ANOTHER VIEW OF OUTCOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY ELECTION

By Tim Rohr

Yesterday, I posted a short reflection on the outcome of the Democratic gubernatorial election in Guam. 

My position was that the Terlaje-Perez team won because Guam voters tend to favor women, particularly educated women, and more particularly if they physically present well, as Terlaje does. I further posited that this view aligns with the often-jokingly held opinion that Guam elections are glorified beauty contests. 

However, there may be another reason for Terlaje's win and Tenorio's loss, but this reason would have to assume that the majority of Guam voters have matured past the pari and clan systems as well as the beauty contest. And that reason would be that the outcome of the aforesaid primary was a referendum on the administration to which Josh Tenorio attached himself for the last eight years.

Whether or not the current governor’s policies are the reason for the very real and very visible collapse of this island, most evident via a drive through what was once the tourist district, the fact is that said collapse happened on her watch, and Tenorio was right there watching.

During Covid, the governor who fiddled while Guam burned famously told us: “Basically, YOU have NO say!” 

At a March 15, 2020 forum hosted by the Guam Medical Association, the Red Queen (Bob Klitzkie's name for her) tyrannically demanded fealty from her subjects:

“The governor has the authority for everything. I can say: ‘You are now under government authority and this is what I want you to do. I have the authority to take money. I have the authority to take property. I have the authority to move personnel. Basically, you have no say.”

She was right. We had no say.

Until now. 

APPARENTLY SHE'D RATHER FIGHT WITH DOUG

 By Tim Rohr

Note: This post is about abortion, the slaughter of the innocents. And lest anyone think such a post is out of context for the Christmas Season, today, December 28, is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the first martyrs, slaughtered by a governor.

"Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Guam has decided that the ban has no force or effect because it was repealed by implication through subsequent laws that allow for and regulate abortion on island." - O'Connor, J. (2025, Dec. 19). Governor opposes rehearing for AG appeal in abortion ban injunction case. Guam Daily Post

As the main mover behind those aforesaid "subsequent laws" which the Guam Supreme Court used to justify its repeal of Guam's "old abortion ban" by implication, I have a few thoughts to share about the current motion for a rehearing on the matter. 

Going back to 1990, when Guam's "old abortion ban" (P.L. 20-134) was first signed into law, or even back to 1989 when it was introduced, then following it through all the recent court battles, I believe it's fair to estimate that this legislation has cost the Government of Guam (i.e. "us") many millions of dollars, and it appears that the battle will continue and so will the dollars.

While I support the AG's attempts to exhaust every last avenue to do what he was elected to do (enforce the laws of Guam), I have to wonder about the Governor's real motivation in keeping this fight alive.

Rather than carry on this multi-million dollar slug-fest, the Governor, who has the authority to introduce legislation (via the Rules Committee), could simply submit a one sentence bill calling for the repeal of P.L 20-134 and all of its effects - or something like that. 

Of course any member of the Legislature can do this too, but - probably because they're afraid to touch it - no one - for 35 years now, has done so. 

So the real "ball" (or in this case, "the baby") is in the Governor's court. The AG has no authority to repeal the law. His only authority (and his job) is to enforce the law. So if the Governor doesn't want the AG to pursue the matter, then it is really up to her to repeal the law and stop the nonsense. 

But she hasn't, and she probably won't. She seems to want the 1990 injunction to remain enshrined into Guam law as a monument to herself - since she was instrumental in getting Guam's "old abortion ban" enjoined back in 1990 - an act which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of mostly CHamoru children.

Note: 2008 was the first year, thanks to The Epseransa Project, that the abortion reporting law was enforced. 2018 was the last year an abortionist publicly practiced in Guam. LINK

So like so many things she has done since coming to office, she wastes and wastes...

But back to the Supreme Court and the "repealed by implication" thing. As the aforesaid main mover of the four laws that led to the Court's decision, I had filed an amicus brief (here and here) in the case. My argument was that since Roe was still the law of the land, any attempt to outright ban abortion at the time would have never even made it to a filing let alone a vote. 

There was no option, in those days, other than to regulate abortion pursuant to what was already precedent. Thus we introduced, passed, and enacted: 1) a ban on partial-birth abortion; 2) a requirement for parental consent for abortion for minors; 3) a requirement for informed consent for abortion; and 4) an expanded abortion reporting law. (The Esperansa Project backed a total of 8 abortion-regulating bills into law.)

All four of those laws did not ban abortion because they could not, but limited and regulated it where they could. Thus for the Guam Supreme Court to opine that those four laws "repealed" P.L.-134 "by implication," in my mind anyway, was a stretch, because the overturn of Roe in 2022 completely abrogated, annulled, wiped-out the whole deal and created a brand new ball game, meaning, the Court should have looked at the case post-Roe, and not within it, as it did.

I had made this argument in my amicus brief, but I was really a nobody in this high stakes game between the Governor, the AG, government lawyers and the Justices of the Guam Supreme Court. Yet, I am quite certain that my argument struck a chord given that one of the Justices, writing separately in his concurrence, spent several pages attacking my argument (here and here).

Well, back to the point of this post: It is Governor Lou Leon Guerrero who does not want this issue to go away as evidenced by the fact that she refuses to introduce legislation to repeal the troublesome thing. 

Apparently, she'd rather fight with Doug. 

RELATED POSTS

A Cry is Heard in Ramah, Dec. 28, 2012

Fleeing the New Herods, Dec. 23, 2011

IT'S THE LATTER, BUT WHAT'S NEW?

By Tim Rohr

Once again (I said it before here), all Governor LLG has to do to get rid of this issue is to get her buddies in the legislature to introduce a bill to repeal "Belle's Law," P.L. 20-134, which was left on the books after it was enjoined by the Guam District Court more than 30 years ago. 

Given the legislation they have already introduced, Sens. Fisher and Parkinson would be LLG's most likely prospects for getting this done. In fact, LLG doesn't even need Fisher and Parkinson, she has the power to introduce a bill "By request of I Maga 'lahen Guahan in accordance with the Organic Act of Guam."

But for some reason, she (LLG) appears to want this fight with AG Moylan to drag on. 

Moylan cannot introduce legislation (as can the governor), nor can he or should he influence anyone in the legislature to do so (as can the governor). Moylan can only do one thing: enforce the laws of Guam -  and P.L. 20-134 is a law of Guam, but due to a District Court decision, it remains enjoined (unenforceable) despite the fact that the reason it was enjoined 30 years (Roe) is no longer a reason for it to remain enjoined. What a mess.

Typical of LLG, who fights as dirty as abortion is bloody, she tried to do an end-run around Moylan after he appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, which is the proper court of appeals relative to decisions made by the Guam District Court.

Instead of taking her dirty fight to the Ninth Circuit, where she had a good chance of losing given the Ninth's earlier decision in another abortion matter, she got the Guam Supreme Court to weigh in on whether or not Belle's Law was valid.

The problem for LLG was that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue a "decision" in the matter, especially since "decisions" are not what the Guam Supreme Court issues (only opinions). However, because of a typical OOG quirk in the law, the Court was able to issue something called a "declaratory judgment" which in fact is not a "judgment," but once again, only an opinion, and certainly not a decision - moreover, the court's opinion was not "actionable."

(Note: Ironically, the Guam Supreme Court based its opinion that Belle's Law was invalid on four abortion regulating laws that I had helped author and pass over a decade ago - which, due to Roe, had to continue to allow abortion though the legislation sought to rein it in without violating Roe. Those laws were four of eight we helped pass and enact and led to the shutting down of the abortion industry in Guam by 2018.)

By the time the Guam Supremes issued their opinion, Moylan had already filed his appeal with the Ninth Circuit, but put it on hold to file a different appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States which questioned whether or not the Guam Supremes had the authority to weigh in on the matter at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the matter which sent Moylan back to his first matter of business which is his appeal of the Guam District Court's decision before the Ninth Circuit.

However, with more dirt and lies from Lou in today's news, you'd think that both the Guam Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled in Lou's favor and in the governor's words, Moylan's case is "moot."

Of course that's what Lou wants us to think because who in the world can keep track of this 30-year old mess? 

LLG argues: "This court (9th Circuit) does not have appellate authority over the Guam Supreme Court." 

Umm, Ms. Governor, Moylan is not appealing the Guam Supreme Court's opinion to the 9th Circuit, HE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE GUAM DISTRICT COURT which DOES HAVE APPELLATE AUTHORITY over the District Court.

So either Lou doesn't know what's going on or she is lying. 

It's the latter. But what's new?

IS IT "HIGH NOON" FOR JIMENEZ?

LINK to online version

Denying the Eucharist (Holy Communion) to Catholic pro-abortion politicians is messy business for many of the world’s bishops, but especially in the U.S. where the abortion issue factors into almost every major election.

It’s messy because despite the singular clarity of Catholic teaching on the matter (willful abortion is an “abominable crime”) and automatic excommunication for persons who directly procure or participate in an abortion, application of church law (canon law) relative to disciplining persons who publicly advocate for abortion - particularly politicians - is up to individual bishops.

As an example, Joe Biden, a Catholic and a vigorous abortion advocate, upon his nomination for vice-president in 2008, was publicly warned that he would be denied communion in his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania by the bishop of Scranton. However, Biden was not denied communion in his then place of residence, Wilmington, Delaware.

Closer to the present, in 2022, the archbishop of San Francisco publicly prohibited pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion. However, a month later, Pelosi was in the Vatican chatting with the pope and received communion at a papal Mass in St. Peter’s.

The report about Pelosi’s Vatican visit does not say that she received communion personally from the pope. If she did, it would have been in marked contrast to the pope’s position on the matter a year earlier when he stated that Communion is for those who are “in the community” and politicians who support abortion are “outside of the community.” 

But even so, if the pope knew of Pelosi’s pro-abortion political record (and how could he not), then to be consistent he had a responsibility to advise the other ministers of communion at the papal Mass to deny her communion, or at minimum, privately tell Pelosi not to seek the sacrament.

There is some confusion among Catholics as to whether or not advocating for abortion by public persons, particularly politicians, warrants excommunication. According to canon law, it does.

However, excommunication in this regard is not automatic as it is with a Catholic who willfully procures an abortion or participates in one. Instead, the excommunication of Catholic pro-abortion politicians can be publicly imposed on the offending party only after a due process proceeding pursuant to canon law.

We recently witnessed such a proceeding with the excommunication of former U.S. papal nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano. For those who followed it, you may recall that Vigano was formally notified of his charges and provided a hearing before a tribunal. Vigano chose not to show up which led to the equivalent of a guilty verdict and his formal excommunication.

In the denial of communion to Biden and Pelosi by their bishops, no such proceeding took place because it was not required. In these cases, denial of communion was imposed pursuant to Canon 915 which is drawn from the church’s sacramental discipline and not its penal code. The canon states in relevant part: "those who persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Canonist Ed Peters points out that Canon 915 “is established independently of the…penal law and operates without reference to the…binding demands of penal procedure.” In other words, any pastor, for good cause, may impose this…or not impose this (without due process), which accounts for the varied application of the canon from bishop to bishop.

Peters goes on to state that while a bishop has discretion in this matter, if the bishop does impose a prohibition pursuant to Canon 915 he must demonstrate three facts: manifestation of behavior, obstinacy in that behavior, and gravity of the offense.

And that brings us to the manifest, obstinate, and grave behavior of Guam’s governor - perhaps the most vigorous proponent of abortion of any governor in the entire country - and who continues to present herself publicly for Holy Communion.

So while it has been nice to see all the celebrations and the smiling photos with our new archbishop, the “elephant in the chancery” is the governor at the communion rail.

For the good of our local Catholic Church and all of the scandal we have recently suffered, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez has a duty to either impose the discipline of Canon 915 on the governor or tell us why he isn’t.

The governor could also publicly recant, but that’s not going to happen. So it’s “high noon” for Jimenez. 

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   

Resources:

Sin To Vote For Pro-Abortion Politicians?

Pope says pro-choice politicians ‘outside community’ of Church, but urges pastoral response

After year of divisive debate, US bishops approve tepid document on Communion

Denial of the Eucharist to Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians: A Canonical Case Study

Pelosi receives Communion in the Vatican, despite her home archbishop refusing it

Excommunication in the Catholic Church

GUAM'S INFANT MORTALITY RATE: THE REST OF THE STORY

Printed today, 2/15/24, in the Guam Daily Post

Guam's infant mortality rate: The rest of the story

Tim Rohr LINK to Guam Daily Post (The following is copied from the Post with hyperlinks added)

Recent news that Guam’s infant mortality rate (IMR) is twice the national average brought to mind some research I had done on this issue in 2015, and at which time Guam’s IMR had been twice the national average since 2011. So the problem is not new.

My first thought was that Guam’s IMR is high due to our main medical facility (GMH) being a “forever and ever … under-resourced place,” as one doctor put it. In other words, we simply are unable to provide a normal standard of pre and postnatal care for our infants and their mothers. Note: Guam’s maternal mortality rate is also higher than the rest of the nation.

My second thought hearkens back to my 2015 research and a GMH policy titled “Comfort care for non-viable newborns.”

The policy essentially provides a “red line” between palliative care and lifesaving measures for babies born “at the threshold of viability with extremely low birth weight” or with “complex or multiple congenital anomalies incompatible with prolonged life.”

According to the policy, the “red line” is babies born at a gestational age of 25 plus/minus two weeks and weighing less than 500 grams. Meanwhile, in places which are not as “under-resourced” as Guam, an increasing number of children born prematurely are surviving and thriving at ever earlier gestational ages.

Also, the same GMH policy functionally discourages against providing lifesaving measures for babies born up to 27 weeks and weighing up to 750 grams, a gestational age the National Institute of Health states has a 70% chance of survival.

So, at least at first glance, it would seem that Guam’s IMR is another casualty of the politics of our government-run hospital as well as a general lack of service providers, specifically obstetrician-gynecologists, and the resultant lack of pre and postnatal care.

However, there appears to be more to the story.

According to the GMH head of pediatrics, “The percentage of those births that result in a newborn’s death at the hospital was relatively low.” So if these babies are not dying at birth or while still in the hospital, where are they dying?

The caption under a picture in one of the two local articles addressing this issue appears to tell “the rest of the story.”

It reads: “Officers with the Guam Police Department are seen outside a Dededo residence on the evening of Nov. 1, 2023, as they conduct an investigation involving the suspicious death of a 1-year-old child.” In short, the majority of infants who die before the age of 1 year are dying at home.

Meanwhile, a deeper dive into the numbers tells a more concerning story.

According to data published a few weeks ago in this paper, while Guam has a mean infant mortality rate of 10.7 per 1,000, deaths of CHamoru infants is 28.5 per 1,000, which is three times the mean, followed by Chuukese at 16.5, Filipino at 7.5, and whites at 2.25.

Compared to the rest of the world, the CHamoru infant mortality rate of 28.5 per 1,000 ranks CHamoru infant deaths 56th out of 237 countries, and for context, just ahead of countries like Kenya, Rwanda and Guatemala and just behind Uganda, Cambodia and Namibia.

In other words, the number of CHamoru infants dying before their first birthday ranks deep within the Third World.

Meanwhile, this shameful fact does not appear to be of any great concern to our current administration.

Given the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars our governor has already spent and continues to spend on securing abortionists for Guam, it appears the governor intends to reduce Guam’s infant mortality rate by getting rid of “problem” infants before they’re born.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses and most recently been active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications and occasional public appearances.

ISRAEL V GAZA AND THE FEWNESS OF THE SAVED

By Tim Rohr

In spite of hearing about the conflict in the Middle-East all my life, I consider myself too uninformed to comment about the current conflict directly other than to oppose terrorism of any sort. 

However, I believe, that what is happening there still poses a lesson for us...both in the United States and in Guam.

The bottom line is that bad things do happen to good people, not only because of what bad people do but also because of what good people do not do. 

A well-worn saying, attributed to Edmund Burke, is "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The attribution to Burke has been contested, but because the mantra makes startling sense it has survived regardless of who said it. 

As a side note, the genesis of this quote can somewhat be traced to John Stuart Mills, an English philosopher and economist, who in 1867 stated: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Note: Actually, the quote by Mills is even more on point and powerful.

We know this

Most of us intuitively know this. We see a traffic accident and we just want to drive on. We know of drug dealings in the house down the street and we choose to ignore. We hear of child abuse, clergy sex abuse, government abuse, and we retreat. 

It's just self-preservation, really - our deepest instinct. But there are consequences, and the sheep will pay as well as the goats. And while God will separate the sheep from the goats at The Judgment, "the World" will make no such distinction. The good will suffer with the bad: the weeds and the wheat shall be cut down together.

Relative to the current Israel-Gaza thing, the bottom line is that Gaza has been self-governed since 2005 and 90% of Gazans have elected and re-elected Hamas as their governing authority for the last 16 years. 

Given what Hamas is, it could be said that most Gazans were too fearful to elect anyone else. 

The same can be said about Hitler and his National Socialist Party when they were democratically elected in 1933 and by which time Hitler had already been scary for years. The majority of Germans can't be faulted - at least at the time - for just wanting to tend their families and their gardens and avoid the wrath of the Brown Shirts, so "let's just vote for Hitler and hope he's not what he appears to be." Most of us would have done the same.

In the end of course, all Germans suffered, not just Hitler's guys. And unfortunately, many Israeli's and Gazans have suffered and will suffer in the ongoing conflict, and not just the bad guys - regardless of what side they are on. The weeds will grow with the wheat and both will be cut down together. It's one of the mysteries of God's justice. 

Suffering for the misdeeds of others is nothing new of course. Fr. Chad Ripperger, a well known Catholic priest and exorcist, has an excellent series of talks about "generational spirits," in which he reminds us of how evil can infect us generationally and wherein we can and do suffer for the sins of our fathers, our mothers, and our ancestors - going back generations.

This, of course, is the very basis of the Doctrine of Original Sin. While through Christ we can be saved from eternal consequences of Original Sin through Baptism, we are not saved from the temporal consequences of Original Sin: suffering and death. 

Leaving history and theology, let's bring this closer to home. 

For whatever reason, Catholics, for decades now, have been the largest voting bloc for pro-abortion candidates, specifically presidential candidates, and most recently, Obama (54% in 2008 and 50% in 2012) and Biden (51% in 2020). 

Here is a statement by Catholics for Choice about the election of Biden:

US CATHOLIC VOTERS PLAYED A pivotal role in the 2020 election, helping lift Democrat Joe Biden to a narrow victory over President Donald Trump. In so doing, they sent a powerful message about support for abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare among US Catholics today, as well as the limited role they believe US bishops should play in our electoral system.

Sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance

There are four mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: willful murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 18:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).

Murder is first on the list for a reason. Since only God can give Life, only God has the right to take it. Murder, which is the willful taking of the life of an innocent human being is an immediate repudiation of God's authority to His Face. How much more so when the murdered human is not just innocent, but defenseless, as is a child in the womb - the most innocent and defenseless of all?

Thus it can be clearly said that Abortion, of all sins, is the sin most offensive to God. And yet, we Catholics, the majority of we Catholics, champion, campaign for, elect, and support not only the Obamas and Bidens of the United States, but the Lou Leon Guerrero's of Guam. 

And, I would venture to say that we in Guam are all the more culpable given that so many "Lou" supporters (even amongst the clergy) are regular Mass-going communicants.

How long before the Lord gives permission for the harvesters of heaven to chop down our wheat with the weeds? 

If you are Catholic, and even if you are not, you may want to read THE LITTLE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO ARE SAVED by Saint Leonard of Port Maurice. And you may want to think twice about who you next vote for. 

LOU LOSES

By Tim Rohr

"We reject Plaintiffs’ argument that an in-person informed-consent requirement for women seeking an abortion is not rationally connected to any legitimate governmental interest." - Case: 21-16559, 08/01/2023, ID: 12765649, DktEntry: 55-1, Page 12 of 20

12 RAIDOO V. MOYLAN

+++++

Recently, we laid out, here in JW, the entire scenario, backed with documents, wherein Governor "Lou," conspired with her abortion lieutenant, "The Jayne" to recruit two abortionists based in Hawaii to get licensed in Guam for no other reason than to sue us - you and me. 

Along the way, Lou and Jayne and their Hawaii stooges, recruited the big, bad ACLU. 

At first, Lou and Jayne won. The Guam District Court enjoined the enforcement of a Guam law requiring women seeking an abortion to receive in-person consultation. This opened the door for the Hawaii abortionists to provide the required consultation via tele-anything, and then send the mothers their baby killing pills (probably with a note saying "best wishes").

At the time, things weren't looking good for the pro-life side. 

The Defendants, the guys on our side, were headed up by then-AG Leevin Camacho - in his official capacity as AG, and Leevin wasn't known for his being a stickler for defending the laws of Guam when they conflicted with Lou's wishes. 

In fact:

"In 2021, the Guam Attorney General specifically stipulated in another lawsuit that Guam law permits the use of telemedicine to provide medication abortions." (See: 9th Circuit Opinion linked below)

Still, one way or another, a somewhat half-hearted appeal was filed with the 9th Circuit and the appeal was heard this past February, 2023. 

Our man on the floor was a certain Jordan L. Pauluhn, then an attorney with the AG (he's not now). 

I watched the proceedings via video and in my view, Mr. Pauluhn did a somewhat impressive job. I even called him a "rockstar." However, he was only doing his job - which was defending the laws of Guam, whereas the ACLU lawyers were highly if not viciously ideologically motivated. 

Note: They may have also been financially motivated. Given what we know now about the connection between Lou and the ACLU, a nice FOIA may turn up some interesting checks. 

Today, the 9th Circuit promulgated its Opinion, which I copy here in relevant part (emphases added):

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court made clear that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion because it is neither enumerated in the constitutional text nor deeply rooted in our nation’s history. 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). So now the people’s representatives—not judges—decide whether to allow, ban, or regulate abortions. And in turn, courts play only a modest and minor role: We merely apply a highly deferential rational basis review in assessing the constitutionality of an abortion-related law.

Under this new legal landscape, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction against Guam’s in-person informed-consent law. That law requires women seeking abortions to have an in-person meeting with a physician—or a qualified agent of the doctor—who must disclose certain medical as well as other information (e.g., medical risks, adoption opportunities) to a patient before she has an abortion. Guam has legitimate interests in requiring an in-person consultation: the consultation can underscore the medical and moral gravity of an abortion and encourage a robust exchange of information. As we learned during the pandemic, a telephonic or video meeting may be a poor substitute for an in-person meeting, whether it be in the classroom, courtroom, or clinic.

Plaintiffs point out that women in Guam seeking abortions must obtain chemical abortifacients via telemedicine, given the current lack of doctors who perform abortions on the island. Plaintiffs argue that the law may thus thwart informed consent because the treating doctor off the island may have to pick a non-medical agent to provide the in-person medical disclosures. But nothing in the law prevents the treating doctor from providing the same or additional information as that required in the in-person meeting when the doctor meets with patient via videoconference or phone. The law sets a minimum, not a maximum, disclosure requirement, and does not prohibit the doctor from communicating additional information that the doctor believes is required under another law or professional obligation. In short, Guam’s law passes muster under the low bar of rational basis review.

Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge fails as well. Guam can require an in-person consultation for abortions— but not for other medical procedures—because abortion is different, as it involves what Dobbs described as the “States’ interest in protecting fetal life.” Id. at 2261. People across the United States and its territories may in good-faith strongly disagree on abortion, but the people of Guam can make the policy choice to treat abortion differently from other medical procedures.

In other words, Lou loses. 

But beyond Lou losing, the 9th Circuit Opinion is a real example of how courts should work. In spite of which side makes the most spirited argument, the court looked past the personalities and ideologies of the "arguers" and simply opined based on its interpretation of the law relative to the current legal landscape. 

Note: There is NO REASON our own District Court judge could not have done the same thing. 

Read the full opinion here. 

And while "Lou loses," we are the real loser. How much of OUR time and OUR money did Lou spend on trying to kill more Guam babies? But then that's who you voted for. Isn't it. 

A "PROCRUSTEAN BED" - SCOTUS. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

By Tim Rohr

My interest was recently piqued when I came across the term “Procrustean bed.” 

At first glance I thought I was seeing the word “crustacean” and thought the reference was to a lobster or something. 

However, after a few tries, I got the spelling right and located the definition of  “procrustean.” And here it is according to vocabulary.com:

“Tyrannical governments can be Procrustean, as can certain clubs and organizations. This marvelous adjective characterizing pointless or ruthless demand for conformity owes its meaning to a son of the Greek god Poseidon: Procrustes, who stretched his guests or cut off their legs in order to make them fit his bed.”

Wow “cut(ting) off their legs!"

What is even more interesting is that the phrase "Procrustean bed" is used by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the abortion case: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 517 (1989)

Here is what the Court said:

We think that the doubt cast upon the Missouri statute by these cases is not so much a flaw in the statute as it is a reflection of the fact that the rigid trimester analysis of the course of a pregnancy enunciated in Roe has resulted in subsequent cases like Colautti and Akron making constitutional law in this area a virtual Procrustean bed. - Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 517 (1989) 

How apt given that abortion not only cuts "off their legs" but their arms, head and torso too.

This is who you elected, Guam. And twice. 

Note to "Archdiocese of Agana." Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? 

I AGREE WITH VANESSA

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. 

LLG V ST. PAUL. GOD HELP US.

"Why the majority of the people voted for her is still an open question." 

- Bob Klitzkie on Tall Tales this past Friday.

Bob had just finished his regular Friday segment wherein he replays the video-recording of the now-governor's testimony at a legislative public hearing in 2013 relative to a bill in which she argues against providing normal medical care to children who survive failed abortions. 

Functionally the governor's testimony was: LET THOSE BABIES DIE. 

The larger question behind Bob's question is why would the "majority of the people" vote for a governor (twice now) who has been radically and publicly supportive - for a very long time - of what amounts to a vicious and concerted genocide of her own people, and wherein her own people support (i.e. their votes in the last two elections) said GENOCIDE. 

SOURCE

To complicate the question, (or rather Question No. 2) the governor is an aggressive advocate of all things CHamoru even while she viciously pursues an agenda that has already monstrously devastated the same CHamoru (population) - which brings to mind the immortalized lament of the late Senator Elizabeth Arriola when she attempted to stop the murder of the "CHamoru" in 1990:

"Let me tell you, at the rate Guam Memorial Hospital is aborting children, between 400-600 a year, and most of them are not even reported. Where are the lives that we are going to protect and preserve? Here we go talking about indigenous rights and self-determination. What good is all that if we don't have our followers to follow and enjoy the fruits of our labor, of this generation's labor, of your labor and my labor to fix this island and have autonomous rights to govern our people?"

 - quoted in: Asian/Pacific Islander American Women: A Historical Anthology, pg. 372, edited by Shirley Hume, Gail M. Nomura

Complication No. 3 would be the fact that the population of Guam is reportedly 85% Catholic. 

To be clear, the following is copied directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is functionally the compendium of unchanging Catholic teaching, i.e. one is not Catholic if one does not wholly subscribe to the following:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 

75 Didache 2,2:SCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad Diognetum 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9:PL 1,319-320.

76 GS 51 § 3.

77 CIC, can. 1398.

78 CIC, can. 1314.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992 Edition) footnotes the issue of abortion to the "Didache" since the Didache is considered to be one of the most ancient and original sources of Catholic teaching - even before the name "Catholic" came to be attached to Christianity. 

So let's repeat the Didache:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Given Guam's fawning over the "Kamalen's" hair every Dec. 8 and all the other ritual paraphernalia relative to Guam's purported ritual, cultural, and historical attachment to Catholicism, we have to ask the following WHY's?

Kamareras protect Santa Marian Kamalen as she protects Guam - PDN. 

1. Why are the same "Catholic" CHamoru's aborting their babies at a genocidal rate?
2. Why are the same (some of the same) CHamoru's who ritually brush the Madonna's hair every Dec. 8, wholly politically aligned with the party of the current governor who unashamedly assails the unborn at the aforesaid genocidal rate.
3. Why does this same governor continue to be permitted to present herself for Holy Communion before the Archbishop of Agana - or his delegate - AND proudly, at the Cathedral Church of the Archdiocese of Agana, on TV, and without impunity?

SOURCE

The cynics among us could certainly speculate that it is because the governor owns the bank which functionally owns the archdiocese - but that's another story. Or maybe not. Nevertheless, we will deal with that another time.

So, we go on. 

THE SHORT ANSWER

The "short answer" is that the "people of Guam, " and specifically the majority of Guam Catholics, DO NOT CARE. 

They DO NOT CARE about abortion as a political, moral, or religious issue. THAT'S THE FACTS. The numbers do not lie. 

In the past two gubernatorial elections, the Guam public, 85% of whom are Catholics, had very clear choices between a vicious advocate of death in the womb (the current governor), and a serious pro-life champion, Sen. Frank Aguon, Jr. - the very senator, who in 2013, set forth the bill to provide normal medical care for children who survived failed abortions: living children who lay writhing and crying on the same table upon which they were supposed to have been delivered dead.

But OOPS. 

They were not dead.

Yet.

Nevertheless, Guam's mostly Catholic population has now twice elected the most vicious baby killer in Guam's history to be their governor, while said baby-killer governor presents herself proudly, and without compunction or impunity, for reception of Holy Communion at the altar of Guam's own Cathedral church, and, whereupon said governor is happily presented, at Holy Communion, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity or our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - who suffered and died, nailed to a cross, as innocent and as brutally murdered as these voiceless victims of the womb.

Informed Catholics in Guam - of whom there are apparently few... even amongst our Catholic clergy who smilingly present the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to our duly elected "Catholic" governor, can't help but recall the words of St. Paul:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (My note: Sleep = DIE.)

One might wonder what has befallen our Catholic Church in Guam via the horrific consequences of clergy sex abuse and the resultant bankruptcy which shall see the alienation of more than EIGHTY church properties, including several beloved church properties

However, some of us see this sore judgment as God's recompense for electing and re-electing Guam's most brutal anti-life governor by the very people who swear to their Catholicism - but prefer their politics. 

God help us.

But he probably won't. 

Not now.

THE LONGER ANSWER - TO BE CONTINUED

 

GOVERNOR EDDIE CALVO VS GOVERNOR LOU LEON GUERRERO

LINK to the story about the picture

Governor Lou Leon Guerrero has filed with the Supreme Court of Guam a Request for Declaratory Judgment relative to the status of "Belle's Law," which in 1990 "broadly criminalized abortion." 

Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie discussed the governor's action a bit on his show this past Friday and raised some important issues with the filing. However, due to its length (46 pages), Bob advised that he would study the filing over the weekend and get back to us on Monday with an in depth analysis, so we will wait for that. 

Meanwhile, as Atty. General Doug Moylan points out, the governor appears to be "maneuvering:"

Whatever opinion the Supreme Court of Guam issues will not be binding. However, it is possible that the legal analysis could be used by the District Court once it picks up the issue, which would explain the maneuvering by Adelup, he said.   

On its face, the governor's filing appears to be a typical liberal progressive end run around the legislature (and the voters) to get the courts to legislate from the bench. Instead of "maneuvering," the governor should just get her pals in the legislature to do their job and introduce a bill to repeal Belle's Law. 

It's not only simple, it is exactly what is supposed to happen and why we elect these people in the first place. In fact, the governor doesn't even have to ask the legislature to do anything, she can introduce a bill herself and even call the legislature into a special session to vote on it. 

So why isn't she doing that?

It's not hard to understand. The governor, like most liberal progressives, knows that she can't compete in the free arena of ideas, so she's running to the courts for cover. This is the same thing cowardly legislators do when they don't want to engage controversial legislation out in the open. They run to the Attorney General for an "opinion" they can hide behind. 

It's not only cowardly, this sort of thing compromises our rights as citizens to the designed protections of three CO-EQUAL branches of government, and we should take note to vote these cowards out next time around.

Neither the Supreme Court of Guam nor the District Court can "alter or annul a statute"- which is what the governor is after here. So what is she really up to? What is she "maneuvering" to do as Doug Moylan describes it?

Again, it's not hard to understand. The governor knows that her pals in the legislature are too cowardly to move forward on a bill to get rid of Belle's Law. Said cowardice was exemplified recently by Sen. Parkinson who, after previously grandstanding about the matter, slunk behind the skirts of the ACLU when he actually had the opportunity to do something about it.

So the governor is simply "maneuvering" to give her pals cover when it comes to actually introducing legislation to not only repeal Belle's Law, but probably after that, push forward legislation that will draconically enshrine legal abortion in Guam law - and if the governor has her way, legalize infanticide as well - given her previous public testimony opposing a bill that would require normal medical care for children who survive failed abortions. 

The correct way to deal with Belle's Law, of course, is for the legislative process to play out and then whatever the outcome, let it be challenged in the courts. In other words, legislature first, courts last. And not the other way around. 

This is exactly how then-Governor Calvo handled the bill that became P.L. 33-187. And how he handled it is a lesson for all lawmakers, especially the current governor. Upon signing what was probably the most controversial piece of legislation ever engaged in the history of Guam's legislature, Governor Calvo stated:

"I recognize Bill 326 has several legal and technical concerns. A major concern is over the bill's retroactive application of the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. Whether such retrospect will pass constitutional muster is unclear...Despite these questions, today I will err on the side of the aggrieved. If am wrong, then the courts will tell me so. Or perhaps the Legislature will craft new legislation in order to clarify these issues."

THE RULERS WE DESERVE

Queen Jezebel

There remains much concern by dedicated anti-abortion Catholics about the refusal of our archbishop to excommunicate one of the most hardened and public pro-abortion government officials in the country - our very own Governor Lou Leon Guerrero. 

That concern was deepened when our Vicar General, Fr. Romeo Convocar - who only days earlier had compared Leon Guerrero to King Herod - called for and celebrated a Mass of Thanksgiving for Leon Guerrero's re-election, at which Leon Guerrero received communion from the same Fr. Romeo Convocar. 

In this writer's opinion it is time to stop losing sleep over what our church leadership is doing or not doing and recognize that God may be punishing us with the rulers we deserve - which is something God did as a matter of course throughout Bible history whenever His Chosen People abandoned Him. 

The fact is that why should we be upset about the failure of the church to act on a single person - even if she is the governor - when for decades, according to official abortion reports, Chamorros, the majority of whom are Catholic, have aborted their children at a near genocidal rate.

It should be no surprise if God has finally "handed (us) over to impurity through the lusts of (our) hearts for the mutual degradation of (our) bodies" and we have received "the due penalty for (our) perversity" (Romans 1:20 et seq) - by God's giving us the rulers we deserve. 

Meanwhile, let's see if we can change some votes for the next election. 

*****

Romans 1:20-32

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. 

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

WHEN A SELF PROFESSED CATHOLIC PRESIDENT'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PERSECUTE REAL CATHOLICS

 

Joe Biden is a self proclaimed Catholic who advocates for the murder of unborn children. He has a propensity to lecture the country on a whole range of what he believes are moral markers, which he has a tendency not to abide to.

One of a growing and disturbing trend of the Biden administration, under the direction of a former nominee for the Supreme Court, who is now the Attorney General of the United States has been the weaponization of the Justice Department and of the FBI against perceived opponents of the President and his Party.

The latest victim of this dangerous trend is a Catholic Father of 7 children, who is anti-abortion.

Just a few days back, this peaceful and principled man, was awaken at his house in the early hours of the morning by a squad of jack boot, heavily armed SWAT team of the FBI, who was serving a warrant for his arrest, regarding a misdemeanor incident that took place months ago in the Philadelphia area.

For detailed information please read these articles:

Here

And Here

If you thought that the persecution of Catholics for being witnesses of their faith only happened in third world countries, or in Muslim areas, and that the US Constitution was protecting your right to worship, and express yourself. This should be a rude awakening of what has happened to these freedoms over the last two years.

Most of us should have understood that the far leftist that took over the DNC have a deeply rooted hatred for Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, when they used the Covid pandemic to close places of worship, and forbade us to worship, which are  fundamental rights the government is not supposed to infringe upon.

Here on Guam, Governor Lou Leon Guerrero, abused her emergency powers to erect military checkpoints on major roadways, and weaponized the DPHSS to close churches.

The leaders of  the Catholic Church remained silent for way too long, until the pastor of Victory Chapel refused to follow the order, and when Fr Paul Gofigan in an homily (on a livestream that went viral, and taken by alternate medias like kandit news) ranted that if you could go to Kmart, the grocery stores and Home Depot because they were deemed essential businesses, churches were also essential for the well being of the faithful. Only then did Archbishop Byrnes intervened and the DPHSS negotiated a process to reopen the churches.

The damage was done none the less, and Lou Leon Guerrero and her anti christian acolytes in her administration had dealt a blow to Catholics and their families, all over Guam. The consequences on Children, families and our elders are still felt today.

Remember this when you go to vote for the next Governor of Guam, do not let people who like Joe Biden and Lou Leon Guerrero pretend to be Catholic, but actually oppose all what the Church stands for, abuse your goodwill. Remember that the most prominent advocate of infanticide on Guam is the current governor.  Come judgement day Our Father might ask you: "what have you done with your talent"?

AUGUST 27,2022. AN IMPORTANT DATE FOR LIFE ON GUAM

Posted by Frenchie

Almost 4 years ago this week, a monumental event took place in the Primary Election, for our beautiful island of Guam.

The race between Senator Aguon, a staunch defender of the unborn, and former Senator Lou Leon Guerrero-Cook, the most radical pro abortion advocate in the history of our territory; turned to the advantage of the pro death candidate by a mere 300 votes. 

Our Home Island, which is still 85% Catholic, and 97% Christian chose a candidate for the Democratic Party, who was an unabashed activist for the death of innocent children.

By November 2018, Lou Leon Guerrero-Cook defeated the tainted Republican candidate and his running mate, after a lackluster campaign, where the Bank executive, and richest person on island was omnipresent, in all the local medias, thanks to a network of internet Bots, complacent local written and TV medias.

We even saw the local AM morning talk show Host Patty Arroyo unilaterally side with LLG, while her sister who at the time was a key member of the now defunct Catholic Radio, accepted the post of Press secretary for the candidate. I guess these ladies don't understand the concept of "Conflict of Interests", while also joining the disjointed Catholics who pretend to be pro-life, but don't wish to "impose their personal point of view on the public at large"(aka hypocrits extraordinaire)

How had we arrived to such a disastrous situation?

*First of all: as the old American adage reminds us : "Money walks, and BS talks"

The huge amount of money poured in the race by LLG had never been seen in the history of this island.

Basically the CEO of the Bank of Guam bought her way to the top of the Democratic Party ticket.

*Second, as the DNC did on the mainland, the LLG Campaign allied itself with the radicals on the island, who voted massively for her in the primary, and in the main election. The Cabal of the pro-independence movement, smartly disguised as the movement for decolonization, with its fiercely anti-catholic leaders such as Won Pat, Bevacqua, Underwood, Cristobal, Perez, and Marsh "Taitano". These people often conveniently wearing the Ecologist Hat, of the wacko radicals, specially when it comes to items inside the wire, are not many. Perhaps 5 to 6 thousands, but they are dedicated  and virulent. During the primary they became essential to putting the current governor over the line, against Aguon. The Choice of an openly gay running mate also brought to the LLG camp single issue voters lured by the fake inclusive camp.

*Third, the Republican Candidate was not only damaged goods going in the process, but he and his running mate did not run a viable campaign. They did not attack Lou on the many items where she is weak and/or contradicting herself. Most interestingly, they totally failed to call her on her stance for abortion, cleverly disguised as "a woman health issue" (as if killing an innocent child is a health issue) Only did they mention anything on the subject, just days before the final vote.  Way too little and too late.

*Fourth and last. That is the Elephant in the room. The newly minted Archbishop of Agatna was totally absent in the process. His right hand man at the time (Fr Richards) came up with the lame excuse that they could not risk the Church Tax exemption Status. We strongly criticized that sitting on the fence at the time in these pages, but the clergy sat that one out. Not only did they sit it out, but they brow beated the few brave ladies who dared raise the issue. The pro life movement had been rendered muted and mutted by a volontary lack of leadership.

What did we learned from this disastrous election cycle 4 years ago?

We learned several things:

1: Do not count on the local media to give you an unbiased point of view, based on facts, not fiction.

2: Do not count on our local religious leaders to help you make the right moral choice.

3: Do your own research about each candidate, Do not be influenced by fancy advertising

4: Learn how to read between the lines, of the double talk of the politicians.

If you do not want your personal values to be hijacked by anti family, anti religious, and immoral special interests activist groups,  become an informed and responsible member of the community by choosing people to represent you, that share your beliefs.