that an election could take place but that neither one of the candidates would be inaugurated. And he is NOT moving goalposts. He said that if either Trump or Clinton are inaugurated, then he would be a false prophet.

You don't have to believe in Charlie Johnston or even like him. But please, get your facts straight when you make a case against him.

Anonymous said...

I went to listen to the to the Birmingham video myself to find out the truth, he does state that we will be in full blown crises and that we will skip over this election 2016, it's at about the 42:00 minute mark. Furthermore he states that Obama will not finish his term in 2016, he says that right after the no election remark. Those words came out of the mouth of Charlie Johnston himself with no coercion that I can see. I also noticed Charlie Johnston's followers become quite nasty when your opinion does not match theirs, however in this case you can not dispute what Charlie said in Birmingham. By your fruit ye shall know them.

Anonymous said...

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets,who come to you in sheep's clothing,but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes,or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.

Charles Ryder said...

When a prophet revises his prediction many months in advance of the prophesied event, it is not proof that the prophet is a false prophet. Nor is it a sign of moving the goalposts. Charlie Johnston has been saying for months that there may well be an election. What he has been saying for months is that neither candidate will be inaugurated. Now If Trump or Clinton are inaugurated, then Charlie's gifts need to be seriously questioned. He says that if he is wrong about the inauguration, then he will not make any revisions -- he admits that he will be absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

Anonymous said...

Charlie was wrong about Christmas. Not once but twice.

Charlie was fairly adamant on that video from Birmingham about the election not taking place.

This next one we’re going to skip over because we’ll be in the midst of crisis.

He also made a comment about not having a regular election cycle for the next few years.

This isn't pulled out of thin air. It's right there on his site. A quicker way to find this is to go to his "Visit Videos" section and look for the Birmingham dinner transcript.

At this stage in the game, excuses for Charlie aren't going to cut it. He said what he said. His "walking it back" this past January doesn't bode well for any of his future predictions.

Jackisback said...

Charles Ryder,

My recitation of the facts is completely accurate, but you wouldn't have known that, given that you apparently only began following Charlie's communications for the past ten months? Your repeated assertions that Charlie has not moved any goal posts is rejected, repeatedly, with evidence to the contrary coming directly from the mouth of Charlie.

He prophesied multiple times that there would be no election. When making that prophecy, for years, he also defended the specificity of it in answering a question of a sycophant follower on his blog - where he described the "no election" prophecy as "definitive." If you want more information about that, with precise citations from Charlie's blog, I encourage you to read all my previous posts on this subject, as it is silly for me to repeat the detailed facts again. That is what blogs are for, to keep a permanent chronological record.

More recently, but apparently before you began following Charlie's missives, he changed the prophecy to say that there "could be" an election after all. Suddenly, what Charlie defended as "definitive" became no longer definitive, as of that moment, ipse dixit - because Charlie said so.

That is goal post moving, pure and simple, precisely because the test-date to determine if he is a false prophet has been moved forward into the future, by Charlie, from November 8, 2016 to January 20, 2017 (and by the way, he even attempted to fudge the January 20, 2017 test-date by absurdly claiming that Obama "could extend his term in office" - a claim which I thoroughly and laboriously debunked in prior posts).

But my most recent detailed argument above was an attempt to enlighten everyone about there being something wrong with the thought process of Charlie when making this sort of change/amendment to an originally "definitive" prophecy which was bound by a specific date in time.

I won't repeat the argument, but I will entertain repeating the question directly to you: If -- arguendo, Charlie tomorrow proclaims that he is taking back his recent statement that if he is wrong about January 20th, that he would be a false prophet, and that his "angel" specifically instructed him to take back his self-expressed pledge not to make any revisions, and then further, his "angel" has corrected him yet again, and now says that the next national leader could come from the electoral process (which would be in direct opposition to another of his earlier prophecies) and that Obama could serve out his term, because his "angel" now says that it is the next President or acting-President who will not serve out his term, and then further still, therefore, we won't know if his prophecy is false until the end of 2017, by which time Charlie proclaims that the "fullness of the storm" and the "rescue" will still come to pass -- will you then take Charlie at his word and defer your final discernment or judgment as to his authenticity as a prophet until "the end of 2017?"

Anonymous said...

I think all should calm down. Election Day is a few days away so let's see what happens. Also, let's see if either Trump or Clinton takes the oath of office on Jan 20.

I can see at least one scenario for this: Clinton wins on Tuesday, but is charged and arrested before Jan 20, and so neither Trump nor Clinton would take the oath of office. Would Kaine take office? Not sure.

Anyway, a lot is happening vis-a-vis the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's emails.

If all goes 'normal' and Trump or Hillary take office, then Charlie himself says we should dismiss him: I will declare myself unreliable and go away.

So no worries! Just wait and see! I like how he said to consider him as unreliable if it does not happen. And so we will!

Jackisback said...

"Would Kaine take office?"

Yes, according to the presidential succession act of 1947, now known as "Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Section 19." See my long series of posts above at October 19th.

And that would mean Charlie's prophecy is still false, because in that case, the next national leader will have come from the election process, something Charlie's prophecy says will not happen. So we should still dismiss Charlie, even if it is Kaine, not Hillary, who takes office at any point in time.

But the point is that we should all still dismiss Charlie if there is an election at all next Tuesday. There's no need to wait until noon on January 20th, if you are a truly discerning individual. If there is an election, he is a false prophet, because no prophet gets to be considered authentic when he changes his prophecies a few years down the road, in advance of them being tested, as has occurred here with Charlie.

I reiterate: If some disaster strikes such that the election does not take place next Tuesday, I will be the first one to acknowledge Charlie as a prophet and I will be logging on to the website of the Peppy Prepper and begin to stock up on stuff.

Anonymous said...

Everyone calm down. Let's wait few days and see what might happen on November 8th. Then we wait for 20th of January, 2017. Finally everyone will jump to conclusions. It is really a bad thing to accuse someone of being a false prophet without even waiting for the real facts. Patience is the key here.


L Spinelli said...

November 8, 2016.

January 20, 2017.

Actually, the first test date to determine whether Charlie was real or not was December 25, 2014.

That prophecy went down in flames, but thanks to the "convoluted and garbled" post he wrote a couple of weeks later, he continued to gain followers.

Strange (or really not) how that worked.

L Spinelli said...

I'm going to walk back my previous comment, because the first test date was actually in the summer of 2012.

"The Storm" was supposed to break full force by then, but thanks to "Charlie obeying authority" or something, it didn't.

Charlie revised that version of the story in 2015.

Jack noted how many times the story has changed. He's right: how many times are people going to get played before they've had enough?

L Spinelli said...

Here's the link to the revised storm story:

Anonymous said...

Well, this time we have a definitive milestone marker. I am not defending Charlie. I do know that so-called mystical folks cannot always get things exactly correct...heck nobody really understands in full the Book of Revelation, visions recorded by John the Apostle.

I am nearly 60 and have voted in Presidential elections since I was 18. I will know if the election goes off in a funny way. Anything odd, then I will cut Charlie some slack. I will wait until Jan 20 because I for one think Obama and his supporters behind the scenes want very badly to engage Russia militarily, and they are looking for the excuse to do so, and he especially wants it to look like it was Putin's fault - he wants to be blameless. Putin knows this and has been preparing militarily, countering Obama's moves. Obama has been pushing and prodding at the Bear for many years now. He was shocked when the Bear pushed back and took Crimea - like all spoiled brats used to getting their way, after he and State orchestrated the putsch in Ukraine to install a Western-leaning government he just could not believe that Putin had the audacity to take Crimea and annex it to Russia. Like the Chicago thug he is, he has been looking for ways to get even with Putin, to put him in his place, ever since.

We listen to the likes of Charlie because we sense, we dread, these times we are in now. We see evils piling up relentlessly in our once great country. We feel something bad is coming to us. We know of warnings and future chastisements from Our Lady. First, we know she is here, and she only comes when she is most needed - that alone is a sign: Blessed Mary is here. So when Charlie says these things, we don't dismiss them outright until a specific event fails to occur.

We also know the Holy Door of Mercy is closing soon, and we wonder if it will be followed by the opening of the Door of Justice i.e. punishment from God.

I will readily dismiss him if nothing happens; I will not cut him slack if all goes normally through Jan 20, even if I don't like who got elected. There is n harm in waiting it out a bit, none.

But even if he is dismissed, I will remain vigilant, watching all that is happening before us.

God bless all.

Anonymous said...

It's not good enough to cut visionaries or mystics some slack because you now open up the door for anyone to predict things - I will put my track record up against Charlie any day and I'm not a prophet,but I could pose as a prophet and anytime I get something wrong I could say I misunderstood God or I interpreted God wrong - sorry or worse explain my way out.In fact others have predicted the same thing as Charlie - are they prophets? No, they just have wisdom which is God given. Charlie and his TNRSers give out some very good information, a lot of it is solid and full of wisdom and a lot of them are good Catholics but is Charlie special NO, we all have special gifts,no one is more special than another,although some on his site and him think they are more special - they're not, they think they are, but they're not, Charlie is just another Catholic with a good grasp of events who hits and misses. I'll go to Mass, pray the Rosary and ask God for wisdom. I thank God for the extensive knowledge of Mr. Gallagher above and the research by L. Spinelli and others as Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

I think what's important for us to know, at this time, is that GOD is in control. Whether prophets be true or false, or whether or not we agree, or disagree, with each other, or whether in these times we face difficult times, or not,God is always WITH us, and so is His Mother, and He wants us to TRUST Him, and to be at PEACE. WHATEVER comes to, pass, we have our faith, and we have the Trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- all powerful, and holy- Creator of all. He will guide, us, love us, protect us, and show us the TRUTH. And He knows what is best for us. And His Mother, Mary, has spoken to us at Fatima, and Akita, and at other Church approved sites. She speaks to us about the power of prayer, in these times, about the importance of the rosary, and the importance of receiving the divine presence of her Son, Jesus,in the Eucharist. She reminds us to show Christian charity, and love. At this, time, let us remember all of these things, as we pray, and know that God LOVES, us, and will ALWAYS watch over, us. We have nothing, in this life, to fear. Let us put our lives in God's hands. Thank you, Lord, for taking care of us. We praise, you, and give you the glory- forever and ever! Amen.

Observer said...

Here is some pertinent commentary posted today:
Mark Boll says:
November 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm
If the election is held would that make you a false prophet? Do you plan on fading away if that is the case?
You could still hang around and continue to add to the perpetual epiphanatic pile…

charliej373 says:
November 5, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Ah, another drive-by. If you had devoted five minutes to research, you would know that election day is not the critical day, but inauguration day. Do clowns like you, who think to show themselves smart by making accusations without knowledge or research, ever tire of publicly revealing your ignorance, instead?

Jackisback said...

From Charlie's Post "Be Not Afraid. God Calls All Men to Salvation" on his website "The Next Right Step" in the comments section:
-- begin quoted text -- says:
October 29, 2015 at 10:26 am
I wonder. Now that Paul Ryan is in place, as third in command of our country, will the center of the Storm now strike. You say the election for 2016 will not happen. That would mean our president and vice president’s terms have expired and no newly elected people are in place to replace them. So we now have a Catholic, Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House still serving his term, and arguably their replacement. Yes?

charliej373 says:
October 29, 2015 at 2:01 pm
There you go parsing. I say there will be no PRESIDENTIAL election this next time. I have also said the way things are going to come will be in a way you do not expect and NOT according to current rules. So parse away, but it will not happen the way you think.

-- end quoted text --

So here is another example of Charlie insisting back as recently as October 29, 2015 that there will be no presidential election this year, and he even put the word "presidential" in all caps so as to shout it.

I also note that I believe it was this same comment section of "Be Not Afraid..." where the exchange occurred between Charlie and "FP" or "FatimaPilgrim" on October 22, 2015 that Glenn and I cite above in our earlier discussion on this topic. I just repeated a search for Charlie's exchange with FatimaPilgrim, but it's not there. I searched for the word "election" in all of the October and September blog entries on Charlie's site, and my citation quoted above in the exchange Charlie had with is the only one that comes up.

Did Charlie delete the comment exchange he had with FatimaPilgrim????

What say you Glenn?

Anonymous said...

Those comments were on Charlie's site, obviously he let it go through as he said it was "another drive-by", he usually lets people take shots at him like that because they are easy to swat away as there is little back-up and it reinforces his belief and his followers that they are out to get him. However, if someone posted something like Mr Gallagher or L Spinelli did it never would have been allowed to be posted. Charlie would have a hard time dealing with the facts, however even if they are allowed to be posted people on his site would take that as a shot against Charlie and the poster would be the guilty party, not Charlie, it doesn't matter anymore because people believe anything Charlie says now. Charlie has this special connection to God that the rest of us don't so we'd better hang on to him during these difficult times. I guess you can call it religious fascism.

Anonymous said...

As Charlie was quoted as saying under Houston, Denver, we Have a Problem - " you have no RIGHT ( his emphasis )to post on my site". He previously said on another forum that he has only not allowed a handful of comments, now it appears that he has filtered far more than he said and now is he deleting past posts? As he said this is his site and you have no Right so he can do what he wants - I call it religious fascism.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hello my friends!
To respond to the current comments here, I personally have no idea how much Charlie moderates comments on his website. I can only speak for myself, and as for this site everyone is always free to comment here, regardless of one's perspectives--comments are never moderated or removed here, except if they are obviously spam/advertisements.

Jack: As for that particular comment from "FatimaPilgrim" that you refer to, I sometimes have good luck using "Google advanced search" feature. If I have some free time tomorrow I'll see if I an find that particular commentary.

As for myself, I continue to monitor things quietly and attentively, waiting to see how things unfold, especially the key date of Jan 20th, which should give very clear evidence, one way or the other.

May God bless all who visit here,
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

I went on Charlie's site, many months, back, and posted a question that I thought he might answer. The only thing I knew about Charlie, at that time, was what a friend had told me about, him. She had said that in these, times, she was pretty, much,only following Charlie, and her Bible. I thought, wow, I'd better investigate this. I then watched one of his talks,on u-tube. I then decided to post a question, having to do with the end times, "Three Days of Darkness," which has been spoken of by Catholic Saints and Mystics throughout many ages. Instead of receiving me, graciously, and with kindness, I was put down by Charlie. He said that I was displaying "vanity" by asking this question. He didn't even know, me, and I was being judged. My intention is to understand end time prophecies/events,that may come to, pass, so I can share this knowledge with family, and friends, to better prepare them in these times. I was asking Charlie this question out of love, and care, for my family and friends, NOT out of vanity. Charlie went on to say that I could "hang around,"on his site,but in so many, words, that I should understand, that the people who posted on his site, were economists, financiers,theologians, etc. I felt so put,down. He also said in one of his comments to, me, that in relation to my question about "the Three Days of Darkness," he never makes comments regarding private revelation. And yet, everything he talks, about, regarding his visitations, is based on his OWN private revelations. I wonder if the reason he doesn't want to comment on other private revelation, (especially ones okayed by the Church), is because he is afraid that MUCH of what he predicts and prophesies, does not agree, with, or dovetail, with these. After Charlie attacked, me, his followers followed suit. They attacked me in various ways. Extremely hurtful.I couldn't believe it. I was made fun, of, by one follower, in particular. After, that, I noted that all of the postings that had to do with that exchange of comments, simply DISAPPEARED! Everything was being "covered up." I was an innocent Christian, woman, who had no ill intent, when I entered Charlie's site with a question, and he, and a few of his followers, did their UTMOST to crush me. I then absolutely knew, after this experience, that Charlie Johnston could not POSSIBLY be a true Prophet. So, cruel, so unkind, so unloving. Jesus would NEVER pick someone like, this, to be one of his prophets. Charlie is too worldly, has too much ego, displays a GREAT LACK of kindness and charity,(just the OPPOSITE of,this),and in my opinion, from what I experienced, and have observed,is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I have even tried to pray, for him, and his followers, knowing that Charlie appears to be either misled by the evil one, or is suffering from some kind of mental illness. And his followers are obviously being misled, by Charlie,and they need prayer because of this. It takes GREAT courage for me to share, this, for the first time, with all of you on this site. I would appreciate your support as Christian brothers and sisters. Thank you, and God bless. And please, Mr. Johnston, no comments from, you, either outrightly, or anonymously. You've hurt me enough,(you who wants everyone to be a sign of HOPE to their brother). UNBELIEVABLE.

Anonymous said...

I do remember your post. I do remember the vitriol displayed - it is bizarre what ticks him off. If you're not one of his favourites he will attack you. I stay out of disputes among their elite because they will turn on you and blame you - I watched with glee when everyone was split on an issue, they were trying to be so kind to each other like "with all due respect" - it sounded like everyone wanted to explode at each but couldn't otherwise the group would have split. You're not alone, it happens more often than you realize. The crowd at his site will not support you on the other hand most will not say anything for fear of falling out of line, I've actually managed to get some good comments in but he deletes a lot of stuff before I can post so it comes out very sanitized. I don't comment like I used to and I noticed a lot of people have fallen off especially when he was at first attacking Trump, he lost a lot of those people, now he is going to get drunk and vote for Trump.
When he's on other blogs, defending himself, he never blows his top, he's always nice.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a control tactic to keep you in line. He does this to send you a message that he's in charge - not you. Additionally, people are very brave and tough on the net, they say things that they would not normally say if you were in front of them. If you read the comments above you can see that he has contradicted himself many times. He's very good at the gift of gab and twisting things when they don't turn out, at least you now have a good place to vent.
You are right, I also can not see how God would pick someone like him.
You are not obliged to listen to his message or any message except of course the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous November 6-th, 9:14am, and Anonymous November 6-th, 1:11pm, (just above), thank you for your support to my post, above. It is SO comforting to have the support of fellow Christians, like yourselves, (part of the body of Christ), who "have your back," so to speak. I felt so "beaten up" after my visit to Charlie's site, that all I could do was share with my loved ones what I had been, through, and take it all to Jesus,and His Mother. Months and months, later, after this horrible occurrence on Charlie's site, I took a chance on this, website,(Mystics of the Church),to open up about what happened to, me, and to warn others. As you, say, I have not been the ONLY one who has had this TERRIBLE experience of being bullied, and mistreated, when innocently visiting Charlie's site.I will keep in my prayers, all those people who have suffered, as I did.True prophets, chosen by God, do not treat people in the UNBELIEVABLY cruel, and inhuman way, that Charlie has treated me, and others. Again, thank you for your, support, (two anonymous, above),and may God greatly bless you!

Jackisback said...

Responding to Anonymous from November 4, 1:24 p.m.

Toward the end of your post you said:

-- begin quoted text --

I will readily dismiss him if nothing happens; I will not cut him slack if all goes normally through Jan 20, even if I don't like who got elected. There is n harm in waiting it out a bit, none.

-- end quoted text --

You are correct, that there is no harm, per se, in deferring judgment until January 20th - (and no financial harm if you are savvy enough to avoid buying a lot of expensive survival gear before then, which may turn out to be unnecessary).

We have Glenn to thank for providing this forum where we can discuss these issues in a respectful way - because as others have noted - the environment of Charlie's blog is less-than-respectful when it comes to differences of viewpoint. For a time even on this weblog, my expressed views were attacked on a somewhat persistent basis (mostly out of knee-jerk defensiveness as opposed to a personal ad hominem attack against me), and sometimes even by Glenn, until after a time I made it clear that my goal has always been discernment, not condemnation.

Glenn holds your view - that of reserving judgment until January 20th - and I simply differ on that point. While it may in fact be harmless to wait, I just happen to think, after my own reasoned discernment and spiritual discernment, that it is beyond generous to suspend disbelief beyond Tuesday November 8, 2016 after multiple, repeated statements by Charlie about the definitiveness of his "no elections" assertion. There is for me a very uncomfortable intellectual angst if I now go along and defer. That angst is derived from the typical defense of Charlie on this point, with which I disagree, and which goes like this:

[Charlie "never actually said" that his "no elections" assertion (no matter how many times he made it and no matter how many months/years he continued to make it - even when using ALL CAPS) came directly, word for word, from the mouth of his so-called "angel". In other words, in all the times he discussed the "no elections" assertion, he never began a sentence with the phrase "what I was told elections in 2016;" therefore, we can/should discount/ignore/repudiate the notion that Charlie ever actually made a definitive prophecy about "no elections", despite Charlie's description of his "no elections" assertion as definitive when he discussed the matter on his blog with FatimaPilgrim on October 22, 2015. Ergo, when Charlie officially and for the first time changed his tune in the "Through A Glass Darkly" post in January 2016 - which Glenn has dutifully captured in his summary page about Charlie - allowing for the possibility of an election after all - and because in that particular post Charlie did use the phrase "What I was told was...there could be an election" then that means his prior "no elections" assertion is moot and ONLY his new assertion that there "could be an election" is subject to debate.]

Glenn doesn't have a problem with this defense of Charlie. I do. We agree to disagree. Glenn, seemingly, sees this defense as not at all unreasonable, while I find it to be hair-splitting beyond the pale. I choose to hold accountable Charlie's first 22 months-worth of "no elections" assertions. To do otherwise, for me, is to give him the proverbial "get out of jail free card" as of January 2016 - basing that generosity solely on "ipse dixit" or "appeal to authority" logical fallacies. That, I cannot brook, no.

L Spinelli said...


Just for the heck of it, I posted the exchange that you found from 10/29/15 up on Charlie's blog.

I didn't think he was going to clear it. He did, with this caveat:

And I clarified that blunt statement in January of this year.

That was it. That's not a good enough explanation. He repeatedly said "no elections".

But it's his blog, his "visitations", and his audience...meaning he feels he can do whatever he pleases.

If he was held to the same standards as the very precise statement that Locutions to the World posted in September 2015 - the one about an economic collapse happening during Pope Francis' visit - his blog would be shut down on November 9. But that's not going to happen, and I agree with you. He bought himself more time this past January.

Anonymous said...

Under what post was it re-posted?

L Spinelli said...

In his latest blog, "This is Not the End", posted 11/5/16.

Anonymous said...

If everyone posting here is so sure that CJ is a false prophet, why did his Archbishop allow him to continue his blog and his speaking tours? Evidently his Archbishop is not as convinced as most people here that CJ is a fake. And in regards to mystics, where does it say they must be 100% correct 100% of the time? I thought there were some Catholic Saints who prophesized a few wrong things. Maybe CJ is true and maybe he's false, but there's no question we are in for a Chastisement. First abortion and now the USA has enshrined homosexual marriage in our law. May God have mercy on us.

Anonymous said...

To the two anonymous,(just above)- Nov. 6-th-(9:14am, and 1:11pm). Thank you for your support. It is nice to know that Christian brothers and sisters, on this site, provide support to someone who has suffered. You are allowing Jesus to use, you, as instruments of compassion, and Christian love. You are instruments of "fairness" and the truth. That means a LOT to, me, after all I went, through, on Charlie Johnston's site. What I went, through, was EXTREMELY devastating. If only Charlie Johnston would "realize" how he hurts, people, by his UNBELIEVABLY unkind attitude. Is this the way that God would want Charlie to treat, people?
Of course not. No one should have to go through what I, and others, have gone through-no one. This is one of the MAIN reasons, why I believe Charlie Johnston could not POSSIBLY be a true Prophet of God. Again, I thank both of you,for your support, and kindness,and God bless you!

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous November 6-th, 10:23pm, the Archbishop of Denver made it very clear, that Charlie is not allowed to speak in the Catholic Churches, there, and that we are to exercise caution, and prudence, when it comes to him. And, also, your comment about why do prophets have to be 100% correct, 100% of the time? They need to be accurate, because if they are not, what is the POINT of prophecy? God has given prophetic word to, prophets, to properly, and clearly, GUIDE his, people, not to have them be confused, or questioning. The visionaries at the great Church approved sites, where Our Blessed Mother has, appeared, did not keep "changing the story" when it came to their prophecies. They got the messages from our Lady, and spoke them out. They got those prophecies,RIGHT. There was no confusion. Charlie has caused "confusion" with his prophecies, and to, me, this is a bad sign. This is the "red flag," so to speak, that makes me believe Charlie is false. And as far as a possible Chastisement, Mary told the visionaries, that if we pray, we can lessen, or entirely avert,this. God, and Mary, are FOR, us, and are lovingly calling us who already know, God, to draw closer to, Him, and for those who have turned away from, him,to have a new life of restoration, in Him. And for all of those who don't know him at, all, to come to Him. God does NOT will to do punishment. He and Mary LOVE, us, and punishment is NOT something they want, as their first course of action. Blessed Mother, in her apparitions has made this VERY clear, and she has shed tears, because she does not WANT punishment to come upon the world. We need to do what Mother Mary, said. We need to pray, say the rosary, receive the Eucharist, and do penance. And she has also made it, clear, that we are to lead good lives. God bless you.

Anonymous said...

At this point posting anything on Charlie's site in rebuttal won't work, first of all he has the ability to delete and/or change your post and he also picks and chooses which ones to post, even if he allows a good post at this point in time it doesn't matter he's a cultic-like figure and people will defend him no matter what. Any time he's attacked it just fuels his belief that he is being persecuted for God.
I think it is better to not post on his site and ignore it if possible.
A lot of the things he says are said by other people - he's not saying anything new or unique, it's all over the alternative media. His only difference is he talks about the "Rescue" by Mary. The only reason I started going to his site was because I felt that Mary would be the only one to save us - so I had a connection with his message. I even figured out on my own that in 2017 - the anniversary of Fatima would bring about something special - so I didn't need Charlie to tell me that either. People need something to hold onto during these tough times and Charlie provides that for a lot of people, they will hang onto anything.
Among other things, I think it is very dangerous of him to say "the election doesn't matter" theme. People will listen to his word and not care whether they will vote or not - no matter what these elections are crucial and people need to vote, there is always hope that something good will happen or we can pray for something positive.

Anonymous said...

Dear Glenn,

I thought I read on your website that at one point in time you very much believed, and possibly even promoted, the now condemned apparitions to Marie-Paule Giguere (The Army of Mary).

During the period when you believed in Marie-Paule Giguere did you ever have doubts as to her veracity, or did your gut ever tell you that something isn't quite right with this woman's prophecies?

I'm wondering what is your gut is telling you about Charlie. You've obviously studied the phenomena of visionaries more than most. And you don't seem to have the same belief in Charlie's messages as you once did in Marie-Paule Giguere's messages (as you have a neutral position on Charlie whereas you were once a proponent of The Army of Mary). So something with Charlie's messages must be holding you back from being a strong believer in him as you once were in regards to Marie-Paule Giguere. Or do you seem some odd things in regards to Charlie's message that if and when Clinton or Trump assumes the Oval Office you will then look back and say to yourself, that X, Y, and Z, should have been a red flag that he was false.

Perhaps as you've gotten older you are more cautious?

Anonymous said...

The ironic thing about the post you made is that Charlie relies on facts, however if you noticed Charlie attacks the poster, not the issue, the issue now is that you are evil, jealous, under some sort of demonic influence and need prayers, there is no mention of the actual facts that he sternly requires of others. See all the people that have come to his defense, most don't realize that a lot of his posts are sanitized for his benefit so he can pick and choose who to reply to. I think he allowed your post because of pressure from sites like this one which are allowing free speech, it wouldn't make him look too good if he kept them off his site because they would report back to here.
There really is only one way for Charlie to prove he is for real or not, it was done it the past by well schooled priests to prevent the spread of false mystics, he should submit himself to exorcism prayers from a good priest - that would be the only way to settle the issue. Let's see if those on his site will pick this up and request it of Charlie - that would settle the issue once and for all. If they don't address it on their site to him and if he rebukes it, we know something is not right.

Anonymous said...

Hey look at this on his site: "As materialistic & legalistic as a Sadducee, & contemptuously vile as serpent. Mr. Boll, it would be advised for you to submit thyself to the authority of the Church & receive the Prayers of Deliverance." It's not Mr. Boll who needs the Prayers of Deliverance, but Charlie. Charlie is the one who states these things are to come, he's the one who needs to prove he is authentic, submit to the Prayers of Deliverance!
I thank the poster on his site for using proper terminology.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Anonymous from 3 posts above,
To reply to your questions, yes, over the past 20 years that I have been studying visionaries and mystics I have definitely grown more cautious and discerning than I was initially in the early years--and this primarily because over the years I have had a couple of humbling personal first hand experiences wherein I found that my initial discernment was not necessarily accurate. In fact, I imagine that many persons reading this website probably have had their own experiences--some good, but perhaps also quite a few that turned out to be disconcerting. After all, we certainly have some recent examples of alleged visionaries who turned out to be false, like the once popular "Maria Divine Mercy", "Locutions to the World, and Maureen Sweeney-Kyle of "Holy /love ministries" just to name a few very recent ones.

Now, as for Charlie Johnston, fortunately in his case the purported prophesies he has made make discernment relatively easy--specifically the prophesies concerning "Obama not finishing his term/next leader will not come from the election process", and also afterwards the prophesy concerning the miraculous "Rescue" in late 2017 through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And so, with this in mind, one simply needs to wait and see whether these two predictions will be fulfilled, or not.

And fortunately we shall all know very soon as to whether Charlie has been sent, or not, as the hour is getting very late and we are now in the last inning, so to speak, (though I don't follow sports, I find an analogy to the last inning of baseball to be very apropos). Up to now there has been a few hits, and also a good amount of strike-outs, and now it is all tied up and it is the last inning and two outs, with no one on base. Now, there will either be a "hit" with the fulfillment of the "Obama not finish term/next leader not elected" prediction, putting Charlie on base, or January 20th will bring a strike-out, ending the game.

Mind you however, even if the "Obama not finish term/next leader not elected" does in fact come true, this is NOT a game winning home run. It is simply a really "great hit" that puts Charlie safely on base (so to speak). The "home run" would definitely be the miraculous "Rescue" in late 2017 through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And so, as I have stated in these comments before, even if the prediction concerning Obama/next leader comes true, this would NOT be a confirmation of authenticity, though it would weigh heavily in his favor. ONLY the predicted "Rescue" would be a solid confirmation of authenticity.

In short, concerning Charlie the hour is getting very late, and the time of fulfillment (or lack thereof) is very close at hand. For now we watch, wait and pray.

May God bless you and your loved ones,
Glenn Dallaire

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous Noveber 7, 2016 at 11:42 AM

You said:

-- begin quoted text --

The ironic thing about the post you made is that Charlie relies on facts, however if you noticed Charlie attacks the poster, not the issue, the issue now is that you are evil, jealous, under some sort of demonic influence and need prayers, there is no mention of the actual facts that he sternly requires of others....

-- end quoted text --

I am not certain if you were addressing me in particular? (Please clarify if you care to continue the discussion.)

Yet, notice that your observation (with which I wholly agree) of Charlie's tactics involves Charlie's use of a classic logical fallacy - ad hominem attack. Charlie's attack is "to the man" rather than to the substance of the issue - the man's argument. Whether or not someone might actually agree with Charlie attacking "the man" rather than the argument, the salient point is that use of ad hominem attack is not discernment (vis-a-vis Charlie) and it fails to communicate anything of value with respect to the advancement of discernment of any reader of Charlie's attacks (whether such reader be a Charlie supporter or skeptic) .

This should be a sign that raises an eyebrow of anyone interested in actual discernment - not because the content of Charlie's attack is uncharitable, but because it employs a logical fallacy, serving to obscure, rather than enlighten.

Now, don't confuse me for someone looking to bash Charlie as a person. "I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm."

Granted, Charlie's wholesale change that he made about his "no elections" assertion (i.e., the change he made in January 2016 highlighted by Glenn) is not about a logical fallacy. It is worse than that. It is the complete abandonment of a firmly held and firmly defended position (for 22+ months). That should raise the eyebrow of anyone claiming to be interested in discernment. That there is now a question about whether Charlie has begun deleting even friendly exchanges on his blog where he made the claim of "no elections" (e.g. the October 22, 2015 exchange with fatimapilgrim) is also problematic for those interested in discernment. Why would a true prophet do such a thing?

Anonymous said...

No it was Mr. Boll on Charlie's site, who I believe is L Spinelli. If you go to Charlie's site you will see the hatred by Charlie and others at him and others calling them names and saying the devil is in them and telling them they need prayers - so judgemental and brainwashed because they dare question Charlie - it's like Charlie is god or something and then they accuse the negative posters for being "hit and run" and cowards for not debating not realizing that Charlie cuts off their comments or doesn't allow them to debate - if people on the site knew what went on behind the scenes they might wake up like I did.
As usual your comments are very logical, I don't think he'd ever let you post on his site or get in a discussion with him. I agree we're not here to actually bash Charlie ( although some may have an axe to grind ) as they think on his site, we're here to get to the truth and right now his position he took a while ago is certainly not defensible, so he moves the goal posts - all this amounts to what I call religious fascism.

L Spinelli said...

Jack, I found the Oct 22 2015 post you were referring to. It was not on Charlie's blog; it was on the Mother of God forum.

Here are the link and the question:

Charlie, another unrelated question for you that I thought about yesterday. Do you still think that Obama will not finish his term and that there will be no presidential election held next year?

That is a definitive statement and not subject to change, FP.

Jackisback said...

Good summary Glenn.

I of course, am still hung up on the problems with the "no election" assertion. For those interested, just look at Charlie's explanation of the change in the "no election" claim in January 2016 in his "Through A Glass Darkly" post in pertinent part:

-- begin quoted text --

I have often said there will be no presidential election this year. Actually, there are some narrow circumstances in which there could be, but the results would be irrelevant. What I was told was that President Obama would not finish his term and that our next stable national leader will not come from the election process...The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be."

-- end quoted text --

That is the extent to Charlie's explanation for his changed position. No further details are provided. Let's take him at his word and perform some rudimentary analysis, considering that Charlie is commonly praised for, among other things, being completely "normal," not a "wacko," and for being rational and intelligent. If all he was ever told by his "angel" was that quoted above, why would a normal, rational, intelligent person ever make the leap (in prepared remarks both in lectures and in writing on his blog for 22+ months) that there would be "no PRESIDENTIAL election" in 2016?

There were at all times possibilities for the next leader not to come from the election process prior to, or after, tomorrow November 8, 2016 (e.g., if Obama left office prior to January 20, 2017) but that never had any bearing on whether an election would occur on November 8. The immediate next leader, if Obama were to fail to finish his term, would of course not come from the election process (though I doubt Charlie is referring to this). Vice President Biden would take over by operation of law for a brief time, until noon January 20, 2017. But there is no reason for an intelligent person to have inferred that meant, definitively, "no election" would occur on November 8 (or any time prior to January 20, 2017).

It's possible no candidate gains 270 electors in the electoral college tomorrow, and while that is a problem (with a Constitutional solution at the outset - see Amendment XII - that first involves an election: a vote by the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote to apply to one of the three highest Electoral vote earners, and where the majority of a quorum of states elects the next President) that situation is by definition one that entails an election having taken place either tomorrow, or sometime before noon January 20, 2017.

If Charlie is now being truthful about what he "was told," and if what he was told by his "angel" never changed from the beginning, there would have been no intelligent reason, no valid rationale, for Charlie to conclude, from the very beginning, that there would be "no election". What he now claims he "was told" does not imply a "no election" outcome and there is no reason to infer such an outcome, "definitively." It might be rational to assert that a "no election" crisis could be one reason that the next leader does not come from the election process, assuming that such a crisis does not allow the states to hold meetings of their Electors to vote for President and Vice President by ballot prior to noon January 20, 2017 (see the Amendment XII of the Constitution) in which case it is indeed possible for the office-holders of "Speaker of the House" or "President-pro-tempore of the Senate" named in US Code Title 3 Section 19, in that order to become the "acting President" on January 20, 2017, serving until such time as a President or Vice President shall qualify.

continued on next post...

Jackisback said...

...continued from previous post:

Until January 2016, Charlie never claimed that a "no election" outcome was simply one possibility among many, as the basis for a belief that the next leader would not come from the election process; he claimed a "no election" outcome was "definitive." But there are lots of other possibilities listed codified Presidential Succession Act in US Code Title 3 Section 19: "If by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President..." Therefore, if what Charlie's "was told" by his "angel" was true from the beginning, then any number of these circumstances could have been the proximate cause, to which his "angel" was referring," for the next national leader not to come from the election process.

It is a fact that Charlie predicted "no PRESIDENTIAL election," exclusively, while having no reason to do so (if we are to take him at his word about what he "was told"). It is a fact that he defended it repeatedly for more than 22+ months (it is unclear when, after October 29, 2015 that Charlie decided to change his mind). It is a fact that Charlie changed his prediction on January 8, 2016, and has since characterized that change as a "clarification." But such an explanation can't be correct. Charlie has no capacity to "clarify" something if that something was neither "told" to him nor implied to him from the beginning.

So, either of two possibilities is in play. Either:

1)Charlie actually "was told" at the beginning that there would be no election (which would explain why Charlie initially asserted it and defended it) and, sometime between October 29, 2015 and January 8, 2016, Charlie's "angel" communicated anew and made a correction to what he had originally told Charlie such that Charlie felt obliged to speak up about it (but keep in mind Charlie does not assert this - probably because it would make it seem that "angels" should be expected to change prophecies of specific future events) - or -

2) Charlie's January 8, 2016 explanation about what he "was told" is correct from the beginning - his "angel" making no changes at any time - and Charlie had a major brain malfunction so as to initially infer something that his "angel" never implied.

Again I say that my analysis may sound "harsh," but that is not my intent. My intent is solely discernment and an explanation as to why Charlie's about-face on the "no elections" assertion is so troubling, intellectually.

Tomorrow is a milestone for discernment, whether Charlie would admit it or not.

Jackisback said...

To L. Spinelli regarding your post at 4:30 PM:

Thanks L., for the link. So this is a little heartening - in that it means that Charlie did NOT delete this from his own blog. For the record, here is the entirety of the exchange from the blog:

-- begin quoted text --

FatimaPilgrim said: ↑
Charlie, another unrelated question for you that I thought about yesterday. Do you still think that Obama will not finish his term and that there will be no presidential election held next year?
That is a definitive statement and not subject to change, FP.

But holy cow, I say EVERYTHING is going to be upended and people here keep looking for who will be in charge based on the current system, which is going to be upended. Really?!
What I have said - numerous times - is that we will have a period of chaos which could stretch out for up to six months (most likely two to four) in which we will have a procession of would-be "leaders." But then God's plan will begin to emerge and we will regain stability as we rise to face the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church. I know very little detail about the period of chaos - but much about God's plan following it. I am not allowed to speak of it - but I CAN tell you that God's plan of succession has NOTHING to do with that provided for in the current system that is already collapsing around us.
Charlie Johnston, Oct 22, 2015 #35

-- end quoted text --

See next post for continued discussion...

Jackisback said...

...continued from previous post:

So, in looking at the exchange in its entirety (and in doing a search here on Glenn's site, I now see that Glenn also quoted this exact exchange in its entirety in a blog entry addressed to me within this thread - see Glenn's entry dated March 17, 2016 above) notice that it has Charlie doubling down:

1. "a definitive statement and not subject to change"
2. "I say EVERYTHING is going to be upended" - and this is said in the context of who will be in charge based on the current system followed by a remark showing contempt and shock that anyone could expect that the person in charge would be based on the election process - "people here keep looking for who will be in charge based on the current system, which is going to be upended. Really?!"
3. "What I have said - numerous times - is that we will have a period of chaos which could stretch out for up to six months (most likely two to four)"
4. "in which we will have a procession of would-be "leaders."

In any case, I want to note a few things. The phrase "not subject to change" is very problematic for Charlie's credibility. Here we stand on election eve, and if tomorrow's electoral college proceedings go forward as we have become accustomed over the years, then, absent Charlie's goal post moving blog entry on January 8, 2016 "Through A Glass Darkly" in which he most definitely changed that which he said was "not subject to change", we would be looking at tomorrow's events as an "acid test" as to whether or not Charlie was a false prophet. Vis-a-vis my own discernment process, it is my opinion that tomorrow's acid test should be invoked as Charlie's own words (pre-January 8, 2016) implied that it should.

"Everything" is most definitely not "upended" - at least not yet.

If the election occurs tomorrow as it always has, we will not yet be in a "period of which we will have a procession of would-be "leaders." We will be in the same lame-duck Presidency period that we have always had, with a particular President-elect and Vice President-elect.

Having just re-read Charlie's "Through A Glass Darkly" post in its entirety, I note that President Obama is still in office, legacy-mongering as we would naturally expect, with no sign of being unable to finish his term between now and noontime January 20, 2017. In that post, Charlie says "The most likely scenario is that everything will be up in the air before election, but there are narrow circumstances where that may not be." "The most likely scenario" has not panned out - things are not "up in the air." Apparently, if we believe Charlie, we somehow happily ended up in the "narrow circumstances where that may not be."

I finally note that nothing in Charlie's "Through A Glass Darkly" post revises or negates items 2 through 4 which I cite above from October 22, 2015. Tomorrow we are extremely likely to have a declared President-elect and Vice President-elect, who, unless something really horrible happens in the next 10 1/2 weeks, will in fact be "in charge based upon the current system." If you are still reserving judgment until noontime January 20, 2017, then at least consider, each day as you wake up in this upcoming 10 1/2 week period, if you notice that:

A. President Obama is still in office
B. The President-elect and Vice President-elect are still alive and going through the transition of power meetings as always, with no part of the current system yet upended
C. There are no visible signs of chaos vis-a-vis the current system
D. There is no need for any procession of would-be leaders

- on which day prior to noon January 20, 2017 will you begin to consider the possibility that you have been played needlessly by a false prophet? Are you really going to wait until January 19th?

Anonymous said...

It's really not that complicated. We, as humans want to completely understand everything, because we are human, and we are scared, and because our world, these days is SO CRAZY. It is VERY HUMAN. And God UNDERDSTANDS, this, and has COMPASSION for how we feel. He does not want us to be misled by false prophets. But Jesus told, us, that in the end times there would be MANY false Prophets. What I think is REALLY IMPORTANT, here, is that God's real prophecy, from Him, should not bring CONFUSION. A TRUE prophetic word, that truly comes from, God, brings CLARITY. God's TRUE prophecy should never cause us to have to "wonder," or have to seek the answer to some kind of prophecy "puzzle." If it is a false prophecy, I believe Satan "delights" in that. For the whole process of our trying to "figure out" whether the supposed prophecy, be true, or false, makes us exert a GREAT DEAL of time and energy, that we don't need to spend, and DISTRACTS US,from the already Church approved sites, that have CLEAR, and already found to be "true" messages. I'm not putting down those above, who are trying to expose lack of truth, in relation to Charlie's supposed prophecies. For, again, we are very human. No one wants to be intentionally, or not intentionally, misguided. But if a fish smells "rotten," it IS rotten. And if Charlie's supposed prophecies, cause CONFUSION, they are MOST LIKELY from the "deceiver," Satan,(the author of confusion), or they are coming from a supposed Prophet that is possibly not well in the mind. If a supposed prophecy sounds really "off," or is CONFUSING, walk away from, it. We need to go on our God-given, Holy Spirit given, gift of "discernment," and seek the ALREADY Church approved messages of the Church. I am no longer going to spend any more time on Mr. Johnston. The Lord showed me a long time, ago, through prayer,and discernment, that he is not a true Prophet of God. I will pray for, him, and move on. God bless you, all, and thank you for hearing me.

steve said...


Thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful analysis in helping us make sense of this. I would be very interested in your take on the past CJ just put up tonight.


L Spinelli said...

Hi Steve,

Those who ask if I will declare myself a false prophet if the election proceeds Tuesday either are not actually aware of the specific language of the prophecy – or are just trying to foment mischief and confusion.

No, we're not. We're just aware that you changed the game two years in. You said something, vigorously defended it (That is NOT subject to change), and poof!

That's not a sign that people should put any confidence in his "messages"...

If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence, as I wrote in August in this piece. While I will enter into silence, I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet. I have been right on the big sweep of things. But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability.

That's some chutzpah right there. There's no need to rehash all the things he got wrong or changed...

Anonymous said...

Regarding this latest statement by Charlie:

"If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence, as I wrote in August in this piece. While I will enter into silence, I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet. I have been right on the big sweep of things. But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability."

I'm not sure I understand the scope of what he's saying. If Charlie declares himself unreliable after Inauguration Day, does that mean he'll declare himself unreliable in regards to his prediction of the defeat of Islam, on the collapse of the economic systems, about worldwide civil wars, and about war with China? And most importantly about the rescue by our Lady in late 2017? Or is he suggesting he was just unreliable about Obama leaving office in disgrace and the next stable US leader not coming through the political system?

Jackisback said...

Steve, L Spinelli, and Anonymous (11:24 AM),

Much to discusss. It will take me some time, editing for brevity, etc., but still require multiple posts for me to fully explore what I think is important about this last post from Charlie "Election Day."

L Spinelli said...

I take it to mean that if the prophecy about Obama not finishing his term - which he claims he was told about - doesn't happen by January 20, 2017, then none of the other prophecies which he was told will happen/are reliable.

(This was rehashed more than a few times here already, but there already was a prophecy he was told that didn't come to fruition - Christmas. But then again, anyone who points this out is vain or malicious or trying to troll him.)

Anonymous said...

If he's right "on the sweep of things" well so is Gerald Celente ( among others )so maybe Gerald is a prophet, maybe we should be following Gerald Celente?
So if Charlie gets everything wrong, he still considers himself a prophet?
And what the heck does this mean: "But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability."
Oh I get it we don't know the mind of God, God thinks differently, we don't know God the way Charlie knows him - oh I am so out of touch with things - and this is the twilight zone...

Anonymous said...

Look at all the questions and confusion this is causing. To, me,this whole Charlie thing reeks of Satan. Satan, "the author of confusion," is amused, and enjoying all of this. If a fish smells, rotten, it IS rotten. Recognize a false Prophet,and walk away.

L Spinelli said...

Here's something for you all to chew on: (the second poster is me challenging Charlie):

I won’t mangle what you said, so I’ll quote you from the Birmingham talk.

Q: Would you say the next presidential election will be pivotal for the country?
C: “I do not expect there to be a next presidential election. Politics is a dead man walking. We’ve got some other things coming. Now, I do not say there will never be another presidential election but I don’t expect there to be one. This next one we’re going to skip over because we’ll be in the midst of crisis.”

There are fewer than 24 hours before the polls close, so I’ll wait and see. Oh, and this is the first time I’ve read anything regarding January 20, 2017. I guess you’re giving yourself another out. Ho hum.

(Charlie) In this article I noted that sometimes I have been among those that focused on the election. In the Birmingham talk, I also said the specific prophecy. One of the reasons I clarified – 11 months ago, not last week – that no election was a possible scenario, but not the only scenario, was because, as I noted, I had sometimes inadvertently helped that Univision type take along.

Another direct quote, this time from the Mother of God site:


Charlie, another unrelated question for you that I thought about yesterday. Do you still think that Obama will not finish his term and that there will be no presidential election held next year?

That is a definitive statement and not subject to change, FP.

(Charlie) Read the article above, Z. I acknowledged I added to the confusion by sometimes citing this as the only scenario when it was one of several possible, based on the actual wording. That is why In clarified in the article last January that I link to in the above article that there are other possible scenarios that would fit. So quoting an example of what I candidly conceded in the article today and in other things previously hardly seems like a startling revelation.

What? There were several possible scenarios that he NEVER alluded to before January 8, 2016?

Who's going to buy that?

Anonymous said...

One important item from the Birmingham Video starting around 47:45 he said Obama will not finish his term - 2016 - not 2017, 2016, he says it will all collapse by then.
The moderator also says don't ask him questions, after ( the presentation )ask Charlie and everyone laughs, so people who now ask Charlie questions on his site, he gets nasty a lot - something off there. You notice how pleasant he is when he talks, but on his site - watch out!
Now listening to him speak the only thing he says that his angel said is that we will be rescued by the Immaculate Heart of Mary in late 2017. So that brings me to the question who told him about the election, is he using his own insight, or is this an extension of what his angel says, in later talks it seems that this is coming from his angel, but in the video he only makes the one statement about the Rescue - and if you ask him he may blow up.

Jackisback said...

Steve, L Spinelli and Anonymous (11:24 AM),

Before I delve into the assertions within Charlie's post titled "Election Day," I first would like to say (1) a word of caution and (2) provide a reminder about my critique to follow.

(1) Because I analyze Charlie's communications with an eye toward spotting logical fallacies, it is incumbent on me to warn readers of another logical fallacy that I am cognizant of, lest we fall prey to it. That is known as the "fallacy fallacy," in which one presumes that, because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. This has always been helpful to me in my intellectual and spiritual discernment process – and leads me always to proceed with caution.

(2) Bearing in mind this caveat, here is the reminder. I assert that, when sincerely attempting a process of discernment, there is no Catholic rationale that requires a person to set their intellect on a “shelf” when engaging in discernment of the words of any would-be “mystic” or “prophet.” I mention this because all too often I read comments containing defenses of Charlie’s prognostications that reveal a tone of “I feel Charlie is a true prophet because of my spiritual discernment” – as if spiritual discernment, employed 100% of the time, to the exclusion of intellectual discernment, were a good thing, and somehow unassailable.

Respecting the “fallacy fallacy,” there is always a chance that even Charlie's original prophecy of "no PRESIDENTIAL election" will come true today, despite my prior posts in which I laid out the logical fallacies employed by Charlie (when he stated this, repeated this, and defended this). With just hours remaining to determine the outcome, it is a bit like analyzing the chance that it might rain here later today where I live (Yahoo weather says “0% chance of precipitation”). Though the chance is seemingly small, a wise person once told me that the percentage chance of rain today is actually: 100% or 0%. It either will rain today, or it won't. Some things in life are binary in nature, even though we find it helpful to state probabilities in percentage terms.

But having respect for a possibility that a given prophecy may come true (despite logically fallacious reasoning) should not prevent one from charitably engaging in thoughtful, intellectual, examination of Charlie’s assertions about a prediction that he consistently made, but for which he only recently reversed himself, and for which yesterday he makes some new peculiar assertions.

To conclude this caveat and reminder, I first begin with this premise: the fact that Charlie employs logical fallacies when making and defending his prophetic claims, does not, by itself, mean that all his claims are automatically wrong and will necessarily fail. The “storm” and “rescue” either will happen between now and the end of 2017, or they won’t. This is my caveat. At the same time, both his original claims vis-à-vis “no elections” and everything Charlie has said afterward about those claims – matters – in a true process of intellectual and spiritual discernment. I assert, from a point of view of genuinely attempting discernment, that this is no time to set your intellect on a “shelf” when reading Charlie’s “Election Day” post.

Bearing all that in mind, I'm happy to examine Charlie's latest assertions. But I'm out of space here due to the typing limit. I will proceed with discerning, yet charitable, critique in my next posts.

Jackisback said...

…Continued from previous post:

Let’s examine what I think is worth discussing in Charlie’s “Election Day” post. First there are the first two sentences of his 2nd paragraph:

--Begin quoted text –

What I was told eight and a half years ago was that Obama would be elected president, he would lead us into the Storm, would not finish his full term – and would live to repent and convert long after he had left the world in ashes. I was told that our next national leader would NOT come from the political system.
--end quoted text—

First, a point of new information should be highlighted and that is the reference to “eight and a half years ago.” That reference answers one of the two alternatives that I talked about in previous posts yesterday – Charlie is claiming/admitting here that “what he was told” was told to him prior to Obama’s first election – quite a long time ago. That reference means that he is not claiming that his “angel” told him there would be no 2016 Presidential election 8 ½ years ago, and then later his “angel” came back sometime after October 2015 but before January 8, 2016 to tell him something different. He is claiming that “what he was told” has been consistent over that time frame.

Second, Charlie can’t seem to be entirely consistent with his own use of language, for he has slightly “amended his amendment” of January 8, 2016 by now using the phrase “political system” in place of “election process” and by now omitting the word “stable” from the phrase “stable national leader” that he used in “Through A Glass Darkly” (If someone else had done this would Charlie describe it as speaking in a “mangled” or “garbled” way?).

It is uncertain what Charlie intends by the change to “political system.” It could be an entirely an innocent change meant to convey the same thing that he stated in “Through A Glass Darkly” – i.e., election process. But the salient point is that Charlie, by his own admission, after having spent a considerable number of months from when he first began blogging on January 14, 2014 through at least October 29, 2015 stating adamantly that there would be “no PRESIDENTIAL election” (emphasis Charlie’s) and after having repeated that claim to fatimapilgrim on the motherofgod blog (as “definitive and not subject to change” on October 22, 2015) is now saying (perhaps unwittingly) that there was never any rational justification for him, during the first 7 ½+ years of the past 8 ½ years, to ever have inferred that there would be no 2016 Presidential election. His “angel’s”purported words, as described by Charlie, neither stated that nor implied it. In other words, he is admitting to having spent 7 ½+ years in quite a major brain malfunction about what his “angel” told him. Only since January 8, 2016 has Charlie begun to entertain that there were other alternatives to his very consistent, insistent, and persistent “no election” prophecy prior to that date.

Continued on next post…

Jackisback said...

…Continued from previous post:

The new phrase “political system” as substituted by Charlie for “election process” is more broad, in his description of the way that he predicts our “next national leader” might come to power (vis-à-vis Charlie’s “amended prophecy” of January 8, 2016). So if I were to take Charlie at his word regarding the broader “political system,” the natural conclusion is that, even if the next President or acting President were to enter office by virtue of operation of US Code Title 3 Section 19 (e.g. the Speaker of the House of Representatives) on January 20, 2017, then even that would cause Charlie’s prophecy to fail – because the Presidential Succession Act has been a law on the books (that was voted on by Congress and signed by the President – initially in 1947) for many years. It is part of our “political system.” Of course, by changing this phrase, Charlie opens the door to the “next national leader” coming to power outside the operation of even the Title 3 Section 19. If he is saying that (and I believe he is) I cannot imagine how that could come about, because the Constitution and Title 3 Section 19 constitute the only laws we have to determine the next President or acting President. The combination of Constitutional language and the law regarding succession are still operative even if lightning should strike and the Presidential election be canceled later today. The implications are as ominous as they are vague, and this smacks of the logical fallacy of using “ambiguity” so as to mislead.

Then another new item is thrown onto the table “…long after he had left the world in ashes.” I don’t recall Charlie predicting that the world would be “left in ashes” by Obama prior to Obama leaving office prior to this post. This appears to be entirely new. It did not appear in “Through A Glass Darkly” on January 8, 2016. I ask why?

Because this assertion is part and parcel of the first sentence that begins with “What I was told…” he is making a claim that his “angel” told him this – 8 ½ years ago. In the process of discernment, what are we to make of Charlie’s “angel’s” purported assertion that Obama would leave the world in ashes prior to leaving office (with an expiration date on this new prophecy of January 20, 2017)? What does Charlie mean by the phrase “world in ashes?” Charlie does not say.

Other dire claims that Charlie has made involve the deaths of 26 million people during the course of the “storm.” Charlie has at times taken great pains to show that such numbers of deaths are not all that large in terms of scale (in percentage terms vis-à-vis the current population of the world as well as comparisons to the number of deaths in prior world wars and other military conflicts throughout our history). To be clear, Charlie wasn’t minimizing the deaths of 26 million people, he was just making a statement about having the proper perspective in terms of scale and attempting to convey that a number of deaths of such magnitude would not mean that he was predicting the apocalypse of the “end times.” But since Charlie has emphasized that the “storm” should not be interpreted as the “end of the world”, how does that square with his “angel’s” purported phrase about Obama leaving the “world in ashes” prior to leaving office? I don’t pretend to know what Charlie’s “angel” means by that phrase and Charlie makes no attempt to enlighten us. It comes off as a scare tactic, in tone, and there doesn’t seem to be any point to it. It is ominous, and yet, sufficiently vague so as to be open to any number of meanings. That of course, does not aid anyone in the process of discernment.

Continued on next post…

Jackisback said...

…Continued from previous post:

Now to the 3rd and 4th sentences of Charlie’s 2nd paragraph:

--begin quoted text—

Many people (including me sometimes) have considered that the most likely way that would play out would be that there would be no election. But as I wrote last January in “Through a Glass Darkly,” that is not the only scenario that would fit that prophecy.

--end quoted text—

I need to reiterate my intent to be charitable in my analysis here. This above cited text is self-serving and an extremely inaccurate account of Charlie’s past assertions. First, he deploys the “bandwagon” logical fallacy – by use of the phrase “many people.” I know of no such multitude of people, outside of Charlie, claiming that Obama would not finish his term and that “the most likely way that would play out would be that there would be no election.” Is Charlie referring to commentators on his blog?

Second, the use of the bandwagon fallacy has the effect of claiming the support of “many people” as a form of validation. This has the tone of deception, if not the intent. But even if Charlie could prove that such a group of “many people” existed and that they do indeed hold this view, it is still a logical fallacy to imply that a conclusion of “most likely” no election – based solely on the notion that the next national leader would not come from the “election process or political process” - was a reasonable interpretation of what Charlie claims he “was told” by his “angel.”

Third, there is something more troubling. That is Charlie’s obfuscation of his past “no election” position as being one that he “considered…the most likely way” that his “amended prophecy” (of January 8, 2016) would play out. His “no elections” position was a prophecy in itself (which he consistently, insistently, and persistently defended for years, without exception). It did not become a “cog in the wheel” of an amended prophecy until January 8, 2016 (in “Through a Glass Darkly”). Until that post, Charlie had always treated “no elections” as a prophecy, as something “definitive and not subject to change.” Yet this “Election Day” post is worded to influence the reader to believe that Charlie had at all times held to the notion that “no elections” was merely a “most likely” outcome rather than the only possible outcome for 7 ½ out of the last 8 ½ years.

The parenthetical “including me sometimes” is misleading to the extreme as it implies that Charlie made only sporadic, occasional, past assertions that there would be no election, but at other times, throughout the past, he claimed something different. That’s false. Charlie claimed, at all times, prior to the referenced January 8, 2016 “Through a Glass Darkly” post, “no election” and this was “definitive and not subject to change” (as of October 22, 2015). He also said on October 29, 2015: “I say there will be no PRESIDENTIAL election this next time. I have also said the way things are going to come will be in a way you do not expect and NOT according to current rules” (all-caps emphasis Charlie’s).

The only thing in common between Charlie’s pre-January 8, 2016 statements on this matter and those made on or after that date is that current rules will not apply.

Continued on next post…

Jackisback said...

…Continued from previous post:

Now, at last, we come to the most problematic parts of Charlie’s “Election Day” post:

--begin quoted text—
If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence, as I wrote in August in this piece. While I will enter into silence, I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet. I have been right on the big sweep of things. But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability.

In the end, the purpose of telling you these things had nothing to do with letting you know details of the progress of the Storm. The Storm would have come whether I was here or not. Rather, it was to give you confidence that I have told you true when I speak of the Rescue that will come late in 2017 – and to encourage you to be a participant in heralding that Rescue, to give you confidence in terrible times when you will really need it.
--end quoted text—

The first points to make are charitable. I did not comment on Charlie’s August post “The Election…and Other Potential Triggers,” where he apparently first made the pledge to “go away” if Obama remains in office and “…next January…peacefully hands over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.” He did not use the hard date of January 20, 2017 in that post and he was still clinging to the silly “Obama could assume emergency powers and extend his term indefinitely” narrative (which I took great pains to debunk in an exhaustively detailed fashion in my January 2016 posts on this matter). That he repeated this nonsense again in August made it unappealing for me to respond – and it would have been difficult to be charitable.

Because he omits any reference to Obama extending his term in this “Election Day” post yesterday, and because he reaffirms his “go away” pledge, via the hard date of January 20, 2017, and because he more clearly defines what “going away” means – retiring “into silence” – that at least is encouraging, and gives John Q. Catholic something to which Charlie can be held to account.

The problems with these paragraphs begin with “I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet” – as it is new information and it contrasts sharply with his August “Triggers” post. In that post, after pledging to go away if things go normally in January 2017, Charlie asserts: “But it will not happen that way, for God has appointed that this be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him and choose the ordinary way to follow Him through the most frightening year for the globe in history.” This bold assertion is missing from yesterday’s post, and Charlie does not refer to it. Why is that a problem? Well, consider the logical problem created by Charlie: (1) God, according to Charlie, “has appointed that this (Obama leaving office prior to January 20, 2017 and our next national leader to be a person derived outside our current “political system”) be a sign to you to fortify you to trust Him,” and yet, (2) if it doesn’t pan out that way – i.e., God provides no such sign after all – then Charlie will still refuse to declare himself a false prophet.

Charlie’s August claim either (1) pretends implicitly to know the mind of God, (2) is a new claim that God, rather than an “angel” has spoken directly to Charlie, or (3) is a technical mis-statement by Charlie – e.g., derivative in nature – perhaps Charlie is only expressing his opinion, derived from his interpretation of something his purported “angel” told him, and is subject to change, but perhaps not. We have no way to tell, in technical terms, which of these three characterizations is what Charlie meant to communicate. That is because Charlie once again, and unhelpfully, has made a bold statement of prophecy while not beginning the sentence with “God entered my mind in a dream and said…,” “What I was told was…,” “God visited me while I was awake and told me that…,” or “the virgin Mary appeared before me in an apparition and told me that…”

Continued on next post…

Jackisback said...

…Continued from prior post:

Repeating the context of this last part of my discussion, here is the subject quote from yesterday’s “Election Day” blog entry by Charlie:

--begin quoted text—
If, on January 20, Obama peacefully transfers power to either Trump or Clinton, I will declare myself unreliable and retire into silence, as I wrote in August in this piece. While I will enter into silence, I most certainly will not declare myself a false prophet. I have been right on the big sweep of things. But I will consider myself unreliable at a time when we need solid reliability.

In the end, the purpose of telling you these things had nothing to do with letting you know details of the progress of the Storm. The Storm would have come whether I was here or not. Rather, it was to give you confidence that I have told you true when I speak of the Rescue that will come late in 2017 – and to encourage you to be a participant in heralding that Rescue, to give you confidence in terrible times when you will really need it.
--end quoted text—

I searched in vain for a natural fit to a logical fallacy that would help explain Charlie’s new conundrum of two contrasting points: (1) claiming (in August 2016) that “God has appointed” that this be a sign to you to forify you to trust Him (Obama leaving office prior to January 20, 2017 and our next national leader to be a person derived outside our current “political system”) and yet stubbornly claiming that (2) he will still refuse to declare himself a false prophet if the prophecy in (1) does not come about.

These two positions don’t fit into a standard logical fallacy because of the nature of logical fallacies, which normally come about because an argument is made that sounds plausible at first blush but which withers under scrutiny. (1) and (2) are so diametrically opposed to each other that there is no plausible-sounding way for the person who holds both positions at the same time to communicate them and still sound plausible. The two notions are nearly mutually exclusive. And, I have to remember, that Charlie didn’t communicate these two things simultaneously [(1) occurred in August and (2) occurred yesterday].

I must reiterate my intent to be charitable here. This is about discernment. The two positions together are problematic. If Charlie truly believes (1), how could assert (2)? Consider how this wouldn’t sit very well with a person who knows something about Biblical prophecy stories, if (2) were the actual result. Consider the story of Isaac, which Charlie often references on his blog. When Abraham decides to execute God’s command to slay Isaac in sacrifice, he raises his dagger with full intention to use it, because he rationalized that, since God told him that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars, and because he believed God would never lie to him, he reasoned that God must have had a plan to resurrect Isaac from the dead. It is this last part of the story, the rationalization, that is the primary point of faith. For Charlie, this is turned on its head. He must believe (1) or there would be no point in stating it so boldly in August. But if (2) results, then God lied to him/us, vis-à-vis the “sign” which is impossible. The only thing that is possible when (2) comes about is that Charlie “has not told us true” about the “sign” from God. The only way for Charlie not to have “told us true” is that he’s not the prophet he holds himself out to be – because God would never lie. It would mean admitting that God had not actually communicated with Charlie – via an “angel” or otherwise about the “sign.” This would necessarily be personally devastating for Charlie, given how much time and energy he has invested in this “prophecy.” It would also call into question his prophecies regarding the “fullness of the storm” and put the “rescue by Mary” into doubt. We could reasonably infer that is an emotional bridge too far for Charlie to bear. And so, he will be in need of our prayers.

Glenn Dallaire said...

Thanks Jack for sharing your detailed analysis---very much appreciated.

And thanks also to everyone who has commented in recent weeks.

-Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Gallagher, I have used BOTH spiritual discernment, as well as the use of intellect, when it came to my opinion regarding Charlie Johnston, and when it came to my postings on this site. God has given me both of, these, things,and I definitely use them. I'm sure you didn't mean to apply this to EVERYONE. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Great analysis Jack although I question the last conclusion. It appears to rest on an assumption that Charlie has been deluded and thinks he actually did receive visits/messages from heaven. I do not believe he believes that and has in fact been consciously confecting this whole scenario all along. Take for example the moving of the goal posts. If he believed he had received heavenly messages and things did not come to pass as he was told or looked as though they would not occur as he believed he had been told would not the more natural reaction be confusion and then perhaps a retraction or apology and/or seeking of professional assistance rather than changing the message or moving the goal posts? And what of all the nastiness and anger toward those who point out inconguitities. This is more defensiveness born out of a need to present one side of the story and hide from potentially being "found out" rather than the actions of someone who genuinely believes heaven has communicated directly with him. I believe he refuses to admit to being a false prophet as a last ditch effort to keep his followers on the end of his hook and maintain the "business' he has built up from all of this. If he presents himself as a true prophet who was "unreliable" in this (and other) matters he is still baiting his hook with the promise of tasty morsels of maybe reliable prophecies in the future. He says he will go silent but I doubt he will or wants to go away and give it all up. Either way he needs lots of prayer.

Anonymous said...

Under Charlie's new post about the elections he hasn't commented too much, but the comments he does make he is rather terse. I think he had to get this election thing out of the way. A few people were pushing Trump right from the start and Charlie was very critical of them and even made fun of them, if he is a man from God he is eating a lot of crow right now because he didn't call this right at all, in fact he was trying to say it didn't matter - can you imagine if Hillary won - the damage she could do in such a short time - I'm glad I didn't listen to Charlie on this one and voted Trump - Trump promises to work for the people, I think his heart is right and we'll be saying Merry Christmas again! I believe there were a lot of prayers offered for our country, even with all the vote rigging machines they couldn't pull it off. Even PBS ( I couldn't take MSNBC anymore ) said that one person travelled 2,000 miles across the country and saw nothing but Trump signs, maybe 5 Hillary, so you know they rigged a lot of the votes, but our prayers saved us and the astute people in Pennsylvania who caught their votes switching to Hillary, I think this put a wrench in their plans.

Helen I said...

For Mr. Gallagher. I'm sure you mean very well. Your posts, here, show a great deal of hard work, and effort, that I KNOW is meant for the GOOD of all who post, here, and read here. And your efforts are appreciated. But not everyone on this, site, has the same analytical skills that God has given you, or the ability to "logic" things, out, that you do. I know, that I myself do not have those gifts to the degree that you do. But I know, for myself, I have listened to Charlie's comments along the, way, and have seen, regarding, him, what appears to be contradictions, and inconsistencies, and this has been PART of what has led me to have the opinion, that he is not a true Prophet of God. Another thing that let's me know, that he is false, stems from what I have observed of Charlie's behavior. Very unkind, and cranky, and to the point of cruel, to not only to those visiting his site, but to his very followers, themselves. This, to me, reflects the behavior of someone that I feel God would not have chosen to be one of His true Prophets. And the other thing that enables me to know, stems from that spiritual discernment that God has given me. I take all of this to, God, in prayer, and I keep getting from God, in my spirit,(and what I believe is FROM the Holy Spirit),that the things Charlie says, and does, do not "feel" right. I believe that this is JUST as important, as logic, when it comes to proper discernment, if not MORE important. The Holy Spirit has given us BOTH reason and logic, to discern whether a Prophet be true, or not. And another thing that God has given us, are the Holy Scriptures. Matthew 7:15-20 This Scripture starts- Beware of false Prophets And ends- By their fruits you will know them... Your use of logic is GOOD, God has given it as gift. But God has also given us the very important gift of spiritual discernment, which I, feel, is VITALLY important. I have used this gift, in particular, for many years, and God has always shown me the right way to, go, with it. We also need to PRAY, and put all that has to do with Charlie Johnston, in God's hands, and let God reveal, with time, and the power of His Holy Spirit, what the truth is. And we need to pray for Charlie, himself, no matter WHAT the situation is with him. God bless you - Helen

Anonymous said...

I just read Charlie's post this afternoon (A Good Day for America) and it seems like he's preparing to bow out in January.

Either this has been a hoax from the start, or this fellow is sincere in his belief that the Angels have been giving him these prophecies. Assuming he's sincere, why wouldn't he simply ask his Angel to clarify what's going on and whether God has changed his timetable or plans?

And why hasn't the Archdiocese of Denver weighed in again?

Anonymous said...

Charlie has a new post - now he is saying he warmed up to Trump in the last few months and provided for some periphery advise. I know as a fact that he made fun of me for supporting Trump as little as a few months ago telling me that I shouldn't put faith in my "saviour" and other names - I had to stop talking about Trump because I was always met with guile from Charles - he would say such things as there goes John again defending Trump or whatever and knocking Trump - as you said he was "cruel" and made fun of me - I hope people on his site read this because they know I always defended Trump from Day 1, and some on his site tell me to be more humble or whatever - I wasn't always convinced that he wasn't right until I came to this site and now I read others and am actually reassured by the quality of rebuttal from the above people that Charlie needs our prayers and so do his followers - including some religious.
On a side note I can say with humbleness that in the end I have been proven right about Trump and Hillary and had more insight than Charlie, there will still be problems because the communists will not let go that easily - if I was George Soros I'd be looking for a new country, he's already wanted in Russia and I'm sure Trump will make him a wanted man in the USA.

Anonymous said...

Hmm just wondering if this is Charlie admitting in Charlie double-speak that he is indeed a fraud.
Joey says:
November 9, 2016 at 3:32 pm
Charlie, just curious- why such a confusing post? I don’t understand how someone who has received direct messages from Heaven that Obama will not finish his term could now say that you’ll just retire and write a book if these Heavenly messages are wrong. Do you doubt them? A lot of us have come to trust what you say is real but you’re starting to put doubts in us with talk like that…

Liked by 1 person
charliej373 says:
November 9, 2016 at 5:40 pm
Joey, the reality is that for every authentic mystic, there are at least 99 frauds. How many times have you seen one, when he fails, try to justify and revise? I am making clear what the guidelines are internally. And I am indulging a little hope that there could be another way. I don’t believe it, but it is nice to hope sometimes.

Liked by 3 people

Anonymous said...

And is this Charlie double talk for "I want an out now that I am found out and this seems a good time, the game is up?" On the surface it seems like a way out for the world but it seems more like a way out for him.
Charlie you just confused me…If what you say is true…then why is it this response now…I am not being mean but now am, confused

charliej373 says:
November 9, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Rose, there is nothing new here. I have said this here several times before.

In a larger sense, I think people think this is a chirpy sort of thing, sometimes. As my Priests know, I have spent my entire life hoping for a way out of this. For the first seven or eight years with my Priests I was desperately looking for a way out. It all gives me hope, of course, but my part of it feels like I am jumping on a live hand grenade to defend those I love. God does not begrudge me occasionally wishing, even fantasizing, that there was another way. I think many out there see this and think it is a glory. I see it from the inside and know the cost. Don’t begrudge me a day or two of wishing there were another way.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous November 9, 2016 7:45 AM

You said, in part:

--begin quoted text--
Take for example the moving of the goal posts. If he believed he had received heavenly messages and things did not come to pass as he was told or looked as though they would not occur as he believed he had been told would not the more natural reaction be confusion and then perhaps a retraction or apology and/or seeking of professional assistance rather than changing the message or moving the goal posts?
--end quoted text--

This is an entirely fair question. I have raised it in prior posts here on Glenn's blog.

Before I say anything else, remember that this is Glenn's blog and his theme re: Charlie Johnston is "We Report, You Discern." Glenn has done an even-handed job of reporting the facts concerning Charlie - though I have had differences with Glenn regarding his expressed views/opinions on Charlie. Notwithstanding those differences of opinion, Glenn has been gracious to allow me to post here, even though I "over-do-it" with the length of my posts (not sure if the 4,096 character restriction was instituted because of my early lengthy posts, but if it was, I deserve it!).

You question Charlie's motivation, intent or state of mind - e.g. "...he...has in fact been consciously confecting this whole scenario all along." You are certainly entitled to your own judgment. I'm unwilling to engage on that because I dread even the appearance of one who would deign to know the "heart of another" (no, I'm not saying you are going that far).

While I am not a "reporter" for Glenn (viz. Glenn's We Report, You Discern meme), my style has been, and will remain, one that takes Charlie's words at face value (though I realize that is what his followers do) when subjecting those words to scrutiny for discernment purposes. When someone reads my posts, hopefully they understand that I am not weaving into my analysis any personal-detracting-opinion. I haven't met Charlie. I don't know him. A reader of my posts, if they are to benefit at all in terms of discernment, is better served if I refrain from making judgments about Charlie's intent (that is up for the reader to decide).

For me, it is enough to take Charlie at his word, examine his assertions as if I were a brand new potential believer in those assertions - and then consider the question: if I were looking at his blog for the first time, became curious, and then read all of Charlie's prior blog entries from start to finish, would the totality of his writings and speeches strike me as reasonable from both an intellectual and spiritual perspective?

If there are glaring inconsistencies from an overall perspective, I'd like to shed light on them and discuss them with others - to draw insights from those discussions and to make blog entries of my own with questions and observations re: discernment, and be willing to defend the logic of my observations - derived solely from that which Charlie actually "says" rather than what I might theorize as his intent.

If I infer no ill-will on Charlie's part (and I don't) then hopefully a reader of my posts will believe that I don't have a dog in this hunt, and no personal ax to grind (because I don’t). I don't need to be "right" and I don't need Charlie to be "wrong." But as a discerner, I’d like to discuss the problematic issues with what Charlie says and not be personally attacked ad hominem style. Glenn provides a place where this can happen. For that I am grateful.

As for the poor treatment people receive on Charlie’s blog when asking about incongruities, I don’t discount that as an issue that should be taken into account in discernment viz. Charlie’s authenticity. I plead guilty to being a bit more interested in debate re: Charlie's claims and in what Charlie says about his own claims because my bias is that those go to the very heart of the matter.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at November 9, 2016 at 12:19 AM

You said:

--begin quoted text—
Dear Mr. Gallagher, I have used BOTH spiritual discernment, as well as the use of intellect, when it came to my opinion regarding Charlie Johnston, and when it came to my postings on this site. God has given me both of, these, things,and I definitely use them. I'm sure you didn't mean to apply this to EVERYONE. Thank you.
--end quoted text—

I have just re-read my blog post of November 8, 2016 at 10:00 PM to see if I mis-stated something. The phrases I used “…all too often I read comments containing defenses…” and “…as if spiritual discernment, employed 100% of the time, to the exclusion of intellectual discernment, were a good thing, and somehow unassailable” was certainly not intended impugn all readers of this blog or even Charlie’s blog.

I thought I was being clear that I was referring to only those defenses of Charlie in which the rationale for the stated defense was that of spiritual discernment only, to the exclusion intellectual discernment. There are those who make that kind of argument. Since you use both types of discernment, then I definitely was not referring to you. Sorry if my phrase-ology made it appear otherwise.

Spiritual discernment is valuable, without question. As well, if any reader of this blog, who recognizes the value of both spiritual and intellectual discernment, and comes to different conclusions than I, regarding Charlie’s communications, or disagrees with my arguments wholesale, I am more than happy to discuss or debate where we might differ. I don’t have to be “right.” What good is a blog if we can’t exchange differing views in a spirit of charity?

Witness the occasional disputes that I have had with Glenn – there have been and continue to be issues that we cannot resolve, and we mutually acknowledge that, when that occurs, we leave it as something of which we “agree to disagree, without being disagreeable.”

If you care to take exception to anything else I have written, don’t be shy. I promise not to be uncivil or uncharitable (e.g., I don’t “shout” via the use of all capital letters – so if you have seen that in my past posts it is highly likely that I was quoting someone else who used the all caps).

As in the line from “A Man For All Seasons” – “I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm.”

Jackisback said...

To Helen I from November 9, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Your comments are all well taken, Helen. I have no intent to discourage spiritual discernment. And I fully see how that is a relevant component when witnessing uncharitable treatment of those who visit Charlie's blog with a question Charlie doesn't want to answer.

Anonymous said...

I really don't know what to say about Charlie's blog after Trump got elected, but I will sum in up this way - I once was on another site of an alleged mystic and after a few years some of her stuff just didn't pan out and people were ok with that and then she tried one last gasp at predicting something and had a 50% chance of being right and guess what she was wrong again. She tried justifying how hard it was to be in this role as intermediary with God and that it was taxing on her to understand God and His messages to her and that sometimes God changes things. However, it was too late, people in the group started peeling off and some had already done so but the remnant ( no pun intended ) decided that they would keep the group going because of the comradery that had developed, so the initial reason the group was formed was because of these mystical messages, but after that fizzled out some people were still ok with her and wanted to continue dialoging with each other and the mystic agreed to keep it going though a fraction of the people were left. History seems to repeat itself.

Helen I said...

To Mr. Gallagher. Thank you for your comments. It is good to know that you value both logic, as well, as, spiritual discernment, in the discernment process, and that you recognize that many people use both. I just wanted to make a comment, here. If one, (I don't mean you), uses ONLY, logic, to discern, and not also spiritual discernment, and prayer, and the Holy Scriptures, as well as discernment from the Body of Christ, I believe one may never have the positive result one, wants, when it comes to discernment, (especially when it comes to discernment, concerning a person who may be being possibly affected, or led, by Satan). Satan, as fallen angel, is cunning, and sly, and extremely intelligent. And ones' using logic, alone, to battle him, in trying to discern, may be a very frustrating battle- one where people may find that no matter HOW hard they try to discern, with the use, of logic, they just can't seem to come,out, victorious. I'm sure you probably already know this. This is where spiritual discernment, (that comes from the Holy Spirit), is SO vital. If one is TRULY being led by the Holy Spirit, in ones discernment, it is my belief, that Satan cannot win. Satan can try to twist things, and deceive a person all he wants, but he can NEVER win out against the Holy Spirit. And even, then, with what we believe is the use of true, Holy Spirit led, discernment, I have learned, after many years of being a Catholic Charismatic, we should also always additionally,seek, members of the Body of Christ, to help us in this discernment. Everything God has given us, we should use, to discern- spiritual discernment, reason/logic, the Holy Scriptures, prayer, and seeking discernment from other believers, in the Body of Christ. It is my, belief, that drawing on all of, these, we CANNOT go wrong, in the process of discernment. I am sharing, this, primarily, for all of those who may be new, to the process of discernment. I am not a theologian. This opinion comes from years of being a Catholic Charismatic, and the things I have learned, and have tried to apply to my faith life. Thank you for hearing, me. And by the way, I am VERY enthusiastic about the use of CAPS for emphasis. God Bless you.

Jackisback said...

Thanks Helen. I have no issues with your summary. I think the reason I focus more on the lack of logic in Charlie's communications is because that ought to be a low hurdle to get over for a true prophet. God can and does work in mysterious ways, but wouldn't require us to believe someone who claims that an "election process" is the same thing as a "political system" or a "political establishment." When explanations from Charlie morph over time with a tone indicating that the morphed explanation was actually his original message all along, gets downright Orwellian. His acolytes rely on blind faith to ignore such issues. Spiritual discernment doesn't require blindness.

Helen I said...

To Mr. Gallagher. I hear what you're saying. And as I said in my post, the use of logic is a very valid PART of good discernment, and God has given us this gift to use. You are very good at the use of, this- extraordinarily so- and so are others that post, here. I am not putting down the use of it. But saying that it, alone, without the use of these OTHER means of discernment, may be frustrating, and may not fully glean for the person(s), discerning, the truth they are seeking. Again, this is being offered as my opinion, after years of trying to discern correctly. If what I'm sharing, here, helps people, then I am glad to have offered it. And, again, I am not AGAINST the use of logic. God has given this, as gift. God bless, you, Mr. Gallagher, and others. - Helen

Anonymous said...

I have noticed since I have been posting here that Charlie has been allowing my comments, even pointed one, he has however not allowed one which was the quote in the Birmingham video were he said Obama would not finish office in 2016. He has allowed the Birmingham link to be posted on comments by others to listen to, but scrubbed my quote of him, I guess he figures people will not listen too deeply to the video and miss some points as it is a long talk.

Anonymous said...

You are right about the club atmosphere at Charlie's, people are outright saying that if January 20, 2017 comes and goes people want Charlie to continue with his blog. Charlie would be better off just doing a Catholic Blog about TNRS without the use of Angels and Jesus talking to him and just say the Lord put it on my heart - this way it would not have been as scrutinized and subject to analysis. He's claiming divine revelation which is always a tougher road. To date he has been wrong numerous times, this does not bod well for him being a true mystic.
Gerald Celente makes lots of claims and even revises them, but he does not claim to be a mystic but follows God-given talent in research. Gerald Celente has a better track record than Charlie, maybe Gerald is a mystic of the Church? Gerald even has a short fuse like Charlie but only for the elites, while Charlie picks on the vulnerable on his blog. He is even divorced like Charlie.
Charlie's time has run out, even if Trump does not take office ( which I doubt ) I think he's trying to take the glory away from the 100th anniversary of Fatima by him being the focus of his prediction of Mary saving us and not Mary and her glory for the 100 years.

L Spinelli said...

To the two Anonymous posters above:

An easier way to see what Charlie said in the Birmingham video is to find the transcript of that video under his "Visit Video" link. It's a 10 minute read as opposed to a two hour view.

A lot of people here said that Charlie's "mission" focuses way too much on him as opposed to Jesus and Mary. When he posted about this so-called Regency and how he was "ordered" to plan it and will supposedly play a major role in it, that was another tip-off that this can't be real.

If it's a deception, which I think so, of course Old Scratch and his minions know that 2017 is the 100th anniversary of Fatima. Do people forget that he's a fallen angel with an intelligence that even the smartest human can't match wits with?

What better way to take focus off the 100th anniversary then a bumper crop of false seers and their making claims that something terrible is going to happen in 2017?

The sooner Charlie is off the scene, the better, and honestly, he should have been gone last Wednesday, except for him buying himself more time.

If he and his cult want to take this TNRS junk to a private blog and hang out there on January 21, cool! It won't be public, and he won't be scaring people any more.

Anonymous said...

Oh, he's not leaving even if he is wrong on 01/20, some are saying that date is not important as well, people want him to keep blogging, they like his message. Charlie will be around for a while right or wrong,the group will eventually die out which is what usually happens.
His tone has changed since we've been posting on here,he's probably reading this or someone is reporting back to him - he's a kinder sort now.

Anonymous said...

What really tipped me as to whether he was authentic or not was when I posted about Our Lady of Soufeniah (Damascus)on his blog and he would not allow it. This is already approved by the various Catholic and Orthodox Bishops in Syria. Her message from Jesus and Mary is Church unity. She has the stigmata and suffers,plus an icon of the Virgin of Kazan exudes oil, among other things.
When I talk of Syria and the war, I defend Assad and the Russians,however,he accuses Assad of being a butcher to his people as do others on his site, plus he says there I go defending the Russians. At any rate Myrna Nazzour is quoted as saying that life was peaceful and all lived in unity until the civil war which is contradictory to Charles who believes Assad was killing his own people. I did a little investigation, Charles believes in Medjugore, Father Fox has been a promoter of Our Lady of Soufeniah, the Medjugore crowd has attacked Father Fox for his support.
It is my strongly held position that as you say Charlie is a diversion and deception away from the true apparitions.
Myrna's talk in Toronto in 2012 at a Syriac Orthodox Church is good,the homily by the priest is amazing he puts the middle east in perspective. Myrna states that a new light of conversion/hope/christianity will emerge from Damascus for the whole world. As we look at the Russians holding the Assad regime in place and now Trump saying he will work with the Russians,Assad,Iran to eliminate ISIS, it's no wonder they don't want Trump to take office. It's no wonder most of the world has an interest in Syria, including the Chinese.

Jackisback said...


I'm doing some research. On your summary page about all things Charlie-related, you say this at the end of the section on Charlie's prophecy regarding Obama not finishing his term:

--begin quoted text--
And as a footnote to the prediction concerning Obama, Charlie has stated the following: "I was told Obama would not finish his full term, that he would ultimately repent and convert, but not until long after he had left office and left the world in ashes."
--end quoted text--

I thought I would be able to find this quote on Charlie's blog but cannot seem to locate it. Did he say this in one of the videos instead? If so, which one?

Glenn Dallaire said...

Hi Jack,
Yes, Charlie has written this *numerous times* in the comments sections on his blog, for example most recently in the comments on the Sept 2016 post "Farewell to the NFL":
charliej373 says:
September 10, 2016 at 11:25 am
Sometimes I change my mind about what I think, but I never change my mind about what I was told. I was told Obama would not finish his full term, that he would ultimately repent and convert, but not until long after he had left office and left the world in ashes."

And then again a few months before this in May 2016 in the comments section of the "After the Rescue" post:
charliej373 says:
May 4, 2016 at 12:33 pm
Before Obama was elected, I told one of my Priests that he would win, for he was God’s chosen instrument to lead us into the Storm, but that he would not finish his full term in office and would live to repent and convert long after he had left the world in ashes. The next stable leader would not come from the political process. That is the summation of what I was told – and that is not something that I see as subject to change. So if Obama leaves office quietly on January 20 with an elected new president taking office, I would be objectively wrong. But that is not how it will all happen."

And there are at least 4 or 5 others along the very same lines, but as you can see the first quote above is the precise quote that you refer to, and the 2nd quote is similar.
-Hope this helps with your research.
Glenn Dallaire

L Spinelli said...

For me, the issue is simple. Did whatever he say happen, regardless of being told or not?

For instance, he was told that Christmas 2013 was "the last normal one". He can argue that this was fulfilled because of "his peculiar viewpoint", but to most folks, Christmas 2014 was absolutely normal. So was Christmas 2015. Again, to most folks, that's a failed prophecy and was something he was "told". So comes my next question:
Who...or telling him these things?

Another point to consider about this prophecy about Obama is true revelations do not name political figures by name.

From Michael Brown of Spirit Daily's November "special report":

I always promise to be candid in these more intimate reports and have to tell you that I question whether a Pope, or for that matter a bishop or priest, should single out any candidate. I certainly don't feel comfortable with seers who use the actual names of politicians.

At Fatima, at Lourdes, at Guadalupe, at Zaragossa, at Betania, at San Nicolas, at Cuapa, at Champion, at LaSalette, at La Laus, at Kibeho, at Knock, at Rue du Bac, at Three Fountains, at any other fully approved site, have politicians ever been specifically cited in the framework of an election?

Thus, I wonder about seers whose messages include names: I think they are expressing personal feelings: that their "locutions" are subconscious contemplation.

That's fine: but don't call it Mary. She stays away from telling us how to vote, because it goes to free will. It's a test. She came closest at Rue du Bac (the Miraculous Medal) and LaSalette, but even here it was not political parties.

Stay clear of prophecies that are too detailed, too specific.

Jackisback said...


Thank you. That helps.

Ave crux spes unica

Vita dulcedo spes

Jackisback said...

L Spinelli (November 14, 2016 at 9:55 PM)

Your post is interesting and insightful, as I would expect no less.

Perhaps I can be accused of being too generous, though I think a better accusation toward my particular method of discussion/argument is that - in my attempts to expose fundamental flaws in a prophecy (even where I accept the strange "rules of inquiry" as imposed by the would-be prophet) - I am guilty of a sort of pride in jumping a higher hurdle.

If I am to be consistent in my own personal discernment process, when I succeed in jumping that higher hurdle, there is going to be a more substantial level of confidence (for me at least) that the would-be prophet is false because he is self-condemned rather than condemned by me. (and indeed, I already met that hurdle for my own discernment process vis-a-vis the original claim about there being no Presidential election in 2016).

If I persuaded an actual follower of a would-be prophet to think about aspects of the "prophecy" that are incongruent, based upon the would-be prophet's own words (and his "rules of inquiry"), then there's a chance that such a follower will also view the problematic issues as the would-be prophet's self-condemnation, rather than base such a conclusion on something I said.

Jackisback said...

Charlie just posted anew - "A Reality Check"

It is rambling and bizarre. There is much to unpack, but here are the two money paragraphs worth discussing:

--begin quoted text --
My angel rarely congratulates me for being right. Rather, if I am in serious error, he rebukes and corrects me. Many of the greatest saints have been deceived by the devil for a time. I have no illusion that I am exempt from that. So what if I was deceived for a time and my angel, for whatever reason, did not correct me? Do you think that would be so God could abandon or destroy you? Of course not! Everything that God allows is for our good and our reclamation. I know that, I have no doubt at all of it.
--end quoted text--

--begin quoted text--
Sometime in the next year, I will be significantly wrong about something. It won’t be the Rescue, but it will be something. When it comes, it will not be a test of me, for I already know that God is good and seeks our reclamation. It will be a test for some of you, to see whether you have put your faith in me or your faith in God. If it is in me, your faith was always ill-placed. God is good, all the time, whatever the circumstances – and works to call us all back to Him. When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamentals, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.
--end quoted text--

There is way too much embedded in these two paragraphs to tackle in one post, so I'm not going to try at this particular moment. More later.

Helen I said...

Yes, Jack, this is UNBELIEVABLE. And really pretty scarey. Who IS this person? Sounds very confusing, and deceptive, and manipulative. Doesn't sound like one of God's holy prophets, to me.

L Spinelli said...

Wow. WOW. Is he admitting that he's been deceived? I made it clear that I'm one of many who thinks he's been deceived for the last 50+ years by something that's not an angel of Our Lord.

Glenn Dallaire said...

In reading through comments here and also on Charlie's site in recent weeks I feel it necessary to point out a very important distinction that I think needs to be kept in mind.

There is on the one hand the direct messages that Charlie states comes from his Angel AND THEN there are Charlie's interpretations concerning what was (allegedly) told to him by the Angel. And here, specifically, is where some misunderstandings have arisen, judging by some comments here and also on Charlie's site in recent weeks.

Here is an example: Charlie has related numerous times that his Angel told him that "President Obama will not finish his term and that the next leader will not come from the election process."

For his part, Charlie interpreted this message to mean that there would likely not be an election, as he stated for example in the Birmingham video. And sure--given the message it was an understandable conclusion. The key point here is that this was Charlie's interpretation of the most likely outcome concerning what he was told. The thing is, he was NOT told that there would not be an election--this was an conclusion that he himself made concerning the message that he was given, and NOT specifically what he was told.

And so, this is why I have previously pointed out that it is the inauguration which is the first key date for a solid discernment of authenticity, and not the election. Thus, if president elect Trump is inaugurated on January 20th, this will be a solid, clear, key matter for discernment, since it is NOT a matter of interpretation, but a specific prophesy coming directly from his Angel.

The other key prophetic matters for discernment of authenticity, according to Charlie's Angel are:
– The toppling of governments throughout the world.
– The confrontation with and fall of political Islam.
– The mass conversion of most Muslims
– The confrontation between the Judeo-Christian world and the current government of China.
– The alliance between Russia and the U.S. to lead the Judeo-Christian world to endure the confrontation with China.

-Then, after the 5 things above comes the miraculous "Rescue" through the Immaculate Heart of Mary sometime in late 2017.

So, as I have been saying in recent months, time will very soon tell!
Glenn Dallaire

Anonymous said...

He also said his Angel said that Obama will NOT finish his office in 2016 - Birmingham Video. The January 20th date was addressed but not this one on Obama - this is actually the first test - if Obama stays in office past December 31, 2016 his angel was wrong and subsequently Charlie.
Glenn: was that a shot at humour " Charlie's Angel(s) - with Charlie as the Bos. This issue of Charlie is turning out to be a real investigative episode.

Anonymous said...

This site has definitely made him come out and address issues.
His tone has also changed, he's not as mean to people. Mind you this is going contrary to what his Angel told him: that now was the time to not coddle people and to be more aggressive in rebuking people because he was repeating himself. There's another thing his angel told him. This goes back a few months, if not more.

Anonymous said...

I never had a locution or a visit by a angel so what do I know. But do Heavenly Beings really speak in riddles and it's the seer's job is to "divine" what they're saying? This smacks of reading tea leaves. The whole thing is weird.

Anonymous said...

Exactly anonymous above. Consider the angel who visited Mary. He did not speak in riddles and "shifty" time frames. Mary became pregnant in the manner in which it was clearly told to her. The child was called Jesus just as she was told with no strange misinterpretations on her part or the angel coming and "chuckling" as Charlie claims his does about her getting things wrong. If she had misinterpreted though how is a mystery, I doubt the angel would have stood by and watched the fall out. She visited Elizabeth and found her to be with child just as it was told clearly to her. The angel who spoke to Joseph in a dream was clear about the escape route to Egypt and why the new parents needed to escape. No obscure messages there, that would defeat the purpose of even communicating. Charlie claims to have been visited but no one know this for a fact.

I don't think he is saying he has been deceived but that he has deceived and has had a right old laugh at all the people he has misled. Tragic

L Spinelli said...

Anonymous 11/15 @ 11:40 PM

Charlie claims that his "heavenly visitors" started speaking to him without the use of language around the year 2000, and he was supposed to interpret the messages and deliver them to the world.

Since I never heard of any visionary receiving messages in anything but their native language, that claim was very weird.

But what isn't weird about this whole case?

Anonymous said...

Even more bizarre is the fact that people on his site are ok with it! They even want to pray for you so you will understand?

Jackisback said...

L Spinelli,

You said:

--begin quoted text--
...speaking to him without the use of language around the year 2000...
--end quoted text--

Can you refer me to where/when Charlie made such a claim? In other blog posts of his and in some comments on his blog I have a memory of him claiming that he has actual, out-loud, conversations when his angel "visits" with him.

L Spinelli said...

Right around the turn of the millennium, my heavenly visitors often began speaking to me without the use of language at all. It is breathtaking when they do, much quicker and purer and more complete – but it is very intense. Thick…I might say. Until today (July 5, 2013), they have continued to use language for the most important messages I am to convey. But now, I am instructed to give you a message from the Father, specifically for America but also for the whole world, that was given me without the use of language. In short, I am expected to translate.

Anonymous said...

So when these Angels of his "chuckle" do they do so without making any sounds?

Anonymous said...

It's awfully quiet here and on Charlie's Site, I guess everyone is waiting for the key dates - again. By the way does anyone know if the Virgin Mary at Fatima told the children the war would end on October 17,1917 when in fact it ended on Nov 11, 2018?

Anonymous said...

I don't recall ever reading that the Blessed Mother gave the Fatima children a specific date as to when WWI would end, but simply that it *would* end and if people don't stop offending God a worse war would break out during the pontificate of Pius XI.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, I looked it up and Our Lady was never quoted as saying that, but someone on this blog in 2015 posted about the date, but I looked everywhere and it doesn't exist.

Anonymous said...

Now this is quite interesting. As we know Charlie says that Trump will not be inaugurated on January 20, 2017. To date, Trump has broken or waffled on 8 campaign promises in 9 days. This may or not be sitting too well with his voting base. Is it enough for them to rebel or for someone to take over the government - not yet. However, it does signal to the progressives that we are in for more of the same and almost assures Trump of a relatively peaceful transfer of power. I had predicted on Charlie's site that the protests would diminish due to various factors and they largely have. In comes Jill Stein contesting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on computer voting irregularities - funny thing is Michigan is all paper ballots and took weeks to certify and she finds millions of dollars within 48 hours and the price tag escalates and the money keeps flowing in.

Anonymous said...

This is new - under his Symphony article he admits he moderates posts after someone complained their posts are not showing up and I quote: "You are new here. Comments are moderated here – so they don’t show up immediately after you post them." This is in direct contradiction to his statement on another blog where he said he has only deleted a handful of posts which are based on name calling or similar. At least he could have been honest and tell everyone that he moderates posts before - actually he did he was quoted on his own site as saying " have no RIGHT to post on my site..." Is this someone you can trust. I know from first hand experience if you get the better of him in an argument he will not post it, it would make him look bad.
Now the question is why is Charlie allowing these people to point this out. I believe that he now has enough support on his site and has had for a while so that he can now get away with revealing the fact that he has always screened questions and answers. If you noticed, no one quizzed him on this and in fact no one questioned him when he said that you have no RIGHT to post - Charlie is in effect a dictator over his site and messages - if Charlie doesn't want to hear it - out it goes.

Anonymous said...

We need to keep praying for peace in our nation, and in the world. For it is God who is in control of our nation, and of the world, and we must pray that He will guide, and enlighten our leaders. I believe God is transforming Trump for the job He had set before, him, and that God has annointed, Trump, and will greatly use him. If it is God's will to use Trump,(which I truly believe it is), God's will will prevail. God will put a hedge of protection around President-elect Trump, and our prayers will contribute to keeping him secure. I don't believe God has brought Trump this, far, to have him fall prey to an assassin, or for Trump to lose the Presidency. I have been praying about this a lot, and what I keep getting in my prayer, is that Trump is going to be a great President,(as great as President Lincoln),and that he greatly loves our nation. If God could transform St. Paul, and use, him, and if he could change, and greatly transform other figures in the Bible, who many thought, unworthy, why could God not transform,and use, Trump. God can do anything- of course. Let us continue to pray for our future President, our other leaders, and our nation. As Blessed Mother, said, we must pray, pray, pray...

Therese said...

Dear Glen, thank you for such an interesting website,I really enjoy it. I have read about Charlies'alleged prophesies and it is now 27th November 2016 and the USA has a President elect Mr Donald Trump, therefore President Obama will complete his 2nd term. As I started reading about Charlie I noted a comment he made about how he would have some kind of role to play in regard to the coming storm?-that immediately set off 'alarm bells' for me and that kind of self centered statement is not what I consider appropriate for a genuine prophet. A lot of Protestant Christians have been receiving prophetic messages from the Holy Spirit about Mr Trumps campaign and that he would win.The best example of a prophetic word received would be from a retired Fireman Mark Taylor,I came across some interviews with him on Youtube,you can read his prophetic words at his website- , he would be far more worthy of your attention.

L Spinelli said...

Therese, another thing (of many) that tipped me off about Charlie was a video he made back in June in Las Vegas. (You can find it on YouTube.) He was asked a question about a Protestant prophecy about Trump becoming president. Well. He paused, laughed for a good minute, and called Protestant prophecy "wishful thinking"! He then recounted how this "angel" told him: "God didn't send them. He did send you."

As I said a few times in this comments section...that's chutzpah on his part. Plus no authentic seer ever spoke like that.

Not to mention that these people didn't change their prophecies and he did. They said Trump would be elected, and he strongly asserted that there would be no elections up until January 2016. Then he expected people to buy into this change without clearly explaining why or where it came from.

People have to suspend logic AND common sense to buy into Charlie at this late point.

Anonymous said...

To Therese. Thank you for your comments concerning Mark Taylor. I have listened to him, somewhat. And what strikes me about him more than anything, else, is his tremendous humility. He claims that it has been the Holy Spirit working through the whole Body of Christ, and of course, not just God using, him,that brought forth Trump's becoming elected. He indicates that the prayers of everyone, caused Trump to be elected. Mr. Taylor appears to be a man of God. There is no ego,there. With Charlie, there appears to be much ego. And Spinelli, above, thank you for giving example of Charlie's discounting the use of Protestants, to be used by God as true Prophets. And Charlie's "angel" indicating that none of these Protestants could be true Prophets,"only Charlie could be true Prophet." What appears to be unbelievable vanity on Charlie's behalf. As if God cannot use others,through the power of His Holy Spirit! God does indeed use BOTH Catholics AND Protestants. Praise be to God! We are all part of the Body of Christ. God uses all of us!

L Spinelli said...

Yes, Charlie hinted a few times that he would either be this Regent or act as advisor to this person.

None of the authentic seers were told that they were going to play a large role in earthly affairs. Most of them went into convents and led hidden, prayerful lives: Sr. Lucia, St. Faustina, St. Catherine Laboure, St. Bernadette. They were not worldly political consultants who did "aggressive full-service dating" at the time of their visions or afterwards.

None of this is glorifying God. It is glorifying Charlie. It is full of bad fruit.

Anonymous said...

Charlie would not let me post on Our Lady of Soufenieh (Syria) (Damascus) and I'm not sure why. It has the approval of various Catholic and Orthodox as there are many in Syria. There has been much unity among all the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestants, and Muslims over the apparitions - Myrna Nassour, who has been the centre is very humble says that the spark of Christian unity will come from here. I see with the political landscape suddenly changing, Castro dies, Putin and Trump want peace and now the Chinese have said good things about Trump, 24 hour Christmas music, you can feel it in the air things are changing, the devil's reign is coming to an end with the 100 year anniversary of Fatima coming up.
My experience with Charlie is that he has part of the puzzle, but not all of it, he thinks he has it all figured out - he took some shots in the dark and won some and lost others.

David said...

Hello Anonymous above,

I don't mean this in a critical way but something doesn't sit right with me in regards to the statement: "My experience with Charlie is that he has part of the puzzle, but not all of it."

This smacks of seers and mystics having to 'divine' what God is telling them. Sort of like having to look at tea leaves for patterns and trying to figure it all out. Does God really speak with such ambiguity that trying to determine His Will is a guessing game? Or this is some sort of jigsaw puzzle where we take the messages from various seers each of whom only is partially correct and try to decipher the truth?

Some might say that God speaks in a Divine manner and the seer interprets God's voice through his/her human experience. But if God wanted to communicate something directly to His children wouldn't He know enough to impress His message on the seer in such as way that it is crystal clear? The Fatima seers were uneducated and were children. But God (or rather our Blessed Mother) was able to work through that to clearly and unambiguously communicate heaven's message to man.

Anonymous said...

When I posted I wanted to convey that Charlie has some insight into things, where he gets it - I don't know. He may have very good political knowledge and can deduce things from it, but so does Gerald Celente and Gerald is not a mystic, but I would put up Gerald's record against Charlie's any day. Charlie does have some insight, but is it complete - no, is it divine - I don't think so.
As a "mystic" he falls short of being a "mystic". Mystics get information from the divine and relay it to us. There is no garble but something straightforward.
Charlie's experience does not pass my test. There is way too much negative evidence on him, we could write a book.
Conversely, Charlie has had a head injury and people that experience these sometimes think they have are having divine experiences, go to Dr. Persinger of Laurentian University - the God part of the brain. It may well be the case with him, through no fault of his own the brain injury has stimulated that part and he really does think it is divine, not himself.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure your reference to Dr. Persinger helps make your case that CJ is not a true seer.

Here are some snippets I found on Google about Dr. Persinger. Honestly he sounds like a nut:

"A Laurentian University professor in Sudbury, Ont. says he has been stopped from teaching a first-year psychology class after asking students to sign off on his use of vulgar language.

Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist, said he asked students in his introductory psychology course to sign a "Statement of Understanding" during the first lecture. The statement lists a sample of words that might be used during class, and includes the F-word, homophobic slurs and offensive slang for genitalia."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Persinger has been teaching at LU for most if not all of his teaching career - that's about 50 years of experience. Dr. Persinger is world renown and has been featured in Time Magazine and others in relation to his work with the US Military in undisclosed classified "research". Dr. Persinger has always said that he could not do the work he does if was not located in a remote but significant community in northern Ontario. When he first started he was left alone, but as Ontario has become progressive, the Dr. has been the target of the LU administration who want him gone as they do not appreciate his controversial work nor the fact that society back then and now are different, he is stuck in a tome warp. The google article you quoted is way overblown, there was one, maybe two students who objected to signing, the signature thing was not acceptable, but in this snowflake generation they would need cookies and colouring books if he said those things or worse sue him - as if these things aren't said in other classes or among themselves. Students also had the option of not signing and still be admitted to class - the article never mentioned that. The students also had the option to take the same course with another Prof. I agree he is a little nutty, but not based on that google snippet and he has mixed reviews as a Prof.
He is an atheist and I don't agree with some of his research interpretations, but he is one of the foremost experts on the brain in the world and is a pioneer to others who talk about the God part of the brain. Dr. Persinger's experience and techniques would definitely determine if Charlie's brain was injured on the God-part of the brain. You can not rule this out as Charlie says he is talking to his Guardian Angel and other entities and this is definitely within the realm of his testing and research.

Anonymous said...

When I first learned that Charlie suffered some sort of brain injury I immediately thought of where I once had an association. I can not give details as I am not allowed but I knew someone who had issues and that person went to Dr. Persinger's facility. I knew the person and after the sessions it was diagnosed that he/she suffered some sort of brain injury. Now this is the interesting part - the person was a nice decent person, but every now and then he/she became very difficult and angry, and also he/she also told me he/she was hearing voices at times - remind you of somebody? I've also met other people with brain injuries and one guy I knew told me that today he is fine and it could last for months, but one day I won't see him for months as this was part of his symptom of his injury.
So this may explain Charlie's situation and his behaviour.
My own prognostication was that yes the brain could be stimulated to hear and see things but also that Dr. Persinger was tapping into bad spirits. People who went into his soundless chamber experienced visual images and/or verbal commands. Some people told me it was terrifying while others were comforted - that's the way brain works.

L Spinelli said...

Here's the article that Anonymous above is referring to re: Charlie's brain injury:

Glenn Dallaire said...

For those interested, here is an excerpt of an email I wrote to a couple of friends today, which chronicles my position and thinking at this present moment:
.....Well, here we are on the eve of December 1st, with just about 7 weeks (50 days) to go until the Inauguration---For sure it is really getting down to the wire now---last inning with two outs, and Charlie's at bat, and he is all in....

-Looking at things from simply a worldly perspective, we see President Obama firmly in place, winding down the last days of his presidency in relative peace and tranquility, with no significant apparent signs of him not finishing his presidential term.
-On the economic front here in the USA we see all 5 of the financial markets soaring to record breaking highs, amidst what is claimed to be an economic expansion (though this latter point is arguable).
-Looking across the globe, we have not seen any widespread economic, governmental or societal collapses thus far, though there have been some significant events in places such as Brazil and Venezuela, for example.
-On the Islamic extremism front, we see only the ongoing battle in Syria and parts of Iraq, which has been ongoing since 2011.
-As for war with China, nothing at this time strongly signals such an event.

And so, in short, I personally think that the worldly view at this current juncture shows no significant fulfillment of what has been predicted, that being specifically that President Obama will not finish his term, the economic crash and collapse of governments, the war with radical Islam and then the war with China--that is, at least thus far to the present moment.

However, as the saying goes "It ain't over until its over", because in our lifetimes we have all surely witnessed at least one 9th inning homer that completely astounded and surprised us and everyone who witnessed it, for almost no one expected it or saw it coming. ------
And so, at this present moment I'm left wondering--are we really at the cusp of incredible events that are about to shock the world? One thing is for sure, we shall know for sure by January 20th, however as of this writing the view from here is that one certainly would have to come to the conclusion that by the looks of things it really does not look like Charlie's predictions are coming to fulfillment.

And yet, in closing there is one thing that Charlie stated concerning the possible swiftness of events that should keep one from jumping to premature conclusions:

"....The various components, when final crash comes, will fall with striking speed. You will have people in the news media and in government on a Monday assuring us that all is well and getting dramatically better – and sitting in figurative ashes on Friday wondering what happened..."

And so, I personally wouldn't call it all false, just yet.....-Comments????

Anonymous said...

Well summed up - I would add Turkey more involved in Syria and the election re-count in the swing states - though this seems to be fizzling out.
They need someone to be the fall guy for their weak dollar and economy and Trump will be their guy. I also believed the protests would die down and the reason why is because they were all paid and those that weren't when they realized others were paid wanted payment too so in order to have a protest people on the progressive side won't do it unless they get cash now, they are all conditioned to be paid.
Someone said if there was to be an "event" it would be around 1 week before Christmas.
But generally speaking things are relatively dead.

L Spinelli said...

Glenn, a short time ago, I checked back to see how many times Charlie warned his readers of the "final crash" on his Facebook or his blog. I counted four.

9/28/13 (Facebook) “I talk to friends who worry about the next election cycle and I indulge them, even advise them…but I roll my eyes almost every time. It will be a long time before we have another regular election cycle; at least five or six years….I do not know the moment that collapse will come. I will be surprised if we get to the end of the year and it is not fully engaged.”

3/8/14 (Blog) Our internal defense systems have collapsed. The social compact has collapsed.… For if you will not believe anything seriously is wrong or has collapsed until federal agents are at your door with the paddy wagon to take you to the FEMA camps, there is really nothing I can say that will be of help to you…

10/17/14 (Blog) “When final crash comes (and as I said, it is imminent. Do not be deceived even if things smooth out for a month. It is here), there will be a period of utter chaos for, I believe, about four to six months. I know very little of the detail of what happens in this period. Just that it is entirely chaotic, all the props are pulled out from under us. You may need to hunker down, you may need to flee.”

7/11/15 (Blog) We have entered into the summer of our discontent. It will be marked by convulsions, confusion and terror throughout the world and the Church. But after the summer comes fall…and great will be the fall.

I'm praying for a peaceful transition for President-elect Trump, and I encourage others to do the same. A second 54 day Rosary for the USA is in progress right now for that reason, running from November 28 to January 20.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused as to what Charlie's position is if Trump is sworn in as it seems to have changed. He initially said he'd declare himself unreliable and go away. But I thought that in a recent post he's still holding on to a "rescue" in late 2017.

Is his new position now that his prophecies about no election, 26 million dead, war with China, the defeat of Islam, the rise of Menses, the economy crashing, money becoming worthless, and worldwide civil wars, are unreliable, but there will still be a rescue?

And more importantly, does his new position mean that in the absence of a condemnation by the Archdiocese of Denver we need to suspend judgement on the validity of his messages until midnight on December 31, 2017?

Anonymous said...

Charlie always made fun of Trump and those that supported him, he even lost bloggers because of his position. His position changed only within the last month before the election. He has maintained that politics is a dead man walking, and I can generally agree with that, but Trump was elected against all odds and the cheating that took place, there may be hope. His election is altering world affairs.
Trump has made contact with various leaders including China who have expressed a positive tone to him.
Pray for the country, the Virgin Mary has never let us down - ever.

Jackisback said...

L Spinelli, awesome timeline of "near-apocalyptic" quotes from Charlie.

Anonymous at 10:50 AM (above), one indication that would answer your question about any "new position" of Charlie's is an exchange Charlie had with Saegara on Charlie's blog - in the comments section to the post called "A Reality Check" [Saegara's question whether the five things (Charlie calls them "fundamentals") that Charlie has said will occur prior to the "rescue" at the end of 2017 are still going to happen; the question was posted on November 15, 2016 (note this is after the election) at 8:56 pm; Charlie's reply to Saegara is on the same date at 9:56 pm].

I won't quote Saegara's post in full because it is too long, but the context is that Saegara has been a true believer in Charlie and has shared his predictions of Obama not finishing his term and the five "fundamentals" and the "rescue" with friends and colleagues, and has doubled down with those friends and colleagues because of confidence in Charlie's "sign" that Obama will not finish his term on January 20, 2017. That context is displayed by the partial quote from Saegara: "Everyone would laugh at me if everything will go smooth next January, as they won't belive me anymore, in Rescue about of which I told them so many times..."

Here is Charlie's reply to Saegara in full: "I actually don't mean one of the fundamentals. I doubt very much that ANY of them will fail." (emphasis using all caps in the word "any" was supplied by Charlie in the original.)

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous at 10:50 AM,

Also, to help answer your question, here is another exchange from the comments section of "A Reality Check" on Charlie's blog that Charlie had with someone named "Brad." I will quote Brad and Charlie's exchange in full:

--begin quoted text--
Brad says:
November 15, 2016 at 3:53 pm
I’ve been a reader for over a year now, this is my first comment. First, I want to say thank you for your defense of the faith. I am protestant, but have found hope here, and unashamedly stand with you.
Maybe I’m interpreting you incorrectly lately, but I get the impression you’re softening your stance, and almost preparing us for you being wrong in the coming months. It’s a test for me when you’re wrong on a significant issue? I don’t believe God because of you, I believe you because of God and his use of prophets historically. If I didn’t believe in God I wouldn’t entertain anything I read here. What would be the point of God giving a prophet bad information? I’m new to this, so maybe it’s me and I’m wrong here.

Again, thank you for your work and dedication. I’m not trying to be divisive or cause problems, just confused by some of this.

Liked by 10 people
charliej373 says:
November 15, 2016 at 4:48 pm
God would never give anyone bad information. But the satan can appear as an angel of light – and tries to confuse things. My point is not to soften my stance, but to take full responsibility for it. I have been trained to avoid that. But I could still fail on something. If I did, it would not change a thing about God’s goodness and reliability. I explained this in depth in the piece, “All In.” I am coming to see how radically differently I view things than most people do.

--end quoted text--

To me, it is fairly clear that Charlie is sticking with the remaining five prophecies - the "fundamentals" - and the "rescue", even in the case that his "sign" of Obama not finishing his term would fail on January 20, 2017. So when Charlie, in his post "A Reality Check," make reference to the potential that he may be significantly wrong about something next year, it is clear that he is not referring to Obama not finishing his term, and he is not referring to the "fundamentals" or the "rescue". Ergo, it is not clear at all what else he may be referring to - he chooses to remain cryptic about that. Perhaps he is referring to something that he hasn't yet predicted, but will do so in the near future. Who knows?

Charlie has got to be feeling some pressure with the compression of time - now 50 days - that Glenn refers to vis-a-vis Charlie's claimed "sign" from God, given to him by his "angel" that Obama would not finish his term. It is clear to me that if this sign does not come to pass, Charlie is, so far, sticking to his claim of "going away" because he will be de facto "unreliable" - and - Charlie is more-than-a-little implying that if that sign is not fulfilled that his "angel" who gave him that information may actually have been "satan appearing to him as an angel of light" (because Charlie knows that bad information cannot have come from God) for that one particular communication only, but Charlie still believes that his "true angel" has "told him true" about everything else.

The timeline for the "everything else" to occur prior to the end of 2017 is also getting very compressed, but because they aren't date specific as to each one, Charlie could hold out hope that they will all still come true - or - Charlie could potentially begin to claim that each one has already occurred, and we were all just too dimwitted to notice. He has taken that absurd line of attack before, and his followers seem to have no problem with that.

Jackisback said...

To Anonymous from 10:50 AM,

Finally there is this text from Charlie in the body of his post "A Reality Check":

--begin quoted text--
When I am wrong, I will accept the correction with gratitude and more wisdom. I will not leave the scene unless it is one of the fundamental, and then, in full obedience to Holy Church, I will wait on the Lord, knowing that He will strengthen my heart and that it serves His purpose to call all His children back to Him.
-end quoted text --

So Charlie, though he promises to "go away" if Obama finishes his term at noon on January 20, 2017 (and the next national leader from our election/political process is sworn in), he is not "leaving the scene" for at least the next 13 months - precisely because none of the fundamentals have a specific "due date" prior to January 1, 2018. It is still unclear, to me at least, if "going away" (as a result of the failure of the "sign" on January 20, 2017) means that he will stop blogging entirely or stop giving live talks to groups around the country, or both.

Elsewhere, and as recently as September, when Charlie has expected the "crash" of all things economic and the "crash" all things related to political stability to come to fruition, Charlie has promised to become quite active. Consider this from Charlie's post "Semper Fidelis, Adeste Fidelis" dated September 27, 2016:

--begin quoted text--
So today, as we get deeper into these times of fulfillment, I contemplate some stark possibilities.

If free and open communication is suspended for more than a day, I will set out on foot toward Washington, D.C. It will not be my sole means of transportation (at least I hope not), but will be how I start. I will not broadcast my route, but I will travel in plain sight, unarmed. If the politico-media complex which currently occupies the governing and cultural institutions of this country seeks to take by force what they cannot win by persuasion, let’s see how they handle a 10-million man march. I do not expect to walk alone.

Why, though, only a 10-million man march in a country of nearly 400 million? Most people will have other, vital things to do to begin restoration of a genuinely civil order. Those who walk will mostly be comprised of unattached men.
--end quoted text--

So there you have it. That is perhaps a description of one way in which Charlie might "go away" and yet "not leave the scene" after a failure of the "sign" on January 20, 2017. We shall see soon enough.

Anonymous said...

I truly believe that this blog has forced Charlie's hand. If it were not for this site Charlie would not have been accountable. Some on his site have had the temerity to question him, but would those comments have been allowed if we didn't expose him on this site - I don't think so. Time is ticking and not in his favour, I stick to the assertion that Obama will not finish office in 2016 - that was definitive according to him, actually he said a lot of definitive things and talked his way out.
If you notice, there is less activity on his site, that must be unnerving to him, even if the activity was up it would still not reach levels where he said it would spread far and wide.
I go back to Our Lady of Soufeniah - why did he ban it? Does Our Lady of Soufeniah take away from his promotion of Our Lady of Tepeyac and his message - you bet, keep the focus away from Soufeniah because Charlie has the answers from God.
His followers support him no matter what, Charlie can do no wrong, it's a club.

Jackisback said...

To Glenn (at November 30, 2016 at 8:49 PM),

With the qualifier "just yet," how can anyone disagree with the assertion that you "wouldn't call it all false, just yet?"

But let's review what is much "more-likley-than-not" going to happen in 50 days' time.

At noon on January 20, 2017 Obama's term ends as a matter of black-letter Constitutional law, notwithstanding Charlie's assertion that "EVERYTHING is going to be upended" and Charlie's silly assertion that Obama can extend his term via some declaration of martial law (Charlie dismisses the operation of Constitutional law but never attempts to explain how anyone would respect "martial law" in an hypothetically chaotic situation).

If Obama hasn't left office in advance of that moment in time, one of Charlie's major prophecies - the "sign" - will have failed. At that precise time, again, by operation of black-letter Constitutional law, someone not named Barack Obama "shall be the President." If not Donald Trump, then perhaps Pence; if neither, then perhaps someone voted for by the House of Representatives; if not, then perhaps House Speaker Ryan; if not, then perhaps Senate president-pro-tempore Orrin Hatch. Someone "shall be the President" and, no matter who it is, that person will swear the Oath of Office under Article II, Section 1. That person immediately "...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..." under Article II, Section 2. That person will not be Barack Obama.

This leaves three possible implications vis-a-vis the failure of the so-called "sign"; either:

1. Charlie was duped by Satan who appeared as his regular "angel" of light for just that one moment where this prophecy about the "sign" was given to Charlie; and for some unfathomable reason, Charlie's real "angel," who is actually a real, supernatural angel of God, just never got around to correcting Charlie each time he later expounded upon the prophecy of the "sign" to the world at large (which would be extremely odd of course, because Charlie so frequently comments on how his "angel" normally rebukes him when he makes an incorrect "interpretation" of something the "angel" has told him),

2. Charlie's "angel" from whom he claims to have gotten this specific prophecy is an actual, real supernatural being, but who is, and always has been, either Satan himself or an agent of Satan, who lied to Charlie about the sign and continually deceives Charlie (neither God nor a true angel of God can lie), or

3. Charlie is, and always has been, a false prophet who has made everything up out of whole cloth from the beginning. [Is Charlie self-aware enough to know that he has made up everything out of whole cloth? The answers to this question are bleak. For if he has been self-aware, then he is, and always has been, an attention-seeking purveyor of fraud (having the intent to deceive). If he has not been self-aware, then he has been suffering delusions/hallucinations of being visited by "angels" - sourced perhaps from his known physical traumas (e.g., his trauma at birth and/or his nerve damage of 2003) or sourced perhaps from an undiagnosed mental illness or mental disorder (e.g., a personality disorder).]

It's clear Charlie prefers #1, above, should the "sign" fail, so that he can justify holding on for another year. This will put him in the ever increasingly odd predicament of needing the other five horrific "fundamentals" to play out within less than twelve months, so that his prophecy of Marian "rescue" can come to fruition prior to January 1, 2018.

I suspect it's #3, but it's possible it is #2. In any case, when the "sign" fails in 50 days, Charlie will be in need of charity and prayers from all, fans and skeptics alike.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think Charlie has already been granted a plentiful number of mulligans, even by nice-guy standards, and lots of folks just stand there to the side of the green, arms crossed, watching Charlie continually missing putts, back and forth past the hole, but nodding to each other in unadulterated patience, "He'll sink it this time, I feel sure."
The problem with prophecy is that the prophetic words are ultra-examined with much leeway by good-meaning folks using some kind of divining rod of the esoteric. What I mean by that is that Charlie can say that Christmas 2013 is the last "normal" Christmas, and we have to divine what "normal" means, and start second guessing Christmas 2014, 2015, and probably 2016, and whether or not they were truly "normal" or are we just too spiritually obtuse to see that they weren't. Oh well, give Charlie a mulligan on that one because, after all, what does normal mean by my standards versus a guy who is in daily contact with his angel? The list of Charlie's mulligans goes on and on and on in my opinion. But alas, this is the nature of "prophetic pardon" in this day and age, where so many so-called prophets fail in their prophecy, but are given "one more chance" to hit the nail on the head, until finally, they get something "close" enough that it perpetuates ad infinitum. Sometimes, in fact, they get nothing right, but still hold on to a good following, ala Nancy Fowler of Conyers, God rest her soul. And many others.
Bottom line: I am glad that this website and Glenn are holding Charlie to some accountability.

L Spinelli said...

Jack, I think #2 - Charlie being duped by the devil all along - is the likely story. I wouldn't be surprised if #3 turned out to be true, but #2 is by far the greater possibility.

At any rate, Charlie is pledging to silently hang around until July 5, 2018. Another year-and-a-half of this?!?

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 809   Newer› Newest»