IT'S JUST NATURE: MY RESPONSE TO THE HATERS

By Tim Rohr

It appears my Epstein post has caused a bit of a stir. First, it got me "fired" from the Guam Daily Post, and since, I've received a steady stream of hate mail and comments like the following:

bruce gulick <bruce.gulick@gmail.com>

You’re deranged, and a disgrace to the family that attempted to raise you.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "HAPPY PAGE VIEW ANNIVERSARY":

And yet NO COMMENTS. Well, none except for this one mocking you. Turns out everyone hates you. Isn’t that correct, pedophile-lover?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "CANCELLED ":

You literally asked what the fuss was about over 14-year-old sex workers while immediately pointing out after that the age for consensual sex was at minimum 16.

there.third.below@clkdmail.com

Good afternoon,

I just came across you blog. You are definitely a pedophile and then I saw that you are involved with the Catholic Church and it all made sense.Thank you 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE EPSTEIN THING":

Have you lost your fucking mind? He abused literal CHILDREN you sick sonofabitch 

No problem, the hate gives me the opportunity to go further on the issue than I could in a space-limited column.

The question is not at what age is it okay to engage in sex, and I mean sexual activity of any sort, but when is it right at all?

I hold to the Catholic position as copied here directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

The essential statement in this paragraph is:

"it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."

Notice that it's not called a "sex act," but a "marriage act." Marriage is assumed as the good and natural state for "the act," and since "the act" must "remain ordered...to...procreation," marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman.

In short, and to be blunt, sex is only "okay" when it occurs within a marriage between a man and a woman and only when sex is ordered to procreation - in other words: no contraception - thus the Church's prohibition.

This isn't my opinion. It is the universal teaching of the Catholic Church, always was and always will be, simply because it is founded in the very beginnings of humanity:

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female* he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* (Genesis 27-28)

This is also why even so-called "natural family planning" (periodic continence) is also wrong (a sin) when it is employed without grave reason. (Look it up.) The whole point of marriage, God's point, (properly called "the ends of marriage") is to "be fruitful and multiply." 

Argue with God. Not me.

And this is why, in my Epstein post, I mocked the whole idea of these false lines we draw which say at this age this is okay, and not at that age. As I pointed out, the ages of majority and consent are artificial government-made lines, and they are made even more irrelevant by our making contraception available and even free to minors of any age at our public health centers and even our schools. 

In fact, to further demonstrate the point, consider the following from a group organized to oppose child marriage:

Child marriage occurs when one or both of the parties to the marriage are below the age of 18. Child marriage is currently legal in 34 states, and 4 U.S. states do not require any minimum age for marriage, with a parental or judicial waiver.

Here in Guam, until 2015, the legal marrying age for a female was age 14 with parental consent, which, at the time, was pretty much the standard throughout the U.S. I'll explain why it changed in 2015 in a minute. But it's clear that our laws approved of a 14 year old girl engaging in sexual relations pursuant to the consent of the parents to marry. There was no maximum age for her husband so presumably he could be much older. 

So there's another moveable line. And if a line is moveable, it really has no meaning. Thus, my sarcastic quip in my Epstein piece: "What's all the fuss?" For anyone with a brain not yet darkened by whatever perverse prejudice may be beholding it at the moment, I believe my sarcastic quip was clear: On the one hand we self-righteously condemn a dirty old man like Jeffrey Epstein and on the other we're handing our kids contraceptives and even legislating that they be paid with tax dollars and handed out at our public health centers. 

In Guam in 2015, then-Senator Narissa Underwood introduced Bill 119-33, the "Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015." The bill raised the marriage age to 16. The aim of the bill was not to protect 14 year old girls, but was a reaction to Guam's marriage law being caught between a rock and a hard place after SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage. 

Since two persons of the same sex could now marry, gender language (male and female) had to be eliminated. The legal minimum age for marriage for males was already 16, so what to do with the "girls." Oh, wait a minute, there are no longer boys and girls, just partners, so the bill made it 16 for everybody. Another moveable, government-made line. 

Thus my sarcasm about our sanctimonious crusade against a single dirty old man and this meaningless appeal to something magical happening at 18 that makes it okay to have sex but not buy beer. Here is the relevant portion of Senator Underwood's Bill 119-33 which became Public Law 33-65.

The bottom line, even if you don't believe in God is that sex makes babies, or at least is designed to, even if it is only Nature's design. And the best place for those babies to grow up, prosper, and make babies of their own, i.e. the survival of our species, is in the context of a mother and a father committed to each other for life. It's just Nature. 

As a P.S., I know where the hate is coming from. It's this line: "So pedophilia was not the operative perversion. I’ll let you figure out what it was."

 

THE EPSTEIN THING

LINK to online version

Putting my “false allegations” series on hold for the moment, I want to address the Epstein thing.

I don’t have a problem acknowledging that Jeffrey Epstein was most likely a deep state intelligence operative. Nothing else explains how he got away with so much for so long. It also explains why the so-called “client list” remains elusive.

I am also quite on board with the assertion that Epstein rose mysteriously to unprecedented wealth and influence because he was extraordinarily adept at supplying a steady stream of sex-workers to powerful people.

I call them “sex-workers” and not “victims” on purpose.

Hardly an Epstein story goes by without the requisite media sobbing about his “victims.” There are two problems with this. First, they weren’t victims. Second, it’s a distraction from the real matter: uncovering Epstein’s deep-state connections and activities - in short, who Epstein was really working for and why.

His “girls,” minors or not, was just the currency he trafficked in to do his job, a job that made him a billionaire since no other business activity or financial venture can be identified as the source of his voluminous cash flow.

They weren’t victims

According to the court papers I have read, all of Epstein’s “girls” arrived at his many mansions willingly and were well-paid for their services. They were sex-workers, not victims, and it appears the majority of them not only liked their “jobs,” but recruited others for similar employment.

I saw and worked with real victims of sexual abuse in the Apuron case. At the time of their being victimized, they were young, trusting altar boys who thought they were only helping their pastor when he invited them to his house of horrors. They weren’t expecting to be molested, raped, and then threatened to keep their mouths shut for the rest of their now ruined lives.

That’s what a victim looks like. That’s what abuse looks like.

Underage?

Court papers say some of Epstein’s sex-workers were as young as 14. So? What’s all the fuss? Being less than 18 years old might keep you from buying cigarettes, but the law in most states, including Guam, says it’s okay to engage in consensual sex at 16.

Meanwhile, while the majority of Americans are all riled up about Epstein and his clients, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry that same majority of Americans (67%) supports distribution of free contraceptives in schools. Ummm, what do you think these little girls and boys are going to do with that stuff?

Here in Guam, as advertised on the website for the Bureau of Women’s Affairs, contraception is free at all public health facilities. Apparently there is no age limit. Hmmm. Kids can’t buy cigarettes until they’re 18, but can help themselves to condoms and birth control pills as soon as they’re tall enough to peer over the counter and say “Please Sir, I want some more.”

Those who think “they’re just going to do it anyway” are probably thinking their teens are having sex with teens, so they might as well be “protected.” But as the Epstein story (and many others) demonstrates, why would a fourteen year old girl want to have sex with a broke fourteen year old boy when she can score thousands of dollars off an older man with means?

So don’t give me that “they were only 14 and didn’t know any better.” Parents (67% anyway) are practically handing their minor children contraceptives and signing a permission slip to have sex with whoever they want. Should we now be upset when those same kids figure out a way to make money at it - as Epstein’s girls did?

Pedophile?

It’s a useful word because of its “disgust” level, but Epstein was no pedophile - a pervert yes, but no pedophile. Pedophilia is clinically defined as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. While the record shows that Jeffrey liked them young, he didn’t like them that young.

The same with Apuron and just about all of the clergy sex abuse cases nationwide. The record (the John Jay Report) shows that the sexual preference was for adolescents, i.e. sexually mature, and in the clergy cases, overwhelmingly male. So pedophilia was not the operative perversion. I’ll let you figure out what was.

Given the filth and perversity we as a society unthinkingly accommodate daily, it’s hard not to see that all this righteous fixation on Epstein’s “list” isn’t a collective Freudian conscience-swabbing exercise in projection.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com 

WHO KILLED JEFFREY EPSTEIN?

By Tim Rohr

There are more important things in this world going on than "who killed Jeffrey Epstein?" However, I have been watching the Epstein thing out of the corner of my eye for several years, not because I care much about the case, but because I knew at some point the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands would be implicated. It was just a matter of time. 

I lived in the V.I. in the early 80's for four years. And they were four years of "high adventure!" Stories I may tell another time. And, because I "married" into the Virgin Islands, I have remain connected to the goings-on there for many years thereafter. 

As you may know, Epstein ran his "Fantasy Sex Island" on his own private island, located just a swim away from the main island of St. Thomas. 

The U.S Territory of the Virgin Islands consists of three main islands, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. And there are many smaller islands within the territory. "Little St. James," Epstein's island, is one of them.

Over the more than three decades I have either lived in or been in one way or another connected to the U.S. Virgin Islands (particularly St. Croix), I have made and retained some of my most treasured friendships, but also saw first hand a corruption that would make similar "corrupters" in the government of the sister territory of Guam blanch. 

So when the Epstein thing first broke, and long before "someone" killed him, my first thought was "how long will it be before the government of the VI is called out?" It was just too obvious. How could such a blatant, high-profile sex trafficking operation operate for years just a swim away from Government House?

On Nov. 22, 2023 - the 60th anniversary of the assassination of JFK by the way - a suit against some of the biggest names in the USVI government, including current Congresswoman, Stacey Plaskett, was filed.

And it's "juicy." Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts:

Government officials, including but not limited to Defendants First Lady Cecile de Jhong, Governor Kenneth Mapp, Senator Celestino White, Attorney General Vincent Frazer, Governor John de Jhong, Stacey Plaskett, and Senator Carlton Dowe facilitated Epstein in his ongoing sex trafficking operation by ensuring that Epstein received preferential treatment and unfettered, unmonitored freedom while in the USVI, and by providing Epstein and/or his companies instruments which further enabled his sex-trafficking ring and related crimes.

the USVI government leaders, staff, and officials benefitted by receiving generous financial donations, financial advice, support, loans, access to lines of credit from Epstein and his entities, and that crucial financial support allowed Epstein to successfully rape, sexually assault, coercively sex traffic Plaintiffs and numerous other women freely and openly, access to underage and other women, and a haven to act without government scrutiny -- by customs, police, or airport personnel -- or public knowledge.

I don't know if this will do it, but I have always longed for the Virgin Islands to be "cleaned up." It is such a magnificently beautiful place, but because of the corruption at every level (despite good people at every level) it is one of the most dangerous places in the world. The island of St. Croix, alone, ranks 7th in the world, per capita, for the most murders - most of which occur within a two mile radius of where I lived.

For decades, the crime and the danger has encouraged a real "brain drain" - the exodus of some of the VI's best people, many of whom are my former students.  And I, myself, had to make a fast "exodus" from the VI "back in the day" for "disturbing" a drug ring operating in a local Catholic high school, and whereafter my life was on the line. But that's a story for another day.