GUAM SENATOR DEFROCKED?"

By Tim Rohr

Yesterday, Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, spent quite a bit of time (here) on the Guam Daily Post story: "‘I had nothing to do’ with alleged conspiracy, says Sen. San Agustin."

Note: Bob hit this again the following day here. 

In sum, the story ties sitting Senator, Joe S. San Agustin, despite his protestations, to an apparent SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLAR gambling and money laundering scheme via Bingo, and under the auspices of charity fundraising by the GUAM SHRINER'S CLUB. 

Bob does a very thorough job of laying it all out, so I'm not going to repeat what he has already said. Rather, my interest in the story was piqued, not by another government official caught in a scandal (what's new?), but by the involvement of the GUAM SHRINER'S CLUB, and particularly Sen. San Agustin's involvement...or not.

The Post story starts out by referring to Sen. San Agustin as 1) "[a] Guam senator with former ties to the Guam Shrine Club;" and then 2) - about a paragraph later - the same story states that Senator Joe has been "a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years:" 

"Sen. Joe San Agustin this week told The Guam Daily Post that while he has been a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years..."

So which is it? 

Does Sen. San Agustin have "former ties to the Guam Shrine Club" or is he still ("has been") "a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years...?" 

And this brings us to a deeper point. 

Being "a Shriner" is no small thing. You are not just "a part" of a small club - which is apparently how Sen. Joe now wishes to portray himself. 

Shriners are the very pinnacle of Freemasonry and the analogous equivalent to the Vatican cardinaliate relative to the rest of the Catholic population.

According to "All Shriners Are Masons, But Not All Masons Are Shriners:"

Shriners have temples; Masons have a Blue Lodge or Craft Lodge. Members of the Masonic lodges are required to learn about their fraternity and earn a series of Masonic degrees. When a member has completed the third and final degree he becomes a Master Mason and is then eligible to become a Shriner.

Apparently becoming a Shriner is no small thing. It's a very, very exclusive club, but more than a club, it is a fraternity - in the strict sense of the word, i.e. no women allowed:

...women are not eligible to join the Shriners fraternity - SOURCE

I'm sure Sen. San Agustin's female constituents will be happy to know this. But, back to the point.

Given the apparent extreme exclusivity and seeming strict achievement of what it takes to be admitted to the ANCIENT ARABIC ORDER OF THE NOBLES OF THE MYSTIC SHRINE (the real name of the Shriners - SOURCE), why is Senator Joe S. San Agustin now trying to distance himself from his exclusive inclusion into this sacred Freemasonic Nobility by referring to his functional consecration into this Freemasonic equivalent of the Catholic College of Cardinals as being only "a part of" or even a "former" member. 

Really? Can Catholic cardinals, upon the exposition of scandal relative to their own, simply say: "I was a former member? 

Was Sen. Joe S. San Agustin kicked out? Was he defrocked? Or is he just another gullible nobody who thought he was only joining some adult version of the Boy Scouts and out to get votes.

Yah. Probably.