I'll move anything further about it down in my timeline, if I write about it again. I care, because he's a friend, and he has been done a monstrous injustice.
Not if he wants us to continue as paid subscribers. I agree with Kermit move on. No normal adult male wants to comment on much less touch a non related prepubescent females hair.
What I like about Rod's site is that he has eclectic interests. Occasionally I'll skim some things that don't interest me knowing his next topic is likely to interest me greatly.
Thanks, Rod. Just to be clear, I am avid reader and refer friends and family to your work all the time. I consider you a friend I've not yet met. Take care of yourself and I hope you have a blessed Magyar-tinged Thanksgiving.
I'm personally fascinating by this story. When I search, I find Rod's work on it prominantly linked. He is doing important work here. There are a lot of nuances to get through. The story is vital for Father Martins and also pertains ti possible over-accusations in Catholicism. It is also important for Catholic exorcism stories. We need to kow these things and I think Rod happens to be a primary person getting us this story.
I am interested in the updates as well. It appears that a good priest’s name has been unjustly slandered.
I’ve noticed that there are priests, as well as lay people, who are not fond of “celebrity exorcists.” This trend is most apparent on Reddit, where even other priests are jumping on the hate-bandwagon. I suspect a bit of jealousy at work here.
Anyways, praying for Fr. Martins and all others involved in this unfortunate event.
No. This series of events is a window into the modern Church and its pathologies. I want to hear all the details because it’s like a prism revealing what is damaged.
I would wait for the study's results to be successfully replicated a few times before I would rely on it for much. Especially because it is psych/social science, which has been the ground zero of the replication crisis.
There have been other lower power studies on various forms of anti-bias training for decades, and they keep showing the same thing over and over: teaching people to be aware of biases always sows mistrust, inculcates a victim mentality in whomever is being "protected", and either mentally harms the supposed "oppressors" by making them feel ashamed of who they are, or makes said group lash out in defense. I've been watching this since I was first subjected to this early 90s.
Just as I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining, I don't need any studies to tell me that DEI does the opposite of what it's advertised to do—that it doesn't create any type of tolerance or fairness, but just makes people angrier and more hostile and suspicious toward each other.
Just as the Marxists claimed to love and want to help the masses aka the "proletariat" but it quickly became clear that what they really wanted was to attack and destroy the bourgeois capitalists, their spiritual descendants of the New Left (founded by Marxist gurus) claim to want to help and center "marginalized identities", but really just want to vent their hatred against people they perceive as their enemies (while of course scoring a nice check), which pretty much means conservatives/straight white men and anyone who doesn't hate them enough.
Leftists sell hatred but disguise it as Tolerance/Diversity and sell Slavery in bottles labeled Liberation, but whenever they're given power their means and goals become obvious: to deconstruct, "problematize", to "heighten the contradictions", because the more we hate each other the more they benefit.
It is no surprise that their Struggle Sessions aka DEI seminars only spread hatred and discord—that was the goal all along.
I was surprised there were 15,000 trans personnel in the military. I have to ask; how many of those are actually presenting as the opposite sex they claim to be? Not just doing it for the grift.
Same. I'm seriously relieved how serious the incoming Trump admin seems to be about clearing that out, as well as other things DEI distracting and detracting from the military's primary mission, checking our nation's enemies. In fact, the timing in which I seem to be ready to reenter the service, I'm seeing God's providence. Those chaplains true to God's Word have no doubt been having to live and practice like they are in a bunker. This will be such relief for them.
15,000 isn't really that many. I googled a figure of 2,079,142 total active military personnel. 15,000 is .7% (.007) of that-- less than the figure for the general population.
You are putting words in my mouth I did not say or intend. My point was that 15,000 is not a , hard-to-credit large number with no comment whatsoever on whether trans people in the military is OK. For the record I think that's something that needs to be looked at good and hard.
I wasn't thinking that you said it. I was saying it (and meaning it) for myself. Thanks for doing the math for the rest of us in case any of us have shitlib relatives gauche enough to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner.
Someone recently suggested to me that 20% of the population is homosexual, and I just went, "Do you ever hear yourself talk? That doesn't even pass the sniff test." I saw the lightbulb go on a few seconds later—a few seconds too long. I guess people just absorb this trash without even giving it a second thought.
(Presumably the actual fact is along the lines of: 20% of Gen Z identifies as queer, even if they've never done anything queer, due to the social benefits conferred by identifying as such, with girls especially being smart about that sort of thing.)
The second paragraph makes sense, in terms of the grift.
Short story time, I dated a woman who thought that 80% of the US population was bisexual. After several back-and-forths, she looked up the specific study, which actually said that 80% of *LGBT* people were bisexual. I explicitly stated "(insert name here), do you really think that the majority of men want to see another man's penis? Does that actually make sense to you??"
This was before I awoke to the silliness and vapidity of the political left. It does sound sexist, but there really is something about the messaging of the LGBT crowd that draws in young women, that other young men feel indifferent at best and downright repulsive at worst.
I think it's probably true that female sexuality is more fluid whereas male sexuality is more starkly binary. Also, I wonder if it's partly a math issue: like, did she understand that 80% means 4 in 5, or does that register for her as "a lot"?
Maybe there's also a pseudo-Freudian confusion about the nature of attraction, having to do with the notion that feeling drawn to anyone at all always has some sort of sexual undertone or substrate.
A big part of that something is membership in a victim group. With one post on TikTok, they can go from Oppressor to Oppressed. Which will take them from being hated to being loved loved loved.
The famous New York Times study said 2%, at which Buckley, in the last genuinely funny remark he made, said, "Well, if that's the case I've met every one of them." Then it was revised upward to 5%, which seems to me about right. The 20% thing is a lot of nutty teens.
I think when I was growing up it was closer to 3 %. Since then I think homosexuality has risen to about 5 %. Some of it is situational. Joan Baez, who lived with Bob Dylan in the 60s, became a lesbian as she grew old.
I wonder whether putting any number on it makes sense. In times past, people thought of sexual activity as something you do, not something you are, which seems more accurate to me. I tend to doubt that there is any hard-wired genetic number that could be judged apart from social context. My guess is that there is one number in a society with a strong taboo against homosexuality and a very different number in a society with a strong inclination toward it. In that sense, it very well could be 2% in one type of society and 10% (or more) in another society.
True. I read many years ago that there is a tribe in New Guinea where the men and women live largely separate lives and the men initiate boys by forcing them to do things that I won't describe on this august site.
Re: Someone recently suggested to me that 20% of the population is homosexual
I think Rod has posted about this, in the TAC past: people are terrible at estimating such percentages. They also overestimate, often by a lot, the numbers of black people, millionaires, immigrants etc. This is also why lotteries never lack for customers.
True. Most Americans think blacks are much larger than 12-13 % of the population that they are. Part of it is popular culture where blacks punch above their weight in television, music, football and basketball.
Many people also live or work in the sorts of urban environments where black people are more numerous. The small Michigan city where I grew up was about 1/3 black. Outside some parts of the deep South if you're in a rural area you will see very, very few black people.
Where I live I usually have to drive into Winchester, VA to see any blacks. When I lived on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the county was about 8 % black and I saw blacks on nearly a daily basis.
The old 70s - 90s estimate was approximately 2-3 percent of the population was homosexual. Gay rights organizations pushed for about 10 percent. Both estimates were probably wrong.Also we’re in the land of the impossible here. Gay icon Oscar Wilde was married, had two children and had premarital heterosexual experience. Evelyn Waugh seems to have been largely same sex early on. There are extremes here. There are a relatively small number of people who are and apparently always have been same sex attracted- exclusively.Then there are floaters who went mostly one way and then another when older(Gay rights organizations advocates have a tendency to assume such people buried there gayness and now feel free to come out. True of some but what of the opposite?).Now causing confusion is the whole LGBTQ plus zillions concept. On the sexual attraction continum , what are trans people? If I am a man who wants to simulate being a woman, am I gay or straight? Now the concept of queer really confuses matters.Is a straight woman who says she’s queer, queer? Look queer was historically a pejorative for homosexuals. (See William Burroughs novel Queer).I have no idea what it means to say you’re queer but you’re not homosexual.Some of this is pure posing by people who want to be seen as transgressive, outre outlaws- a pose probably favored by people by bourgeois college students with liberal parents.So , who knows!
At least it’s entertaining. I’m starting to think that South Park doesn’t produce as many episodes because how can they top what’s happening in reality?
At least trans skepticism and DEI opposition are part of our general political discourse thanks to Trump. The fact that Trump—in a second, comeback administration—is talking about our concerns here at least ALLOWS ordinary people to think about these issues with less fear that they’re all alone in feeling the same way.
And one hopes of course that right action will follow at some point.
You know the roster of those who ran the World Bank? Harry Dexter White, a Soviet agent, Bob McNamara, who knew perfectly well that Vietnam was unwinnable and lied about for most of his tenure at Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz. Nobody fails in Washington. Nobody.
It seems they never go home, either. I remember Bob Dole was giving a speech in Russell, Kansas as he declared himself a candidate for the 1996 Presidential race. "I will go to the White House or come home," said the liar. Dole never planned to go back to Russell and died living in the Watergate condominium complex in Washington DC with his wife, Elizabeth, who never returned to Salisbury, NC.
Republicans in general (with maybe some exception) have been attacking DEI across the board-- it's good politics given their base. And before that most of them could be counted on to denigrate the earlier incarnation, Affirmative Action. I don't see this as an "Only Trump" thing. At most it was low priority while they went off to other fish fries, like those involving tax cuts on the rich-- though Trump is hellbent on attending that luau too.
You know, Republican George Schultz came up with the concept of Affirmative Action about 1970. Proves he was a much better Secretary of State than a Secretary of Labor.
I think Marco Rubio, from my home state of Florida, gets misunderstood. For instance, this is the first thing that came up when I googled "Marco Rubio DEI":
"Under the “Fairness in Higher Education Accrediting Act,” proposed by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), colleges and universities would not be evaluated based on their “DEI and affirmative action policies, or lack thereof,” according to a press release.
The legislation was co-sponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and. Rick Scott (R-FL)."
Here is the 2nd thing that came up, and there is plenty more:
"The offices of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) released a new report titled “‘Diversity Over Diplomacy’ – How Wokeness is Weakening the U.S. State Department.”
The report details how the U.S. State Department has prioritized promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) policies at the expense of carrying out its mission to build international relationships and protect America’s national security. "
(forget you ever hear the words Gang of 8...he is sorry...OK? And I do not understand what else people want to accuse Rubio of. Remarks on Trumps hands excluded. heh)
Now if only they would adopt more worker friendly policies. (I have a young relative who works at a Walmart. I hear things that do not improve my opinion of Walmart)
The spectacle of a Fortune 500 firm foisting Foucault’s theories of power (which is the intellectual heft behind DEI and CRT and related poxes) on hourly workers barely making a living has been absurd.
My concern here is that Trump should leave the criticisms of Trans and DEI policy to someone else. Even if he makes a good argument, his normal rhetoric is easily rearranged to make him look bad.
Rod, you make valid points regarding the Martins situation. As a lifelong faithful Catholic, it has pained me to see the crosses laid on the shoulders of good priests over a horrific scandal of sexual misconduct enabled by corrupt Church leadership and engaged in primarily by actively homosexual priests in grotesque betrayal of their vows and their supposed faith.
This situation with Father Martins is terribly unfortunate and may indeed be terribly unfair to him. I agree that at minimum the parish and diocese should have made clear that the incident in question was not of a sexual nature. However, that doesn't take Father Martins entirely off the hook. I would submit that the scene described by his lawyer involved weird...and/or stupid...behavior on his part. Seriously, touching the girl's hair while musing about flossing her teeth with it? I think most priests would tell you that was unwise and inappropriate.
Also, I'm not getting why The Pillar is taking flack for its reporting, which was a straight-up rendition of the facts as they were known. Why is Father Martins' lawyer directing threats at The Pillar rather than the priest and bishop who rang the alarm bell? In fact, why is Father Martins hiding behind his lawyer? Why didn't he respond to The Pillar when it sought comment from him?
I would also note that: A) the diocese claims there are additional facts left unstated in the lawyer's brief; and B) Father Martins' order has suspended his ministry apparently pending further investigation, seemingly meaning that the order must have its own concerns.
Bottom line for me: I'm tired and angry after so many years of this slow-motion disaster produced by failed leadership and Judas priests. I simply have no patience for priests doing stupid things and then claiming victim status. It's not hard: keep your hands off the girl's hair and don't say weird stuff to her. All this said, assuming Father is the quality of man and priest that you say, I pray all this is brought promptly to a conclusion so he can return to his ministry, hopefully having learned a lesson.
On a totally separate note, we'll see what Trump does about the ludicrous idiocy of transgender troops in the military. Again, he talks a good game. But he's been known not to deliver. I suspect this particular campaign promise will end up in the same boat as the promise to end the Ukraine war in a day and promptly deport 10 million illegals.
Alas, so many ways the Fr Martin's tempest in a teacup could have been avoided by all participants.
The one thing Fr Martins has going for him, cold comfort though it may be, is that he is a priest of a religious order rather than a diocese. Terrible as reputational loss is, he need never set foot in the Diocese of Joliet, IL ever again. His order is unlikely to punish him (beyond a warning never to touch anyone ever again outside of a handshake), as no legal or canonical delicts were committed.
If he were incardiated within the Diocese of Joliet, he'd be stuck there. A diocesan bishop can make life hell for any of his priests who get on his bad side. Exhibit A is Joliet's neighbor, the Archdiocese of Chicago, whose archbishop, Cardinal Cupich, has disciplined or even effectively ended the public priesthood of some men who got on his bad side, despite not having committed criminal or canonical crimes.
My son is a US Marine, serving in Okinawa. He said that the trans thing is not something they have to deal with. Grant it, he is a Jr enlisted. But still…
The optics of "Priest suing little girl's father" stink like week-old dead fish (OK, mixing my metaphors). Also I'm not sure such would be exemplary Christian behavior. See: 1 Corinthians 6-10
I would say that one has to examine the totality of the circumstances regarding Father Martin's situation. It's not just the touching of the hair. It's the extended interaction and focus on one child combined with the very weird "flossing" remarks.
Let me just say up front (again) that the whole situation is stupid, but the first person to start the avalanche of stupid was Father Martin. The girl's father is being an idiot, but he doesn't get to be an idiot without Father Martin being so boneheaded as to violate the social norms of 2024 regarding physical interaction with other people's children, especially when you're in a position that (mostly deservedly) doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to suspicions of pedophilia or pederasty.
I will also say that, even with a statute written as broadly as what Illinois is calling "battery," that Father Martin doesn't appear to have committed a crime. It appears that battery in Illinois is an intentional act and I can't imagine how you would try to prove that Father Martin was in that mindset. The statute appears to have been written to address mild forms of physical combat that don't result in injury, such as shoving or jabbing someone repeatedly in the chest with your finger. I seriously doubt that the IL legislature was trying to make it a crime to touch another's hair.
The girl's father is being unreasonable and, if it was my case, I'd tell him that probable cause is severely lacking in this instance and to quit wasting my time. But Father Martin would get an earful about the violation of social norms as they exist in 2024 and how his inexcusable cluelessness has led to my time being wasted.
I am willing to give Father Martin the benefit of the doubt and write this off as stupid rather than some kind of maliciousness. The extended interaction, more so than the actual hair touching, is what is probably setting everyone off. I'm curious as to the girl's age. A lot happens to how a girl reacts to these kinds of interactions involving prolonged attention from men between age seven as opposed to age 12. I'm willing to guess she's older, but not old enough (in her mid to late teens) to process the interaction in a way that gives Father Martin the benefit of a doubt either way. Under 8 years of age and she writes his behavior off as silly. Over the age of 15 and she understands that he's a clueless old man with no real practical understanding of sexual norms.
It's that in- between age range, where she's not sure herself how these interactions between men and women are supposed to go that will cause her the most anxiety and send her running (correctly) to her parents. Again, this goes back to the question of celibacy that I brought up last night. If Father Martin was a real father or a husband, he would get this in a way that he will never be able to understand otherwise. The celibacy requirement meaning that your organization attracts a lot of sexual deviants who hope to use the vow to escape their own sinful urges is a real problem. But another problem is that you also deny your clergy who aren't sexual deviants the understanding of normal social interactions between the sexes that can only be gained by experience.
Finally, to close this off, I don't care what Father Lane did. We're not here to talk about what he did. We're talking b about what Father Martin did. For one thing, we have no information about the totality of the circumstances behind that photo of him with his hands on the girl's shoulders as opposed to the totality of Father Martin's extended interaction on the benefits of dental hygiene using human hair as has been alleged here.
Father Lane may be a moron too, but nobody's called the cops on him (yet) and he doesn't have the public platform in the wider world that Martin does with his exorcism work. "But he did it too!" doesn't work when you're caught stealing cookies at age 6 with your 4 year-old brother. It doesn't work in the adult world either.
"But another problem is that you also deny your clergy who aren't sexual deviants the understanding of normal social interactions between the sexes that can only be gained by experience."
I had never considered this aspect of it but now that I have I think you're wrong. Celibate men have mothers, sisters, nieces, friends; and a man not committed to celibacy might lack them, or, like Joe Biden, just be a weirdo.
The father is within his rights to object to Fr. Martin's behavior-- but went to far extremes in his reaction. This should have been a matter for a private talk-- "Father, may I ask you not to touch my little girl or jest about her hair?"
I find the figure of 15,000 transgendered military a bit dubious. Who leaked this figure? And for what reasons? I think it is a pre-emptive left-generals attack on all reforms the Trump Administration might have in store for the military. And it will probably work. Trump is no culture warrior. Witness his homosexual Treasury Secretary who is "married" with children. Trump will thrash about on the issue of military reform and get little done.
The blunt truth is that the central core of a military that kills bad people are white heterosexual men. However, the left despises white heterosexual men and bends over backwards for the various minorities and women. So the American military will continue to have a difficult time recruiting white heterosexual men.
Derek, I noted above that that is not a very large number, and it's proportionally less than the number of trans in the general population.
I can't imagine anyone nowadays refusing to appoint a gay person to some office where their sexual orientation and marital status is utterly irrelevant to the job. His age notwithstanding Trump is very much a man of these times-- and a good thing too as the last thing we need is yet another Republican marinating in Age of Reagan nostalgia. If you want "culture war" from Trump you will get it on immigration, and probably on steroids. That is very much a current issue.
When you disrespect and demand acquiescence from your core constituency, you're going to notice a drop in numbers - period.
Maybe all the actual females in the armed forces are fine with a woman with unit in the showers. I'm doubting it. But then the women freaked out about it are told THEY are the ones who are wrong, THEY are the ones who have to suck it up, and if they don't like it they can leave or deal with the demerits.
Oh, and the rest of society has no choice but to accept this.
But we DID have a choice, and it's a huge reason Trump is returning to office.
Just using the words "touch" and "child" next to each other evokes discomfort. Do you touch your children? Of course you do, and I do, but in the world we live in, those words are loaded with potential sinister meaning.
Fr Lane shouldn't be "moderating" the morning "donut run"......and not because he had his hands, innocently on that kid's shoulder. His statement, given to the Pillar, is the definition of cowardly. It's as if he is trying to heap suspicion on Fr Martins to show how upright HE is.
How hard is it to say "the incident was not sexual or violent in nature"?
WTF is with: "We informed the priest that he must depart our parish and out of our diocese"? With craven friends like Lane, who needs enemies?
It's the "scapegoat routine"......he's bad, therefore I'm good.
DEI is an attempt by the left to destroy the white patriarchy that still pretty much runs everything worthwhile in the country. The left is not going to give up. But Middle-America despises DEI with a passion. All you have to do is read a comments section in something like youtube when an outrageous DEI episode occurs. Every time something DEI comes up, the right should pounce on it like a lion jumping a wildebeest.
I had lunch with a good friend and somewhat former Catholic yesterday (he’ll go for the baptism of his grandchildren) and he walked away from the church over their constant demand for money and the politics parish priests played over money. He says he doesn’t need the church to believe and wants the Catholics and Protestant mega churches to be taxed. He sees them as spending more on lavish lifestyles than doing what Christ would have done. Something is definitely going off the rails when they lose really traditional Hispanic guys like him.
Every Novus Ordo diocese is a racket and the bishops live like kings. About five years after my family and I left the Novus Ordo we received a plea from the Diocese of Wilmington asking for 10 % of my income as the ideal and 5 % as the basic minimum contribution to the Diocese.
Heh, yeah. My solution: I discovered that there's an IRS rule where if I specifically earmark my tithing for, say, parish property maintenance, then it stays within the parish and the diocese can't take its ~10% cut for whatever terrible ideas it has or holes it needs to fill e.g. insurance payouts. (That was my understanding of how it worked.) Given that my longtime diocese, before recently moving out, was led by the dismal Cupich, I had zero qualms about cutting him out.
Earmarked donations, by law, have to stay separate. On the nonprofit side of things, this can sometimes cause headaches, especially when people randomly designate things for campaigns that don't exist. ("For the seminarians" was one that we sometimes got... Considering our organization supported a university that had a lot of seminarians, this isn't so far afield, but we had no specific seminarian fund. OTOH, if the donation was for the cathedral campaign or other projects, then we had to be super strict that that money went there... The big problem was that those earmarked funds don't hit the general fundraising total. Not *necessarily* a problem until you have a donor who is ready to donate something like 1/5 of the total of all donations for the year, but wants things super-specifically allocated, and the months spent on negotiating and arranging this, but if the gift doesn't hit the general fund, it looks like the charity is much less "efficient".
I get that and also that my putative 'solution' is mostly an exercise in rearranging chairs. The archdiocese will get its annual minimum tax on a parish one way or the other - but not from me if I think there's a crook at the top.
Another scam is the selling of church properties, especially in cities that have lost its Catholic population. Baltimore is gutting dozens of parishes and selling off the property.
I find that easy to believe. I'm told Archidiœcesis Chicagiensis, to use the Latin so despised by his eminence, has spent over a million and counting fighting preservationists over St Adalbert alone. Still not resolved. It needed three million in work.
I think the US military should look at how the IDF handles trans issues. The IDF is an effective military and has no room for things that decrease effectiveness, yet manages to integrate trans people, as well as other people who are "non conforming" in a range of ways. There are more sophisticated ways to handle difference than firing and banning.
Maybe set up a trans unit and let them pretend to be good soldiers. Would you want such a unit defending your town from an invasion? They're too obsessed with themselves IMO and too obsessed with sex.
That's right. I think most homosexuals and transgenders in the military are far behind the lines in safe jobs, shuffling papers at the Pentagon like Bradley Manning or whatever he/she calls itself today.
This example demonstrates the lib war against conservatives we see everywhere in the West. Priests coming after priests. Destroy campaigns. It's satanic. Shameful. Thanks for covering it, Rod.
How much you want to bet that's what's going on here. I mean, after all, if the Woo is real, then Novus Ordo NGO doesn't make much sense, does it? I'd bet money on it.
Rod, enough on Fr Martins already. Too much. I really can’t be made to care.
I'll move anything further about it down in my timeline, if I write about it again. I care, because he's a friend, and he has been done a monstrous injustice.
People that “don’t care what you write about” can certainly find other things to read? Lol
Not if he wants us to continue as paid subscribers. I agree with Kermit move on. No normal adult male wants to comment on much less touch a non related prepubescent females hair.
Oh, so that explains it.
What I like about Rod's site is that he has eclectic interests. Occasionally I'll skim some things that don't interest me knowing his next topic is likely to interest me greatly.
That would include Joe Biden?
Thanks, Rod. Just to be clear, I am avid reader and refer friends and family to your work all the time. I consider you a friend I've not yet met. Take care of yourself and I hope you have a blessed Magyar-tinged Thanksgiving.
I'm personally fascinating by this story. When I search, I find Rod's work on it prominantly linked. He is doing important work here. There are a lot of nuances to get through. The story is vital for Father Martins and also pertains ti possible over-accusations in Catholicism. It is also important for Catholic exorcism stories. We need to kow these things and I think Rod happens to be a primary person getting us this story.
I am interested in the updates as well. It appears that a good priest’s name has been unjustly slandered.
I’ve noticed that there are priests, as well as lay people, who are not fond of “celebrity exorcists.” This trend is most apparent on Reddit, where even other priests are jumping on the hate-bandwagon. I suspect a bit of jealousy at work here.
Anyways, praying for Fr. Martins and all others involved in this unfortunate event.
On twitter:
Fr. Whoever,
47,000 followers,
57,000 tweets
"I've had it with these "celebrity priests".
So true! I suppose the hypocrisy is lost on some 🤦♀️
Wait, is it his Substack or yours? The man can write about what he wants.
Right? Besides, I got a pretty good idea about Father Lane's motivation.
Father Lane wants to tear Father Martens down. He's probably happy with the Bergoglio church.
No. This series of events is a window into the modern Church and its pathologies. I want to hear all the details because it’s like a prism revealing what is damaged.
I would wait for the study's results to be successfully replicated a few times before I would rely on it for much. Especially because it is psych/social science, which has been the ground zero of the replication crisis.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Professors/comments/1h09xzu/paper_instructing_animosity_how_dei_pedagogy/
There have been other lower power studies on various forms of anti-bias training for decades, and they keep showing the same thing over and over: teaching people to be aware of biases always sows mistrust, inculcates a victim mentality in whomever is being "protected", and either mentally harms the supposed "oppressors" by making them feel ashamed of who they are, or makes said group lash out in defense. I've been watching this since I was first subjected to this early 90s.
Just as I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining, I don't need any studies to tell me that DEI does the opposite of what it's advertised to do—that it doesn't create any type of tolerance or fairness, but just makes people angrier and more hostile and suspicious toward each other.
Just as the Marxists claimed to love and want to help the masses aka the "proletariat" but it quickly became clear that what they really wanted was to attack and destroy the bourgeois capitalists, their spiritual descendants of the New Left (founded by Marxist gurus) claim to want to help and center "marginalized identities", but really just want to vent their hatred against people they perceive as their enemies (while of course scoring a nice check), which pretty much means conservatives/straight white men and anyone who doesn't hate them enough.
Leftists sell hatred but disguise it as Tolerance/Diversity and sell Slavery in bottles labeled Liberation, but whenever they're given power their means and goals become obvious: to deconstruct, "problematize", to "heighten the contradictions", because the more we hate each other the more they benefit.
It is no surprise that their Struggle Sessions aka DEI seminars only spread hatred and discord—that was the goal all along.
We live in the dumbest timeline.
Indeed.
I was surprised there were 15,000 trans personnel in the military. I have to ask; how many of those are actually presenting as the opposite sex they claim to be? Not just doing it for the grift.
Same. I'm seriously relieved how serious the incoming Trump admin seems to be about clearing that out, as well as other things DEI distracting and detracting from the military's primary mission, checking our nation's enemies. In fact, the timing in which I seem to be ready to reenter the service, I'm seeing God's providence. Those chaplains true to God's Word have no doubt been having to live and practice like they are in a bunker. This will be such relief for them.
Who came up with the 15,000 transgendered figure? A military bureaucrat? A journalist? A leftist of some sort.
An LBGTQ Activist Group, that’s who: https://open.substack.com/pub/chrisbray/p/about-the-supposedly-devastating?r=2jt4h&utm_medium=ios
I should've guessed!
Excellent research, Madame Cat. The plot thickens.
I’m just lucky enough to subscribe to Chris Bray.
15,000 isn't really that many. I googled a figure of 2,079,142 total active military personnel. 15,000 is .7% (.007) of that-- less than the figure for the general population.
Then there's no real argument to be made that it could possibly hurt military readiness or whatever if they all get kicked out, right?
You are putting words in my mouth I did not say or intend. My point was that 15,000 is not a , hard-to-credit large number with no comment whatsoever on whether trans people in the military is OK. For the record I think that's something that needs to be looked at good and hard.
I wasn't thinking that you said it. I was saying it (and meaning it) for myself. Thanks for doing the math for the rest of us in case any of us have shitlib relatives gauche enough to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner.
Someone recently suggested to me that 20% of the population is homosexual, and I just went, "Do you ever hear yourself talk? That doesn't even pass the sniff test." I saw the lightbulb go on a few seconds later—a few seconds too long. I guess people just absorb this trash without even giving it a second thought.
(Presumably the actual fact is along the lines of: 20% of Gen Z identifies as queer, even if they've never done anything queer, due to the social benefits conferred by identifying as such, with girls especially being smart about that sort of thing.)
The second paragraph makes sense, in terms of the grift.
Short story time, I dated a woman who thought that 80% of the US population was bisexual. After several back-and-forths, she looked up the specific study, which actually said that 80% of *LGBT* people were bisexual. I explicitly stated "(insert name here), do you really think that the majority of men want to see another man's penis? Does that actually make sense to you??"
This was before I awoke to the silliness and vapidity of the political left. It does sound sexist, but there really is something about the messaging of the LGBT crowd that draws in young women, that other young men feel indifferent at best and downright repulsive at worst.
I think it's probably true that female sexuality is more fluid whereas male sexuality is more starkly binary. Also, I wonder if it's partly a math issue: like, did she understand that 80% means 4 in 5, or does that register for her as "a lot"?
So you're saying girl math strikes again?
She wasn't a dummy, but she did have sheltered upbringing. She was also the kind of person to read fan-fiction, so make of that what you will.
Also, from that same woman, there does seem to be a real confusion between feelings and actions.
"You say you're attracted to women, but are you actively having sex with one?" - a question I often ask towards purportedly bisexual women.
Maybe there's also a pseudo-Freudian confusion about the nature of attraction, having to do with the notion that feeling drawn to anyone at all always has some sort of sexual undertone or substrate.
A big part of that something is membership in a victim group. With one post on TikTok, they can go from Oppressor to Oppressed. Which will take them from being hated to being loved loved loved.
You can join the Sexual Other Group just by claiming to be a member-- it doesn't work that way with race or class.
The famous New York Times study said 2%, at which Buckley, in the last genuinely funny remark he made, said, "Well, if that's the case I've met every one of them." Then it was revised upward to 5%, which seems to me about right. The 20% thing is a lot of nutty teens.
Yes, 5% seems the most reasonable number.
I think when I was growing up it was closer to 3 %. Since then I think homosexuality has risen to about 5 %. Some of it is situational. Joan Baez, who lived with Bob Dylan in the 60s, became a lesbian as she grew old.
To be fair, I seem to recall that Bob Dylan was one of the original "Men who look like old lesbians" back when that was a meme.
I wonder whether putting any number on it makes sense. In times past, people thought of sexual activity as something you do, not something you are, which seems more accurate to me. I tend to doubt that there is any hard-wired genetic number that could be judged apart from social context. My guess is that there is one number in a society with a strong taboo against homosexuality and a very different number in a society with a strong inclination toward it. In that sense, it very well could be 2% in one type of society and 10% (or more) in another society.
Much is in the way that Charles Ryder went. And might not go now. That is not possible for everyone. Not all can go that way - but some truly can.
True. I read many years ago that there is a tribe in New Guinea where the men and women live largely separate lives and the men initiate boys by forcing them to do things that I won't describe on this august site.
Re: Someone recently suggested to me that 20% of the population is homosexual
I think Rod has posted about this, in the TAC past: people are terrible at estimating such percentages. They also overestimate, often by a lot, the numbers of black people, millionaires, immigrants etc. This is also why lotteries never lack for customers.
True. Most Americans think blacks are much larger than 12-13 % of the population that they are. Part of it is popular culture where blacks punch above their weight in television, music, football and basketball.
Many people also live or work in the sorts of urban environments where black people are more numerous. The small Michigan city where I grew up was about 1/3 black. Outside some parts of the deep South if you're in a rural area you will see very, very few black people.
Where I live I usually have to drive into Winchester, VA to see any blacks. When I lived on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the county was about 8 % black and I saw blacks on nearly a daily basis.
For young collegiate lefty women, declaring themselves bi-sexual is a rite of passage.
The old 70s - 90s estimate was approximately 2-3 percent of the population was homosexual. Gay rights organizations pushed for about 10 percent. Both estimates were probably wrong.Also we’re in the land of the impossible here. Gay icon Oscar Wilde was married, had two children and had premarital heterosexual experience. Evelyn Waugh seems to have been largely same sex early on. There are extremes here. There are a relatively small number of people who are and apparently always have been same sex attracted- exclusively.Then there are floaters who went mostly one way and then another when older(Gay rights organizations advocates have a tendency to assume such people buried there gayness and now feel free to come out. True of some but what of the opposite?).Now causing confusion is the whole LGBTQ plus zillions concept. On the sexual attraction continum , what are trans people? If I am a man who wants to simulate being a woman, am I gay or straight? Now the concept of queer really confuses matters.Is a straight woman who says she’s queer, queer? Look queer was historically a pejorative for homosexuals. (See William Burroughs novel Queer).I have no idea what it means to say you’re queer but you’re not homosexual.Some of this is pure posing by people who want to be seen as transgressive, outre outlaws- a pose probably favored by people by bourgeois college students with liberal parents.So , who knows!
It all makes one's head hurt, man. God bless normal.
Edward II and James I had children but were homosexual in their primary sexual drive.
At least it’s entertaining. I’m starting to think that South Park doesn’t produce as many episodes because how can they top what’s happening in reality?
If the 21st century had a tag line, this would be it.
At least trans skepticism and DEI opposition are part of our general political discourse thanks to Trump. The fact that Trump—in a second, comeback administration—is talking about our concerns here at least ALLOWS ordinary people to think about these issues with less fear that they’re all alone in feeling the same way.
And one hopes of course that right action will follow at some point.
Trump gives the normal Americans the courage to fight back against DEI. Do you think Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio would attack DEI? Of course not.
Totally agree.
I’ve never understood people like Paul Ryan. They seem to be utterly devoid of any imagination, moral or otherwise.
Ryan is the last Kemp Republican. An anachronism. Politics moved on. Ryan did not. But he's making a bundle now as a lobbying grifter.
You know the roster of those who ran the World Bank? Harry Dexter White, a Soviet agent, Bob McNamara, who knew perfectly well that Vietnam was unwinnable and lied about for most of his tenure at Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz. Nobody fails in Washington. Nobody.
It seems they never go home, either. I remember Bob Dole was giving a speech in Russell, Kansas as he declared himself a candidate for the 1996 Presidential race. "I will go to the White House or come home," said the liar. Dole never planned to go back to Russell and died living in the Watergate condominium complex in Washington DC with his wife, Elizabeth, who never returned to Salisbury, NC.
Republicans in general (with maybe some exception) have been attacking DEI across the board-- it's good politics given their base. And before that most of them could be counted on to denigrate the earlier incarnation, Affirmative Action. I don't see this as an "Only Trump" thing. At most it was low priority while they went off to other fish fries, like those involving tax cuts on the rich-- though Trump is hellbent on attending that luau too.
You know, Republican George Schultz came up with the concept of Affirmative Action about 1970. Proves he was a much better Secretary of State than a Secretary of Labor.
I think Marco Rubio, from my home state of Florida, gets misunderstood. For instance, this is the first thing that came up when I googled "Marco Rubio DEI":
"Under the “Fairness in Higher Education Accrediting Act,” proposed by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), colleges and universities would not be evaluated based on their “DEI and affirmative action policies, or lack thereof,” according to a press release.
The legislation was co-sponsored by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and. Rick Scott (R-FL)."
Here is the 2nd thing that came up, and there is plenty more:
"The offices of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Brian Mast (R-FL) released a new report titled “‘Diversity Over Diplomacy’ – How Wokeness is Weakening the U.S. State Department.”
The report details how the U.S. State Department has prioritized promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) policies at the expense of carrying out its mission to build international relationships and protect America’s national security. "
(forget you ever hear the words Gang of 8...he is sorry...OK? And I do not understand what else people want to accuse Rubio of. Remarks on Trumps hands excluded. heh)
As an aside I read this morning that Walmart is dropping DEI workplace policies.
Cool.
Now if only they would adopt more worker friendly policies. (I have a young relative who works at a Walmart. I hear things that do not improve my opinion of Walmart)
The employment model strikes me as the worst sort of paternalism.
Now if they ended the rude gesture of asking to inspect your bags on the way out. One of the many reasons I rarely go to Walmarts.
The spectacle of a Fortune 500 firm foisting Foucault’s theories of power (which is the intellectual heft behind DEI and CRT and related poxes) on hourly workers barely making a living has been absurd.
My concern here is that Trump should leave the criticisms of Trans and DEI policy to someone else. Even if he makes a good argument, his normal rhetoric is easily rearranged to make him look bad.
Fortunately, though, it would seem that people have stopped trusting or listening to the rearrangers.
Rod, you make valid points regarding the Martins situation. As a lifelong faithful Catholic, it has pained me to see the crosses laid on the shoulders of good priests over a horrific scandal of sexual misconduct enabled by corrupt Church leadership and engaged in primarily by actively homosexual priests in grotesque betrayal of their vows and their supposed faith.
This situation with Father Martins is terribly unfortunate and may indeed be terribly unfair to him. I agree that at minimum the parish and diocese should have made clear that the incident in question was not of a sexual nature. However, that doesn't take Father Martins entirely off the hook. I would submit that the scene described by his lawyer involved weird...and/or stupid...behavior on his part. Seriously, touching the girl's hair while musing about flossing her teeth with it? I think most priests would tell you that was unwise and inappropriate.
Also, I'm not getting why The Pillar is taking flack for its reporting, which was a straight-up rendition of the facts as they were known. Why is Father Martins' lawyer directing threats at The Pillar rather than the priest and bishop who rang the alarm bell? In fact, why is Father Martins hiding behind his lawyer? Why didn't he respond to The Pillar when it sought comment from him?
I would also note that: A) the diocese claims there are additional facts left unstated in the lawyer's brief; and B) Father Martins' order has suspended his ministry apparently pending further investigation, seemingly meaning that the order must have its own concerns.
Bottom line for me: I'm tired and angry after so many years of this slow-motion disaster produced by failed leadership and Judas priests. I simply have no patience for priests doing stupid things and then claiming victim status. It's not hard: keep your hands off the girl's hair and don't say weird stuff to her. All this said, assuming Father is the quality of man and priest that you say, I pray all this is brought promptly to a conclusion so he can return to his ministry, hopefully having learned a lesson.
On a totally separate note, we'll see what Trump does about the ludicrous idiocy of transgender troops in the military. Again, he talks a good game. But he's been known not to deliver. I suspect this particular campaign promise will end up in the same boat as the promise to end the Ukraine war in a day and promptly deport 10 million illegals.
Alas, so many ways the Fr Martin's tempest in a teacup could have been avoided by all participants.
The one thing Fr Martins has going for him, cold comfort though it may be, is that he is a priest of a religious order rather than a diocese. Terrible as reputational loss is, he need never set foot in the Diocese of Joliet, IL ever again. His order is unlikely to punish him (beyond a warning never to touch anyone ever again outside of a handshake), as no legal or canonical delicts were committed.
If he were incardiated within the Diocese of Joliet, he'd be stuck there. A diocesan bishop can make life hell for any of his priests who get on his bad side. Exhibit A is Joliet's neighbor, the Archdiocese of Chicago, whose archbishop, Cardinal Cupich, has disciplined or even effectively ended the public priesthood of some men who got on his bad side, despite not having committed criminal or canonical crimes.
My son is a US Marine, serving in Okinawa. He said that the trans thing is not something they have to deal with. Grant it, he is a Jr enlisted. But still…
He may have legal recourse for defamation. It is a bizarre story.
The optics of "Priest suing little girl's father" stink like week-old dead fish (OK, mixing my metaphors). Also I'm not sure such would be exemplary Christian behavior. See: 1 Corinthians 6-10
DEI
Division
Enmity
Invective
Do we really need a study to point that out? Of course hyper focusing on racial grievances will lead to bitterness among social groups.
I would say that one has to examine the totality of the circumstances regarding Father Martin's situation. It's not just the touching of the hair. It's the extended interaction and focus on one child combined with the very weird "flossing" remarks.
Let me just say up front (again) that the whole situation is stupid, but the first person to start the avalanche of stupid was Father Martin. The girl's father is being an idiot, but he doesn't get to be an idiot without Father Martin being so boneheaded as to violate the social norms of 2024 regarding physical interaction with other people's children, especially when you're in a position that (mostly deservedly) doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to suspicions of pedophilia or pederasty.
I will also say that, even with a statute written as broadly as what Illinois is calling "battery," that Father Martin doesn't appear to have committed a crime. It appears that battery in Illinois is an intentional act and I can't imagine how you would try to prove that Father Martin was in that mindset. The statute appears to have been written to address mild forms of physical combat that don't result in injury, such as shoving or jabbing someone repeatedly in the chest with your finger. I seriously doubt that the IL legislature was trying to make it a crime to touch another's hair.
The girl's father is being unreasonable and, if it was my case, I'd tell him that probable cause is severely lacking in this instance and to quit wasting my time. But Father Martin would get an earful about the violation of social norms as they exist in 2024 and how his inexcusable cluelessness has led to my time being wasted.
I am willing to give Father Martin the benefit of the doubt and write this off as stupid rather than some kind of maliciousness. The extended interaction, more so than the actual hair touching, is what is probably setting everyone off. I'm curious as to the girl's age. A lot happens to how a girl reacts to these kinds of interactions involving prolonged attention from men between age seven as opposed to age 12. I'm willing to guess she's older, but not old enough (in her mid to late teens) to process the interaction in a way that gives Father Martin the benefit of a doubt either way. Under 8 years of age and she writes his behavior off as silly. Over the age of 15 and she understands that he's a clueless old man with no real practical understanding of sexual norms.
It's that in- between age range, where she's not sure herself how these interactions between men and women are supposed to go that will cause her the most anxiety and send her running (correctly) to her parents. Again, this goes back to the question of celibacy that I brought up last night. If Father Martin was a real father or a husband, he would get this in a way that he will never be able to understand otherwise. The celibacy requirement meaning that your organization attracts a lot of sexual deviants who hope to use the vow to escape their own sinful urges is a real problem. But another problem is that you also deny your clergy who aren't sexual deviants the understanding of normal social interactions between the sexes that can only be gained by experience.
Finally, to close this off, I don't care what Father Lane did. We're not here to talk about what he did. We're talking b about what Father Martin did. For one thing, we have no information about the totality of the circumstances behind that photo of him with his hands on the girl's shoulders as opposed to the totality of Father Martin's extended interaction on the benefits of dental hygiene using human hair as has been alleged here.
Father Lane may be a moron too, but nobody's called the cops on him (yet) and he doesn't have the public platform in the wider world that Martin does with his exorcism work. "But he did it too!" doesn't work when you're caught stealing cookies at age 6 with your 4 year-old brother. It doesn't work in the adult world either.
"But another problem is that you also deny your clergy who aren't sexual deviants the understanding of normal social interactions between the sexes that can only be gained by experience."
I had never considered this aspect of it but now that I have I think you're wrong. Celibate men have mothers, sisters, nieces, friends; and a man not committed to celibacy might lack them, or, like Joe Biden, just be a weirdo.
The father is within his rights to object to Fr. Martin's behavior-- but went to far extremes in his reaction. This should have been a matter for a private talk-- "Father, may I ask you not to touch my little girl or jest about her hair?"
I find the figure of 15,000 transgendered military a bit dubious. Who leaked this figure? And for what reasons? I think it is a pre-emptive left-generals attack on all reforms the Trump Administration might have in store for the military. And it will probably work. Trump is no culture warrior. Witness his homosexual Treasury Secretary who is "married" with children. Trump will thrash about on the issue of military reform and get little done.
The blunt truth is that the central core of a military that kills bad people are white heterosexual men. However, the left despises white heterosexual men and bends over backwards for the various minorities and women. So the American military will continue to have a difficult time recruiting white heterosexual men.
I don't. There's a trans clerk at the local Staples and another at the local package store. That's a lot for a small town.
Derek, I noted above that that is not a very large number, and it's proportionally less than the number of trans in the general population.
I can't imagine anyone nowadays refusing to appoint a gay person to some office where their sexual orientation and marital status is utterly irrelevant to the job. His age notwithstanding Trump is very much a man of these times-- and a good thing too as the last thing we need is yet another Republican marinating in Age of Reagan nostalgia. If you want "culture war" from Trump you will get it on immigration, and probably on steroids. That is very much a current issue.
When you disrespect and demand acquiescence from your core constituency, you're going to notice a drop in numbers - period.
Maybe all the actual females in the armed forces are fine with a woman with unit in the showers. I'm doubting it. But then the women freaked out about it are told THEY are the ones who are wrong, THEY are the ones who have to suck it up, and if they don't like it they can leave or deal with the demerits.
Oh, and the rest of society has no choice but to accept this.
But we DID have a choice, and it's a huge reason Trump is returning to office.
Just using the words "touch" and "child" next to each other evokes discomfort. Do you touch your children? Of course you do, and I do, but in the world we live in, those words are loaded with potential sinister meaning.
Fr Lane shouldn't be "moderating" the morning "donut run"......and not because he had his hands, innocently on that kid's shoulder. His statement, given to the Pillar, is the definition of cowardly. It's as if he is trying to heap suspicion on Fr Martins to show how upright HE is.
How hard is it to say "the incident was not sexual or violent in nature"?
WTF is with: "We informed the priest that he must depart our parish and out of our diocese"? With craven friends like Lane, who needs enemies?
It's the "scapegoat routine"......he's bad, therefore I'm good.
DEI is an attempt by the left to destroy the white patriarchy that still pretty much runs everything worthwhile in the country. The left is not going to give up. But Middle-America despises DEI with a passion. All you have to do is read a comments section in something like youtube when an outrageous DEI episode occurs. Every time something DEI comes up, the right should pounce on it like a lion jumping a wildebeest.
I had lunch with a good friend and somewhat former Catholic yesterday (he’ll go for the baptism of his grandchildren) and he walked away from the church over their constant demand for money and the politics parish priests played over money. He says he doesn’t need the church to believe and wants the Catholics and Protestant mega churches to be taxed. He sees them as spending more on lavish lifestyles than doing what Christ would have done. Something is definitely going off the rails when they lose really traditional Hispanic guys like him.
Every Novus Ordo diocese is a racket and the bishops live like kings. About five years after my family and I left the Novus Ordo we received a plea from the Diocese of Wilmington asking for 10 % of my income as the ideal and 5 % as the basic minimum contribution to the Diocese.
To fund insurance pay outs.
Heh, yeah. My solution: I discovered that there's an IRS rule where if I specifically earmark my tithing for, say, parish property maintenance, then it stays within the parish and the diocese can't take its ~10% cut for whatever terrible ideas it has or holes it needs to fill e.g. insurance payouts. (That was my understanding of how it worked.) Given that my longtime diocese, before recently moving out, was led by the dismal Cupich, I had zero qualms about cutting him out.
Earmarked donations, by law, have to stay separate. On the nonprofit side of things, this can sometimes cause headaches, especially when people randomly designate things for campaigns that don't exist. ("For the seminarians" was one that we sometimes got... Considering our organization supported a university that had a lot of seminarians, this isn't so far afield, but we had no specific seminarian fund. OTOH, if the donation was for the cathedral campaign or other projects, then we had to be super strict that that money went there... The big problem was that those earmarked funds don't hit the general fundraising total. Not *necessarily* a problem until you have a donor who is ready to donate something like 1/5 of the total of all donations for the year, but wants things super-specifically allocated, and the months spent on negotiating and arranging this, but if the gift doesn't hit the general fund, it looks like the charity is much less "efficient".
I get that and also that my putative 'solution' is mostly an exercise in rearranging chairs. The archdiocese will get its annual minimum tax on a parish one way or the other - but not from me if I think there's a crook at the top.
I wouldn't want one cent to go to The Campaign for Human Development.
Another scam is the selling of church properties, especially in cities that have lost its Catholic population. Baltimore is gutting dozens of parishes and selling off the property.
Try Chicago, good Sir.
I half-think it's how Cupich keeps solvent and comfortable. He's a business manager with a rather enviable real estate portfolio.
I've been told that bishops make very poor real estate dealers. The bishops don't exactly run a free market enterprise.
I find that easy to believe. I'm told Archidiœcesis Chicagiensis, to use the Latin so despised by his eminence, has spent over a million and counting fighting preservationists over St Adalbert alone. Still not resolved. It needed three million in work.
I think the US military should look at how the IDF handles trans issues. The IDF is an effective military and has no room for things that decrease effectiveness, yet manages to integrate trans people, as well as other people who are "non conforming" in a range of ways. There are more sophisticated ways to handle difference than firing and banning.
I'm not really in the mood for nuance at the moment; I just wanna see the entire cult removed from public life first. Then we can talk.
Maybe set up a trans unit and let them pretend to be good soldiers. Would you want such a unit defending your town from an invasion? They're too obsessed with themselves IMO and too obsessed with sex.
Men pretending to be women pretending to be soldiers?
That's right. I think most homosexuals and transgenders in the military are far behind the lines in safe jobs, shuffling papers at the Pentagon like Bradley Manning or whatever he/she calls itself today.
This example demonstrates the lib war against conservatives we see everywhere in the West. Priests coming after priests. Destroy campaigns. It's satanic. Shameful. Thanks for covering it, Rod.
How much you want to bet that's what's going on here. I mean, after all, if the Woo is real, then Novus Ordo NGO doesn't make much sense, does it? I'd bet money on it.