Sunday, April 30, 2023


By Tim Rohr


I agree with Vanessa Williams per the following highlighted portions of her remarks to the Guam Daily Post:

Attorney Vanessa Williams, who supports abortion rights, while not fully on board with an islandwide vote on abortion, agreed with the legislative intent of the bill that states "many of our citizens believe that abortion services are essential health care."

"Abortion is health care. It shouldn't take a referendum for Guam to protect health care for people who can get pregnant," Williams said.

But if lawmakers approve giving voters the power to decide the legality of abortion, Williams predicts the election will favor access to abortions.

There are some solid arguments, pro and con, against referendums. One of the "cons" is that referendums are a default to direct-democracy and an open door to "tyranny of the majority." 

Our nation's founders specifically sought to insulate the nation they intended to found from tyranny, of the majority or otherwise, by hammering out the parameters of a republican form of government which may be otherwise referred to as a representative democracy. 

The key word is "representative," and it's why we go through this crazy exercise every two years with signs and ads and signs and ads and signs and ads... We elect these people (our legislature) for a reason. We elect them AND PAY THEM to do the tough stuff of government, for better or worse, until the next election do we part. 

A referendum is a cop out, a real run and hide by the people we elect and pay - especially on this issue. In fact, it can be said that there has already been a referendum. That's what the legislative election is every two years. It is the people's referendum on who they trust to make and unmake laws. 

So, I agree with Vanessa. It shouldn't take a referendum. In fact, at this point not only is no referendum needed, but for the pro-aborts, no legislation of any sort is needed. 

Abortion is completely legal in Guam save for a very few limits: 1) you can't kill a mostly-born baby by sticking a knife into the back of her head as she comes down the birth canal (partial-birth abortion); 2) minors need parental consent (but not always); 3) women seeking abortion are required to be informed of the abortion's risks and alternatives; and 4) abortion stats must be reported. That's it. 

Oh, there's one more. You can't kill a baby who survives an abortion - even if the current governor says "do it." (Listen to Tall Tales every Friday after the half-time show to hear LLG's public testimony as to why these babies should be left to die...or ask her yourself the next time you see her receive communion at the Cathedral.)

So I agree with Vanessa on the referendum thing, but I also agree with her that "the election will favor abortion." I agree with her because CHamoru's - at least the majority - apparently have a self-extinction wish. And I don't know how to reverse it. 

Even though the CHamoru population in Guam has been grievously declining for years, the majority of CHamoru's twice elected as their governor the most ardent, vociferous, and vicious proponent of CHamoru self-extinction to ever run for office. 


David Sablan, President of Concerned Catholics of Guam, is quoted in today's Guam Daily Post article "Advocates react to possible abortion vote."

 Mr. Sablan requests that JW publish his full comment to the Post as follows:


Hi Shane,

Thanks for your WhatsApp text message on the above subject matter.

I read Bill 106-37.

I do not agree with some of the findings and intent of this bill.  There

are mistakes and disinformation throughout the bill.

For example, the bill states that "many of our citizens believe that

abortion services are essential healthcare."  More correctly, there is

only a minority of Guam citizens who want abortion services, and most

certainly I would not classify abortion as "healthcare" when the murder of

a human life is involved in the process. Why do these abortion activists

never consider the developing baby in the mother's womb as a developing

human life.

Another point mentioned in the bill is, ". . . the US Supreme Court has

recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal

viability. . . and after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the

good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for

the preservation of life or health of the person who is pregnant."

Where's the concern for the preservation of the life or health of the

person in the mother's womb?  It is an evil act to abort a human being.

We have no right to play God and determine who lives or not.  PL 20-134

clearly brings this matter to light for both the mother and the person

performing the abortion, making it a misdemeanor and felony, respectively.

The US Supreme Court decided in the Dobbs case in June 2020 that abortion

is NOT a constitutional right.  In that same case, the US Supreme Court

moved the decision on abortion to the individual states and territories.

We should wait for Attorney General Doug Moylan's appeal to overturn the

decision of the district court, denying his motion to remove the

injunction on Guam's PL 20-134 that was passed in 1990--unanimously by the

21 senators of the Guam Legislature at the time and signed into law by

Governor Joseph Ada--which prevented abortion from inception.

Now that the Dobbs decision by the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v.

Wade, PL 20-134 is the law for Guam now.  I believe Attorney General Doug

Moylan is doing the right thing to get PL 20-134 codified into Guam law.

In PL 20-134, there is a provision for a referendum by the people of Guam.

That referendum can be put on the ballot, once PL 20-134's injunction is


So, bill 106-37 is flawed with misinformation and disinformation, and not



/s/ David J. Sablan, President


Saturday, April 29, 2023


By Tim Rohr

Research on another matter took me to the website of the 37th Guam Legislature and its long list of resolutions honoring everything from the founder of Guam's motor sports to a long serving airport employee. 

While scrolling through this long list, I thought of my recently-deceased friend, Robert Camacho, and wondered if there was a resolution with his name. 

Maybe I missed it, but...I didn't find one.

Bob, as I called him since we met in the early 90's, is the one person, while I still live in this world, I still try to model myself after. 

Seriously. He was the most beautiful person I have ever known. And I don't mean "beautiful" in a sappy way. 

I'm not sure there is a word to explain Bob. He was simply good in so many ways. Bob helped me quietly in my darkest hours. My really darkest hours. And he was the first person I called when I finally emerged. 

Bob served our island in so many ways. And for a very long time. 

A very long time. 

From fighting in Kuwait in the 1990's to fighting crime and injustice as the acting director of DOC at the time he passed from this world to the next, Bob was always on the frontlines for Guam and especially for those who trusted and counted on him. 

Like me. 

Dear Bob. Never mind. You don't need a resolution from this world. You already have the only resolution that matters. 

Please pray for me. 

Your Friend, 



By Tim Rohr

In 2010, I was still on fairly good terms with the neocat-power people, including a certain Fr. Giovanni Rizzo, who was then Vice-Rector of the former Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

In fact, since about 2009, Fr. Rizzo and I were members of an exclusive chancery think-tank which frequently met in the wake of then-Senator B.J. Cruz' introduction of civil union legislation. 

At that time, only about six states had adopted (same-sex) civil union legislation and the prospect of such legislation gaining traction here in "Catholic" Guam was a threat then-Archbishop Apuron wanted to quash.

Even then, and before I moved to being on bad terms with Apuron and the neocats after the Fr. Paul thing in July 2013, I could easily see that Apuron's objection to Cruz' legislation had nothing to do with Catholic moral teaching. 

No, Apuron's objection, and the resultant attack on Cruz' legislation (during which I was pushed to the front by the "think-tank" people) was motivated by Apuron's fear of how Rome would view Apuron's chances for a red hat (elevation to cardinal) after Guam, perhaps the most Catholic place in the world per capita, became one of the few places in the United States to embrace same-sex unions.

The neocats, including Rizzo, who was also a canon lawyer, were anxious to preserve Apuron's reputation to the Vatican since he (Apuron) was functionally their "sugar daddy" for just about everything they needed a bishop to do - including ordain guys no one else would ordain. (Another story)

The think-tank's opposition to Cruz' legislation was a disaster, primarily because another neocat priest (not Rizzo) decided to wax eloquent and said stuff that didn't need to be said. 

The trouble was, he, the priest, didn't say it. He either had Apuron say what he wrote from the pulpit or he put his faux philosophical tomes on archdiocesan letterhead. The media (and Cruz) were just waiting for the "church" to do exactly what Apuron's puppeteers and ghost writers had him do, and Apuron's mess made easy headlines for more than a year.


Anyway, that's how I came to know Fr. Rizzo. The think-tank thing. So I was on familiar terms with him when I confronted him in 2010 about his rewriting of a paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support the neo practice of placing the altar (they call it a table) in the center of the church instead of at the head. 

I actually confronted Apuron first and you can read my email to Apuron and Rizzo's rewriting of the Catechism at this post from 2015: THE "MILIEU FOR A NEW AESTHETIC"

The short of it is this. Rizzo, the vice-rector of the seminary and a canon lawyer, changed Par. 1182 of the Catechism to say "the altar is IN the center of the church" from "the altar IS the center of the church." (Emphases added). 

Given the title of Rizzo's article "...a new aesthetic," it was clear Rizzo was laying a foundation for what the neocats intended to do to all the churches in Guam, and of course, the rest of the Catholic world if they could. 

(Of course, some liberal pastors had already begun to do this - "the church in the round" - many years prior to the arrival of the neo's. Dededo comes to mind. And even Barrigada. But also Sinajana after a major remodeling and where the altar was pushed almost to the physical center of the church. So we can't just blame the neocats. We were already on our way there.)

When I confronted Rizzo personally, he just laughed and brushed it off, saying he did not change the wording of the paragraph because he had not used quotation marks. I laughed back and pinned him on the fact that his article had referenced the paragraph by number, making the unwary reader think he or she was actually reading a quote from the Catechism. 

This was all before the Guam Gotterdamerung that eventually brought down Apuron, RMS, and the whole Archdiocese of Agana (about 6 years later). 

I don't remember what happened to Rizzo. In fact, I completely forgot about him until his name showed up the other day. 

As many know, the old War in the Pacific Museum in Asan ("the building") has been used since about 2017 by the neocats, apparently for all the things Archbishop Byrnes would no longer let them do in churches. 

After Byrnes took over, I pretty much stopped caring about what the neo's did, though I knew for sure that they were up to something. I just didn't care. And I'm not sure I care now, other than to say hello to my old friend Fr. Rizzo. 

You see, the building is owned by the Rainan I Langet Foundation, Inc., ("the Foundation") which, at least up until January 2023, was a Guam corporation. I say "at least up until January 2023," because the Foundation, which was incorporated in Guam in December 2017, appears to have been re-incorporated (not sure that's the right word) in Hawaii this past January. 

It's easy to tell by the names of the contact persons, and even more so by the principal and mailing address (go find it), who is really running this outfit, but anyway, that's not the story. 

At least not yet. 

The only "story" that piques my interest at this point is Fr. Giovanni Rizzo's name showing up as a member of the  "Board of Guarantors" as set forth in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation (which I have). 

If the words "Board of Guarantors" sound familiar that's because Attorney Jacques Bronze thoroughly impugned the old RMS Board of Guarantors as a shadow board in what JW termed THE BRONZE OPINION (it starts about pg. 15), appears that Rizzo's board functions in exactly the same way. (More about that another time.) 

Another note of interest is that Rizzo, on his LinkedIn profile makes no mention of his being vice-rector of a seminary in Guam. That's sort of big stuff - being a vice-rector of a seminary. So why doesn't it show up? 

No surprise though. Just more of the double life we have become used to when it comes to the neocats - especially its clergy.

More to come. If I feel like it. Meanwhile, hello Fr. Rizzo. Still rewriting the Catechism?

Here's a little history courtesy of the PDN's archives. 


By Tim Rohr

Sens. Fisher and Barnes have introduced Bill 106-37

The bill begins by calling for a referendum on abortion. 

Given the recent news of AG Moylan's recommendation of a referendum to the Supreme Court relative to the status of P.L. 20-134 (Belle's Law), one might think that Fisher and Barnes are simply carrying through on Moylan's recommendation.

They aren't.

Under cover of a bill that begins by calling for a referendum is an entirely new abortion bill, the Health Protection Act of 2023; and the stated purpose of this brand new legislation is "to allow health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations..."

According to KUAM: "Fisher says the measure, called the 'You Decide' bill, takes no stance on the controversial issue." 

That's not true.

In the Act's Findings and Intent, Fisher and Barnes set forth probably the most pointed pro-abortion argument ever to appear in legislative print, especially in regards to their argument that "abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States." 

Yet Fisher tells us that he "takes no stance." 

I'd say "amazing" or "unbelievable," but such head fakes, if not outright in-your-face lies, are so common from the pro-aborts that there is nothing amazing or unbelievable about what they say or do. Even the name of the Act, Health Protection Act of 2023, is an in-your-face lie. 

Meanwhile, where are the so-called "pro-life" legislators? Where is your bill? Never mind the referendum. Don't be cowards. Get in there and force your colleagues to do their damn job. 

Wednesday, April 26, 2023


By Tim Rohr

I haven't watched the news in many years. Too many more important things to do. I once read that there are two kinds of people: those who watch the news and those who make it. I chose the latter. It just sounded more fun. 

I don't think I've ever watched a Tucker Carlson episode other than seeing a YouTube snippet here or there. His voice was a little too high and whiny for me anyway.  And most of the time I didn't know what he was talking about. 

However, I saw and heard enough of what he said to not be surprised that he was fired by Fox, which, in the end, is still mainstream media. 

On Tuesday's Tall Tales, Bob K had an interesting "wondering" on what may have happened. 

Bob "wondered" if Fox's canning of Tucker may have been a "sub rosa protocol" wherein some "fringe" figures proposed: "Look Rupert, we'll let you keep Fox and won't go to trial if you pony up 700-something million and get rid of Tucker. (Emphasis on "wondered.")

Bob's use of the term "sub rosa" caught my attention. So I looked it up. Here's what Merriam-Webster says:

Sub rosa literally means "under the rose" in New Latin. Since ancient times, the rose has often been associated with secrecy. 

By "coincidence," I, after more than ten years of trying, and only last night, had finally finished reading Umberto Eco's classic novel, "The Name of the Rose" - and still didn't understand why Eco titled his novel "The Name of the Rose." WTH did roses have to do with the monstrous and revolting horror of Eco's magnificent mystery?

Thanks to Bob's reference to "sub rosa," and my looking it up - now I know. I recommend both the novel and listening to Bob's "sub rosa wondering" here at about 30:00.

The timing of Tucker's ouster - so close to Rupert's settlement - certainly points to something that is unexplained...and could well be "sub rosa.

One thing we do know is that Tucker had been uncovering stuff about January 6 (2021) that completely undermined everything we had been told about January 6 (2021). So Big Brother had good reason to be rid of him.

Anyway, never mind that. 

The reason I'm writing this post isn't to save Tucker Carlson. He'll do that without my help. I'm writing this because, just as this Tucker thing happened, I was contemplating how to proceed with the next segment of my post titled FIXING A WRONG

In short, in May 2018, I got "Tuckered." 

In May 2018, I was essentially ousted from my own blog, this one, by being functionally criminalized, discredited, and silenced, by a full week of media stories casting me as a wife beater and child molester of my own children. But the real story is how these media were "given" that story, at that moment...and why.

And that's where I intend to go...soon. 

Meanwhile, it was interesting to read, and on the same day Tucker got canned, about how the key antagonist in my being "Tuckered" in 2018, received one of the largest raises in LLG's "I take care of those who take care of me" regime. 

It took me five years to emerge from being Tuckered.

It won't take Tucker that long. 


By Tim Rohr

The following is an unpublished letter to the editor.

April is a busy month. It is Autism Awareness Month, Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Parkinson’s Awareness Month, and along with other “awareness-es” it’s also National Frog and Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. (Look it up.)

And within the month of April there are also national awareness “days.”

One of those days, April 25, according to the New Jersey Law Journal, is “Parental Alienation Awareness Day…” (See: End Parental Alienation Now,, April 23, 2018)

The Journal states that April 25 “is one day out of 365 on which public attention is drawn to this very important topic. Let us remember that the children being alienated from a parent, and the targeted parent, suffer every hour of every day of every year, and it is high time for something to be done to stop that.”

Never heard of “Parental Alienation Awareness Day?” No worries. You’re not alone. It’s hard to pick pet awareness days among so many others.

However, given that there are more than a few bewildered parents who do not understand why their once loving child now hates them, the NJ Law Journal’s technical description of the phenomenon is worth copying:

“Parental Alienation is most aptly defined as the condition that results from a parent or grandparent denouncing, with continuing, dedicated and pervasive expression of hostility toward or marginalizing the targeted (alienated) parent. The hostility expressed toward the targeted parent results in a child becoming hostile toward and rejecting the targeted parent without just cause. Some dedicated alienators go so far as to make false allegations of sexual abuse of a child by the targeted parent (or convince the child to make the allegations). This not only results in the child being weaponized’ against the other parent, but also drastically raises the stakes and costs of the targeted parent who is trying hard not to lose his or her child or children.”

It’s difficult to improve on the Journal’s article, so I’ll just add a few more quotes before by my own closing thought:

“The theft of a child’s affection by one parent…from the other parent occurs frighteningly often.
“…courts do not always spot alienation at its early stages, adequately penalize it when it occurs, save the children who are being victimized by an alienator, or correct the misbehavior of the alienating parent whether by coercion or other means.”
“The very first time a young child with a previously good relationship with a parent states that he or she no longer wants to stay overnight for some…inexplicable reason…warning bells should be sounding. A child who refuses to speak to a parent by telephone for no reason whatsoever, is a budding problem. A parent who refuses a child the freedom to talk to the other parent in privacy, is a major problem.”
“An alienating parent often has no fear of consequences.”
“A child who is being attacked by an alienator often perceives the targeted parent as being wicked, evil, disagreeable, abusive, hateful toward the alienating parent, or guilty of any number of other imaginary misdeeds. These false beliefs are inculcated by the alienating parent and are fed like so much poison to the impressionable child, often with tears or drama, to achieve the nefarious goal of marginalizing the targeted parent.”
“…even then a poisoned child not wanting to offend his or her alienator may say what pleases that parent and the judge will…not want to upset that youngster. (The truth is that the youngster who is repeating the alienator’s line likely wants to be “forced” to go with the other parent!)"

This last quote is where I’d like to end with my own thought.

The most important thing is for the targeted parent to not despair. Your despair will fuel the alienating or targeting parent since he or she is counting on you, the targeted parent, to self-destruct, before your child can discover the truth.

Instead, work on yourself. Become better instead of bitter. Whether your child returns to you or not is ultimately not in your control. But becoming better instead of bitter is. Meanwhile, never give up on your child...or on you.

Monday, April 24, 2023


By Tim Rohr

Attorney General, Douglas Moylan, has filed BRIEF OF RESPONDENT with the Supreme Court of Guam relative to LLG’s “Request” to the Court for Declaratory Judgement on “the validity and enforceability of Public Law 20-134.” 

It’s worth a serious read for anyone who cares about the fate of Guam’s unborn, but also because this may very well go to a referendum. 

Of particular note is Pg. 2 of Mr. Moylan's Brief wherein he states: 

The Government of Guam (the Attorney General) joins with the legal position of amicus curiae of former Senator Robert Klitzkie, who contends in his brief that this High Court has no jurisdiction over this matter due to the Petitioner’s (LLG's) lack of standing. (Parenthetical comments added)



By Tim Rohr

In today's PDN article, AG to appeal order in abortion case, there is the following paragraph:

The law never was enforced because of the permanent injunction issued by the federal court, but Moylan has been trying to lift the injunction because of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade, which had protected women’s reproductive rights for decades.

There is nothing about the paragraph that stands out. It's pretty much standard reporting. And that's the problem. 

Abortion is a dirty, ugly, bloody, baby-dismembering business. The pro-aborts know that. And once they could no longer hide behind the "clump of cells" facade, they retooled their language - with the term "reproductive rights" at the center of their new tower of babble. 

It's a lie, of course.

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica: 

"the essential features of human reproduction are (1) liberation of an ovum, or egg, at a specific time in the reproductive cycle, (2) internal fertilization of the ovum by spermatozoa, or sperm cells, (3) transport of the fertilized ovum to the uterus, or womb, (4) implantation of the blastocyst, the early embryo developed from the fertilized ovum, in the wall of the uterus, (5) formation of a placenta and maintenance of the unborn child during the entire period of gestation, (6) birth of the child and expulsion of the placenta, and (7) suckling and care of the child, with an eventual return of the maternal organs to virtually their original state."

Since abortion eliminates steps 5,6, and 7 (and in some cases 4), there is nothing "reproductive" about "women's reproductive rights" since the intent of abortion is the exact opposite: to NOT reproduce. 

Yet, the pro-aborts smilingly frame their bloody business as "reproductive rights," or worse, "reproductive care." 

And why do they get away with this?

Because we let them. 

Perhaps the thing most hated by the pro-aborts in that recent Texas District Court decision to suspend the availability of Mifepristone was not the decision to suspend the drug, but the judge's attack on one of the pro-abort's most treasured and undercover word: "fetus." 

Here's what the judge wrote:

Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE & CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27-56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human). Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate. - All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)

In other words, the judge didn't let "them" (the pro-aborts) "get away with this." We can do the same. Every time we hear "them" use the term "fetus," say "you mean the unborn child?" Every time we hear the words "reproductive health (or) care," say "you mean abortion?" And so on.

And every time you see these words in the media, like today's PDN, write that media source a letter and object. It doesn't have to be a letter to the editor (since "they" probably wouldn't print it anyway), and it doesn't have to be a long one. Just a short note saying you object to their misuse of language, and politely recommend that in the interest of reporting integrity, they use the objectively correct language. For instance:

Dear Mr. Limtiaco. Today in your article "AG to appeal order in abortion case," you referred to abortion as "reproductive rights." I am writing to let you know that I object to your misuse of the term "reproductive." There is nothing "reproductive" about abortion. As you know, abortion is the very opposite of "reproductive." In the interest of reporting integrity, I respectfully request that in the future you refrain from calling abortion "reproductive rights" and properly and accurately use the term "abortion rights." Respectfully, __________

The battle for words and their objective meaning is really the "final battle." Language, and the reliance on objective meaning of words, upon which reason relies, is what sets humans apart from the rest of the animal world. The deconstruction of man and his final abolition is proportionate to his surrender of language and objective meaning of words. (Note: even the words "man" and "his" have an objective meaning that goes beyond reference to the masculine.)

This is not my own little dystopian fantasy. In 1943, C.S. Lewis gave a series of lectures that were eventually collected and published in a book titled "The Abolition of Man." Lewis foresaw that the undermining of the objective value of words would produce "men without chests." 

What an apt description for today's tamed media men - "men without chests" - men (groveling boys really) who are little more than well-dressed sideshows to their eye-candy news hostesses, who collectively feed us their castrated drivel. 

Here's a summary of the conclusion of Lewis' "Abolition of Man."

The final chapter describes the ultimate consequences of this debunking: a not-so distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a perfect understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to see through any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims. In surrendering rational reflection on their own motivations, the controllers will no longer be recognizably human, the controlled will be robot-like, and the Abolition of Man will have been completed.

P.S. There's something else you can do. You can link, forward, share, whatever, these posts in JW that advance what you want to advance. JW exists to challenge everything from a dangerous status quo to unadulterated and obvious evil. As can be seen from the counters in the sidebar, JW has accumulated more than TEN MILLION pageviews by readers in almost every country in the world. It continues to grow at tens of thousands of views per month. Sharing this blog, encouraging others to read it, or simply reposting specific posts which align with your concerns, multiplies your power to reach others exponentially. 

Note: Bob Klitzkie reads this article and offers commentary on his show Tall Tales this past Monday. He starts at about 37:00.

Saturday, April 22, 2023




By Tim Rohr

This article by Fr. Z brings back memories of the terrible things that happened at our chancery in 2013 and 2014. 

Priests were called to the chancery and were ambushed by the bishop and his thugs. 

That bishop and the thugs are now gone. The priests are still here. 

But one wonders what would have happened had not the laity, for the first time in Guam's history, rally, and rally publicly, and for a very long time, AGAINST that bishop and his thugs. 

Whoever will be our new bishop would do well to study what happened then. 

FATHERS! Called into the chancery? Possible trouble? The first 24 HOURS are critically important. Be CAREFUL. TAKE ADVICE.

Posted on 20 April 2023 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf


Tuesday, April 18, 2023


Posted by Tim Rohr

Copying here an important comment from Chuck White:

There are innumerable red flags about this group (the NCW) of which every bishop should be aware. For example, here is a list of some of the the most egregious instances of Kiko employing “eisegesis”, an interpretation of Scripture that expresses one’s own ideas and biases rather than the meaning of the text. In most of these cases, Kiko contradicts the interpretation of a Church Father:


 Posted by Tim Rohr

Bishop Ryan Jimenez is considered a candidate for Archbishop of Agana. I know nothing about him and this is the first time I even know what he looks like. He appears to be very pleased with the Neocatechumenal Way. It appears Fr. Jason has made great headway in why he was sent by Apuron to Saipan several years ago. 


Note: Thank you to the Guam Daily Post for publishing this. The other paper declined.

Autism has spiked; what does data show?

By Tim Rohr

April is World Autism Month. The site proclaims, “Throughout the month, we focus on coming together in unity and collaboration by fostering worldwide support, sharing stories and connecting to create a more inclusive world.”

As a father of two sons who suffer with autism, I would like to offer support and share stories in hopes of “connecting to create a more inclusive world.” CONTINUED

Monday, April 17, 2023


By Tim Rohr

Once in awhile I come across stuff that is not the usual JungleWatch stuff, but choose to share it nevertheless. So here's one titled


A shorter title would be "Pope Benedict reaffirms that divorce and abortion are grave (mortal) sins." Here's what he says:

The Church's ethical opinion with regard to divorce and procured abortion is unambivalent and known to all: these are grave sins which, to a different extent and taking into account the evaluation of subjective responsibility, harm the dignity of the human person, involve a profound injustice in human and social relations and offend God himself, Guarantor of the conjugal covenant and the Author of life.

Benedict had a deep theological mind, so his choosing to place both divorce and abortion, issues which are almost always addressed separately, at the same ethical level is worth pondering.

It doesn't take a deep theological mind like Benedict's to understand that divorce IS abortion: that which is indissoluble pursuant to God's Law is dissolved pursuant to man's, and results, as Benedict says, in an offense to "God himself." 

Despite the Church's very clear, unwavering, and perennial teaching, as Benedict demonstrates here, divorce, especially in the present so-called "age of mercy" (a la "Francis")  has become one of the most misunderstood and confused things in Catholicism.

At the end of this post, I will include references to both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law relative to divorce. However, for the purposes of this post, I will share the following in my own layman's terms:

  1. There is no such thing as divorce if you are a Catholic (or a non-Catholic Christian for that matter - but that's another post). 
  2. The sacramentally married are married "until death do we part," regardless of the civil effects of legal papers.
  3. A spouse who has been abandoned or who had just cause to separate (e.g. self-defense) is the "innocent" spouse and has not committed a mortal sin by civilly divorcing or separating.
  4. An "innocent spouse" may continue to receive Holy Communion as he or she has committed no sin - provided that he or she is otherwise in a state of grace.
  5. The spouse who abandons the marriage, assuming he/she willfully abandoned the marriage without what the catechism terms "just cause," is guilty of grave (mortal sin) and cannot avail him or herself of the sacraments without committing sacrilege even if he or she does not remarry.
  6. A civilly divorced spouse, regardless of who is the innocent spouse is living in grave (mortal) sin if he or she is engaging in sexual relations with a person or persons other than with whom he or she is sacramentally married. 

I know. All tough stuff. And in my experience. This "tough stuff" is the NUMBER ONE reason so many Catholics flee The Church for other churches which appear to be much "kinder" to divorce, remarriage, or other stuff that properly belongs to the sacramentally married. 

Here's what The Catholic Church officially teaches.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (LINK):

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning: permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1).

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Canon Law's ultimatum is here:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

However, the Church recognizes legitimate grounds for separation, and in the case of marriage involving unbaptized persons, dissolution. The canons addressing these matters are here beginning at Can. 1141.

Friday, April 14, 2023


By Tim Rohr

At the request of Biden's Dept. of Justice, the fate of the baby-killer drug, mifespristone, is on hold after the U.S. Supreme Court granted a "pause" on recent lower court rulings that restricted the drug and its distribution

Meanwhile though, the battle over the drug has surfaced concerns that directly and particularly affect women in Guam.

FROM CNBC: The court cited a warning the FDA issued with its 2000 approval that surgery might be necessary if mifepristone results in an incomplete abortion, along with a form the agency requires patients to sign that indicates the drug may not work in 2 to 7 out of every 100 women who take mifepristone. That form instructs patients to contact a health-care provider immediately if they have a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher for more than four hours, heavy bleeding or severe stomach discomfort.

“FDA thus cannot deny that serious complications from mifepristone are certainly impending,” the judges wrote in their order. “Those complications are right there on the Patient Agreement Form that FDA itself approved and that Danco requires every mifepristone user to sign.” (Emphases added)

Presently, not only is there no doctor in Guam willing to perform abortions, there is no doctor in Guam nor other qualified person willing to provide the in-person consult required before the drug can be prescribed. The only legal way for the drug to be administered to women in Guam is via a tele-consult with two doctors in Hawaii, Drs. Kaneshiro and Raidoo, who will not be around for those "2 to 7 women"  for whom "surgery might be necessary."

So WHO would the mifepristone-gone-bad users call in Guam?

The poor woman will probably end up in the emergency room with whatever doctor is on duty and who would be tasked with completing the bloody abortion business to save the woman's life...even though the ER doctor had nothing to do with the killer prescription in the first place. 

Meanwhile in Hawaii - and thanks to our governor and her abortion lieutenant, Jayne Flores, who set it up this way - for Kaneshiro and Raidoo...well, it's just another day.

Wednesday, April 12, 2023


The PDN's "Our View" relative to autism awareness for the month of April reminded me of an article written by one of my very beautiful daughters, a VIBE writer at the time, about her autistically challenged brother (and my son) William. 

The PDN's "View" brought many thoughts to mind that I don't think the politically correct PDN - nor most of the "medical" world - wants to engage relative to the staggering increase in autism statistics. So I'll let that go for now and just share with you what my daughter, Dana, wrote about William, the 10th of 11 children, and every sibling's favorite brother. 

God bless you Dana. And thank you. Lvu always. Dad.



Following is the text of the complete article:

Pacific Daily News, Monday, April 21, 2014

An unconditional love

Autistic brother teaches patience and selflessness

By Dana Rohr

Because April 2 was World Autism Day, I felt the need to share this short and meaning full story about one of my two brothers, who has developmental disabilities, in the hope that someone out there with siblings on the autism spectrum can relate. 

William was born the day after my ninth birthday. There were complications, and we weren’t really sure if he and my mom were going to make it. William’s the 10th of 11 children and he’s kind of our miracle child.

Before William was born, we all took bets on his weight to determine who would get to hold him first. 

I won the bet, but William stayed in the ICU for another two weeks after my mom came home, so I couldn’t hold him until then. 

I saw him for the first time through a window. He had needles taped to his hands, a tiny, round, little face, big eyes, and spiky black hair. 

We didn’t know William was autistic until after he was 3, and still wasn’t talking. 

To be honest, at 12, whether William was autistic or not made no difference to me — and still doesn’t. But there’s something about watching your 6-year old brother spell his name on a piece of paper when you weren’t even sure he’d ever talk or write on his own that just hits you right in the soul.

I remember thinking, “Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! and standing there staring at him while he went about his business, writing his name like it was no big deal.

William had a language that I didn’t realize only my family understood until I saw other people try to interact with him. They couldn’t understand what he was trying to say, and and all I could think was, “Wow, he wants you to not pinch his cheeks, lady.”


When William turned 7 he started talking. Like, really talking. The dummy part is, I was so used to understanding grunts, mumbles, blabber and gestures, I didn’t even notice.

A friend who hadn’t seen William in a while came over and said, “Whoa, Dana, he’s talking!”

Since then, William hasn’t stopped talking.

These days he sleeps on the bottom bunk of our bunk bed in the room he shares with my sister and I. He wakes up at 5 a.m. and whispers, “Dana: Is anyone there? I’m so hungry.”

He plays with the neighbor kids and our youngest sibling, Gianna, and laughs like a hyena over the most ridiculous things. He’s obsessed with all of us being his “fwends” forever. 

William is autistic, I know. He doesn’t always understand pain, or phonics, or why it isn’t nice to laugh at people when they get hurt. 

But to me, he’s just my crazy kid brother who sings ’80’s songs he hears my sister Angelica and I sing, and eats enough “bread, butter, shelly (jelly) sandwiches to put us out of house and home. 

He’s the baby I stayed awake and listened to cry all night, every night, as my mom tried to soothe him after he came home from the hospital. 

He’s the kid I honed all my my mad babysitting skills on.


I think William was given to us to love unconditionally, to teach us patience and selflessness when he wakes us before the sun has risen or asks us for yet another “bread, butter, shelly” sandwich.

I believe William’s going to grow up and conquer the world in whatever way he decides he wants to.

And I think the more people are aware that autism isn’t synonymous with stupid, the better off the world will be. 

Dana Rohr is a home-schooled senior and a VIBE reporter


As a P.S., and apropos to "William will conquer the world," I would have to agree. William, now 18, lives with me, and his dreams are so big that I will need to live many, many more years to ensure that "William the Conqueror" does in fact "conquer the world." 

He's the best. He really is. 


All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *11 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023) (“David C. Reardon et al., Deaths Associated with Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women, 95 S. Med. J. 834, 834-41 (2002) (women who receive abortions have a 154% higher risk of death from suicide than if they gave birth, with persistent tendencies over time and across socioeconomic boundaries, indicating “self-destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience”)”)

And here's another thing:

roughly eight percent of women who use abortion pills will require surgical abortion All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *14 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)

With no doctors in Guam, even pro-abortion doctors, willing to perform abortions, what will happen to those "eight percent of women who use abortion pills" prescribed by Raidoo and Kaneshiro in Hawaii and over "zoom?" Will they die? 

Asking for the Governor.