Professional anti-Catholic bigot: The Boston Globe's Michael Rezendes
There comes a point when an individual shows such contempt for the truth that one can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt and must conclude that he is an unabashed bigot.
Such is the case with Michael Rezendes, the crack reporter from The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, who has recently been repeatedly making the claim in media appearances in recent weeks that the Catholic Church has somehow "not dealt with" the decades-old issue of clergy sex abuse.
Oh, the tangled webs we weave
Shining the light of truth:
Writer Thomas J. Nash
Enter writer Thomas J. Nash, who read Rezendes' piece and also saw an interview appearance by Rezendes on CBS This Morning discussing his work.
In a must-see article in Catholic World Report, Nash notes that Rezendes is "seriously mistaken in claiming that the Vatican has failed to establish polices" regarding priests fathering children.
"[W]hat Rezendes asserts is simply not true and not befitting a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. The Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, and which continues longstanding Church policy, specifically addresses clerical sins regarding the Sixth Commandment, i.e., regarding sexual sins that encompass fathering a child, and conveys such a priest should be suspended from clerical ministry (CIC, canon 1395; cf. canon 277.3)."
But, most troubling, Rezendes, in his interview with CBS, claimed that that "after all these years of having to confront the problem, the Vatican has still not come up with a set of policies for dealing with the problem of clergy sexual abuse."
However, nothing could be further from the truth! As Nash noted, the Vatican has long had protocols in place to deal with abuse by priests, including those embedded in Canon law.
And, as we have discussed numerous times over years, the Catholic Church was tackling the issue within its ranks even before 1985 – over 30 years ago, when cases of clergy sex abuse first began receiving national attention.
"As early as 1982, we saw policies and procedures coming to the attention of the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) regarding specific child molestation cases," Teresa Kettelkamp, executive director of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the USCCB, has reported. "By 1983, 157 dioceses had policies in place."
These policies formulated the bishops' "Five Principles" in dealing with allegations of abuse. Bishops first articulated them in 1987 and then publicly pronounced them in 1992.
And since 2002, the USCCB has been conducting and publishing annual audits to ensure that dioceses have complied with safeguarding and reporting policies.
In the end, even though abuse has soiled every organization that works with children, no other organization on the planet even comes close in its efforts to rectify its past and prevent future abuse. Nash concludes (emphasis added):
"Rezendes is guilty of libel, and as a journalist I don't use the term lightly. The U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan, issued in 1964, established the modern standard for libel of public figures: 'knowing falsity' or 'reckless disregard of the truth.' While Church leaders in Rome presumably won't bring a lawsuit against Rezendes and the Globe, a case could be made …
"[I]t is at least reckless for Rezendes not to know about and report on canon 1395, given the extensive reporting he has also done on priests' fathering children. For an accomplished investigative reporter, there's simply no excuse for the statements Rezendes made to CBS."
Rezendes' bigotry
Indeed, if there were any question as to whether Rezendes' falsehoods were intentional, a recent appearance should put the matter to rest. On a June 29, 2017, appearance on local Boston TV show "Greater Boston," Rezendes recklessly asserted, "The Church has not dealt with this problem, and until the Church deals with the problem head on, we're going to see scandal after scandal after scandal … The Church can't come to grips with this … This is a systemic problem within the Church."
Without a doubt, Rezendes is not only completely unhinged but a professional anti-Catholic bigot if ever there were one.
[See also: "Five Fast Facts About the Media's Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative"]
Barbra Blaine has been dead for 4 days and nothing out of TMR?
Wow! I just found out about Blaine. If I was David Clohessy I'd watch what I ate or drank. The facade crumbles.But she like Ken Burns with PBS is pre sold as a good thing. When in reality both are way over rated. At SNAP it was always St. Barbra. Now it is even more so.
There have been a couple of deaths around SNAP. the priest who let out and criticized Fr.Thomas Doyle O.P.'s report to the American Bishops.(His name evades me at the moment). He died strangely. His house was cleaned out and his lists of victims vanished. And SNAP took over.
I'm in complete shock.
I do know Iwas on FB with the woman, the fired employee who was suing SNAP. And she had a complete meltdown. Questioning who she was and if her transistion had been a mistake. I mean very odd. We never talked about her case against SNAP. We never talked about SNAP.
Honestly I've never seen or met a stranger group of people than the ones I've met through SNAP. Never! And I've been in the Army and the theater.
The truth is stil this: that SNAP is, was and was always intended to be a false flag effort by the Catholic church. SNAP was created that the church might pick our lawyers for us and they did and speak to the media as us and in our names and they did. We and you and the rest of the public were bamboozled. This was a grift that Dan and Pub are a part of. That TMR is a part of. Acting like the church hasn't been delt with fairly when the masses of abusors and their enablers have walked off scot free.
Fr. Econimus. Is the dead priest who called out Fr. Tom Doyle's plan to control victims and our families.
What exactly is your problem Jim? I think I'd be offended, but it seems you hate everybody and anybody who ain't your type, whatever type that might be. Now Ken Burns? Who's next? Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr.? I've done more to expose the crimes of the abuse and enablers of the catholic cult, and you think you can pair me up with them? What's your problem? All I ever hear from you is your hate and greed, possibly a learned reponse to your previous belief in the church. You don't like that I'm here to expose the wickedness of the cult and possibly save souls from eternal condemnation? So be it! Maybe you should come up with something constructive to add to the conversation, before you criticize the work of another. I realize you queens like to have center stage. I joined this forum defending you and found having to defend myself from publiar and the rest of the liars of their cult. I think you need to figure out who is for you and who's against you. You've only become another disgruntled fallen away atheistic homosexual hypocrite of the cult. Welcome aboard, you're in good company. servant of the God of Judgment
LOL Thank you for proving my point. It's the support that isn't there. the smoke and the lack of support says it all for me. You were anti-church and I was supposed to see you as an ally. It didn't work. Now I'm condemned to unsaved-land because I aint buying what you sell. All religion is a sham. There is no god. Now get over it. But that's just the part you play. Heck you may even believe it but you are not here out of the blue. What you do is play Frick to Pubs Frack you are both interchangeable fanatics. and that's only if you believe what you say. Who know where they found you and why you are here? A gift from God no doubt.
Here have a chunk of truth.There is no eternal damnation. no eternal reward. How do i know this is true? Because you have no proof. You believe it then prove it. and you can not.
So let's talk about the miracle of a 61-year-old athletic woman dying of a heart attack right before her trial. Almost like the ENRON fiasco and their CEO's death. Same causes i think.
Barbra was a highly placed Catholic in Chicago as was her mother.She was used to perk Catholic assignments but never easy under any kind of questioning. Maybe she'd have blown the whistle on the scam? No not the scam you imagine (as you are supposed to) but the real scam of SNAP.Which Bishops or Cardinals paid it's bills. Why it existed. How it existed. And exactly what did it do for victims? And why is Jeff Anderson THE only lawyer consistently referenced as pro victim in the most litigious nation on the planet. The center to this myth, as with all myths, does not hold.
All my questions are sane. Unlike all your answers
So now Dan we are supposed to have a fight and the smoke screen will decend again. Pub will join in and the bullshit will continue. One problem to that scenario. I'm not playing. So you and Pub head back to the reformation.
On the 29th at 728PM JR once again demonstrates his own plop-tossing shtick: the conversation has been ‘hijacked’ – doncha see? ‘Hijacked’ from what? Has anyone put up something that would start some other direction?
Which bit he then tops off with – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – a querulous bleat as to how any “real readership” could not see the “set up” – the “set up” being the effort to distract from … whatever.
Has JR put up anything of interest? Has Ken W? I put up some material on the Australian Commission Report on the previous thread and there was nothing from JR or Ken W.
Why would anyone bother to change the subject yoMartinmartin Luther would crowd 'em right out. That's the little dance number you do. You fool no one.
You who would debate anything with you? . we all know what you think about everything. regarding these subjects. You're no fun. Nothing new from you. same old phrases same old nonsense.
But wait. There’s more.
Between 728PM and 1119PM, followed by an extended bit at 1159PM JR has apparently just become aware of the death of Barbara Blaine, of or formerly-of SNAP, four days ago.
So much for JR’s keeping a sharp eye on the Catholic Abuse Matter.
But OK, let’s see what he’s got to say.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:
First paragraph: He insinuates that she was murdered by suggesting that David Clohessy should “watch what [he] ate or drank”. Blaine died from a burst or torn blood vessel in her heart. Considering the stress that she may have been under – given the legal problems that overcame SNAP recently – that’s not greatly surprising. If I were Clohessy (or the torties who ‘donated’ to SNAP and perhaps similar organizations) I’d be worried about my blood pressure and hypertension too.
I would agree that she might get the ‘soft’ or ‘sainted’ treatment from the media. The first obit I read – from the Tribune Content Agency – only talks about her salad days (but not that come-to-Jesus meeting over coffee with Jeff Anderson) and stops short before mentioning SNAP’s most recent history and its problems.
That's how Saints are made. you of all people should know that. Mother Teresa was an evil little shit but the world wanted a living saint so they made one up and the catholic church needed to cover it's ass from the sex abuse, so boom she and JP2 hit the big time over night..
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:
He intones insinuatingly that “there have been a couple of deaths around SNAP”. The outfit has been in business for over 30 years.
Tom Economus (he belonged to something called the Independent Catholic Church) died of cancer in 2002, possibly aggravated by alcohol and drug abuse, of which – according to a eulogy posted online – he considered himself a “survivor”. I recall once quite a while back looking up some Economus material proffered by JR on a website that included the terms “Satan” and “Vatican” in its title.
Dying of cancer hardly qualifies as having “died strangely”. He had founded a Chicago abuse group called Linkup, and given the eulogies offered by his ranking subordinates in that organization back then, it is hardly surprising that they might have been given his files to continue the organization.
But JR – as regular readers will recall – has this universal conspiracy theory: whatever has happened that makes victims look bad – including SNAP and the torties and the Philly DA having been exposed and convicted and anything else – is all the work of the Church. JR knows this, just like ‘Dan’ knows what God thinks and wants. Cartoon minds think alike.
You mean that planted web site in New Mexico created , where true Econimus info on Doyle's paper could come out? Come out tainted by Satan and Vatican connections that Econimus never believed or made. the site also had UFO drawings. The church's CIA when it lays fraud on it lays it on thick. For the truth of Tom Doyle, in his own words to be connected to a ufo New mexico site? Why, it recalls the very ghost of the Roosevelt who brought down Mosadeque in Iran along with the ghost of Clare Booth Luce, who bribed her way through Italy and it's electons in the '40's, hover above .If governments can creat false scenarios so can churches. I mean isn't thast what they do best? As far as Universal conspiracies go couldn't you call the church that?
You know so much about Econimus, how odd, when's your book coming out?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:
SNAP is mentioned in several Blaine obits as having been started by her in 1988 – which is, nicely, the year she connected SNAP to Jeff Anderson, a deal which eventually led to the current lawsuit implicating SNAP in a kickback scheme with assorted torties.
The SNAP site claims it was started in 1989. Shrewdly, donations in Blaine’s memory are being directed not to her own SNAP organization but to another similar organization, Bishop-Accountability. I imagine this is to prevent any fresh cash being corralled into the lawsuit against SNAP, although it presumes that B-A won’t get exposed for also being involved in the kickback scheme during the Discovery phase of the SNAP lawsuit. At any rate, I imagine both groups are kind of hard up for cash these days.
As to JR ‘s claims of “being on FB” with the attorney who is plaintiff in the SNAP lawsuit and so on … readers may consider as they will. And – amazingly – the self-appointed Tribune of the Victimry didn’t talk about SNAP at all.
Jeff Anderson was chosen by the church and he was created by SNAP not the other way around if it was not conciouslydone by Blaine then certainly by the church. Picking our lead lawyers was exactly what the church wanted and needed and did.
You see how dumb you are? I did not connect with her attorney. I connected with her. You know the woman (transgendered )who was hired to make SNAP look "liberal' "Hip" "Up todate" and definitly not the church. The church would never hire a transgendered woman to bring down SNAP. But that's what they did.
Bishop Accountability gets it's funding every year from one man with a check or at least it did for years. I got that from it's leader.Who that check is sent from. Well my guess would be the church. Who else does BA benefit?All BA is is a list of claims of sex abuse against diocese and orders. Helps he church more than it does anything for victims. As it's owners intended.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1159PM:
Anyhoo, all that was merely lead-up to JR’s main point, which is just the same old Church-conspiracy stuff all over again. Blaine’s death has simply provided JR with yet another mule on which to load his stuff: SNAP (which, regular readers will recall, decided it could dispense with JR’s services when he tried to get himself elected honcho in the organization) is part of the Church-run conspiracy that also includes – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – TMR and ‘Dan’ and myself since we are distracting the site from the real issues, which – but of course – would actually boil down to JR’s conspiracy theory of Everything.
JR, of course, remains “scot free” after corralling a million for – he claimed, in the absence of any evidence – getting a teacher’s hand stuck down his pants once. But that was how things were done in the salad days of the Stampede. It was the California Gold Rush of its era.
Again. You're insulting and wrong. Can you be anything but? He shoved my hand down his pants over a two week period. Not once. But that wouldn't fit your script would it P to resp[ect me by bothering to remember my abuse as it happened? Yes call it the California Gold Rush P because Calfornia's the only place where victims got the most compensation per case. And if we'd gone to court we'd have gotten far more. But remember thanks to SNAP and the church it's owner our lead lawyer was picked by Jeff Anderson who was picked by the church.
And you would insult me for claiming damages as if there were none and I'm just a thief. You steal and I'm the thief. You lie and according to you I'm the liar. Extraordinary!
If you and your God are so tight. He, like Rumplestiltskin, can always spin more gold.
Pray for it. Prayers are always answered aren't they? One way or another..The "answer's is always either yes or no. (chortle!)
You caught me Jim. It's a cover-up, a "set up", a conspiracy. I'm paid by the catholic church to expose their false religion, Biblical misinterpretations and sexual abuse of children. And all this smokescreen is so Jim won't be allowed to express his issues, and boy do you have issues. Wake up from your amnesia and post whatever crap you like. Nothin's stoppin' you.
In regards to proof that God exists. I can sense Him in every bit of His Creation, in both the big, unbelievable, miraculous wonders of nature, down to the reason for the smallest gnat or plankton. All of nature functions and works in perfect unison, something humans could learn quite a lesson from. The beauty of predator and prey in all species, animal, bird or fish. How only the strong survive, which leads to the health and strength of both predator and prey. The universe, gravity, water, snowflakes, the sun to brighten the day, the moon to control the tides and stars to light the night. You fail to believe He exists. Then prove to me He doesn't.
I'm a prodigal son. I turned my back on Him for years. He punished me with a spine crippling arthritis. Doctors and chiropractors said I would never walk again at thirty. God gave me a wheelchair for each foot, and at 63 I'm still rollerblading. I went through a horrible, suicidle depression for years, that made my arthritis seem like nothing. At 52 He opened my eyes to make me realize that my problems were not physical (arthritis), not mental (depression), but morally and Spiritually based. He showed me the way out through belief in His Son and I haven't had a trace of depression or suicide ever since. Don't believe He exists? Your choice. Maybe someday He'll prove it to you and I hope that isn't Judgment Day. Best to you, Jim.
P.S. That should give the publiar plenty of fodder to wallow in.
And by the way, Jim. Not interested in seeing a Reformation. That's already been attempted and carried on too many of the false traditions of "the Church". I want to see a total Revolution, total change of hearts and minds, towards the truth of Our Creator and the end of all the lies and hypocrisy. Looking forward to the end of this wicked, cruel, deceiving world. Don't think we'll be around much longer, seeing the evil direction in which mankind has been headed.
Take a good look at the natural disasters in this century. Every location was either prominently catholic or locations plagued with idolatry, greed and temples. Oh yes! They'll tell you it's all just a coincidence. Come to the Lord and find hope, or ignore and deny him and have no hope. Know this for sure, His Word is no fairy tale. He's as real as the air you breathe. Someday we'll all breathe our last and be judged on how we lived our lives, believers and unbelievers alike. I'd wager my life and soul on that fact.
"Servant of the God of Judgement"!. How about the God of TV or the God of Sidewalks? Do any serving there?
Sheesh! what absolute nonsense! Your "God" has no clothes. Why? Because he's not there. What a tin horn god you have imagined that we should all obey. The Judge Roy Bean of deities. Who asked "him" to judge anything? It's you who are the judgement cop here, you and a bunch of iron age sheep herders. "God's" said diddly squat. The none existant have no vocal cords.
I didn't think it was possible, but you're becoming an annoying little twit, second only to peewee, but gaining on him awful fast. I haven't judged you at all. You talkin' about my statement of you becoming "another disgruntled fallen away atheistic homosexual hypocrite of the cult"? Just callin' 'em as I sees 'em. Truth hurts? If I'm a servant of the God of Judgment, doesn't make me the judge. And God wouldn't have a need for clothes, for after all He is the Spiritual Creator of this world. You should try to broaden your horizons, Jim. Try thinking outside of your little finite world. Take the blinders from your eyes, for there's one spectacular Creation to marvel upon. There will be a Day of Judgment whether you believe it or not. Slander me all you like. I've taken enough from "the Church" of liars, and I can most assuredly handle yours.
In regards to all publiar's trash on Sept. 28 – I waited to respond thinking that all the complainers might add something insightful to this forum. Apparently not!
Do you actually believe all your gobbledygoop, ignorance, stupidity and nonsense, or are you hoping the brainwashed sheep of your flock will suck it up, when they ought to spit it out? Your anti-Christian, unbiblical misinterpretations, poor examinations and lying assessments do nothing to prove anything, other than demonstrate and verify your ignorance. You and your cult can study, reflect and contemplate all you like, but if it's based on expounding on your myths, deceit, false visions and marian idolatry, well then it just adds to the gobbledygoop. I'd only have to be a little right to be smarter than all the pompous ignorant hierarchy from your cult. Nooooooo. Only catholic 1600+ years of "study and reflection and contemplation are just doo-doo". And let's not overlook the excrement you discharge in this forum.
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Cor 1:19-21
Let me know if you need me to explain it to you? servant of the only God of Wisdom
I have no intention of getting into the middle of the slappy-match between ‘Dan’ and JR. None of the – as it were – religious or theological or spiritual points they raise, pro or con, are new here and readers have seen it all before.
I would simply note a couple of points from JR’s further bits on the Total Church Conspiracy (TCC) stuff.
On the 30th at 821PM JR once again mentions – without actually drawing out any inferences too clearly – that Blaine’s death (that of a “61-year-old athletic woman dying right before her trial”) is supposed to indicate foul play – on the part of the Church, of course, in its pursuit of its TCC).
Coronary or cardiac weakness can stem from many causes and if one is predisposed to such weakness, then surely the pressure of facing a trial – especially a trial that might expose some notably unpleasant actions – would create stresses that would trigger such predispositions, and perhaps fatally.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
Ken Lay of Enron was determined to have died of a heart attack/coronary artery disease before his trial. Is JR saying that Blaine died in a similar fashion or is he still trying to insinuate that she was done in purposely as part of that TCC … ?
The lawsuit against SNAP alleges that it was to a large extent the torties who “paid its [i.e. SNAP’s] bills”, and perhaps we shall find that it was money from the torties’ Stampede fees that also fueled similar organizations.
As to “why … Jeff Anderson” figures largely: he was the one tortie whom the media kept going to and that synergy between a media-friendly Anderson and a friendly media certainly helped the Stampede that fueled the torties with huge fees which – one might very reasonably infer – were plowed back into the vital front-organizations that groomed the allegants whose stories – when suitably polished and proffered – brought in fresh carloads of cash.
The trial Blaine was facing was going to examine the plaintiff’s assertions that such a synergy indeed was operative.
Ken Lay was done in before he could incriminate Bush.
All Enron related evidence to it's scams went up in flames literally on 9/11 at ground zero.
Jesus you're an idiot!
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
And as I have often said here, SNAP – by funneling allegants to the torties – did a very great deal for “victims” indeed: rather large sums were garnered with little risk of examination, especially public adversarial examination. JR, as a recipient of such monies, is surely aware of that; any effort to imply otherwise is surely a “smokescreen”.
As to the gnomic bit about “the center to this myth, like all myths, does not hold”: one would first have to define specifically what “myth” means as JR deploys it here. If “myth” is defined as an overarching belief with a basis beyond the physical plane, then JR’s sound-bite doesn’t work for the simple reason that ‘science’ is only effective in the physical realm and on the physical plane.
Only in California Princess. Only in California.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
If “myth” is defined as a fantasy completely (or at least 99 percent) refutable by facts on the physical plane, then JR’s bit might work. Santa Claus flying around in a reindeer-pulled sleigh on Christmas Eve is a myth in that sense, as is the stork physically bringing babies.
Although one might well propose the “myth” – in the first sense of the word – that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit Who is responsible for bringing babies, in the sense that ultimately and beyond the bio-physics of the thing it is God’s Providential plan that ultimately brings babies.
The “myth” of God’s being at the core of Creation poses similar classification tasks: while one can certainly question whether the specific Biblical Adam and Eve were the actual historical elements of God’s Providential plan, the concept of God being the Source of all Creation remains a sturdy “myth” of the first type.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
Nor – yet again – does JR’s claim of no-scientific-proof “hold” here when dealing with “myth” in the first sense of the term. One can look into a sonar scope (designed to reveal the presence of submerged submarines) and claim that since one sees no aircraft on the scope then no aircraft are in the vicinity, but one wouldn’t want to bet one’s life on that assurance since sonar is not capable of looking for aircraft in the first place (some form of radar, not sonar, is what you need to search for aircraft and determine their presence).
And there we have it – "yet again" – a smattering of spew and gobbledygoop in regards to an indepth study of mythical nothingness, just so the excuser, deceiver and enabler can lead into one of his favorite lying excuses while claiming it's only a "myth" (next comment). We are not your students and are in no need of learning the depth of your ignorance and stupidity. Knowledge lacking any valuable content, while apparently impressing yourself on how intellegent you think you are. The fact that your cult is the One True Cult of Mary, while claiming to be the One True Church of God is the biggest "myth" you have going. servant
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
Is the Stampede a “myth”? I would say it is based on a “myth”.
Would that “myth” be of the first or second type? I would say the second (i.e. fantasy) type: the fantasy of a Church chock-full of “pedophile perverts” / set up and organized from the get-go for nothing but the maintenance of a core program of nothing but fulfilling the perverse pleasures of a perverse clergy and hierarchy / thus having created myriads of ‘victims’ / most of whom remain ‘out there somewhere’ in their untold myriads / still waiting to be ‘compensated’ / once they decide to ‘come forward’ / at which time they must be believed because ‘victims must always be believed’ because they never not-tell the truth.
Which – I say yet again – is not to “pretend” that no instances of genuine abuse never took place. It is simply to say that the Stampede vision of the Church and clerical abuse is a ‘fantasy’ myth of that second type.
In this paragraph you describe the creeps of your church and their modus operandi in fine detail. Too bad it's not a "myth". Now add the blatant liars, idolators, murderers, greedy and the pompous hierarchy and you pretty much describe the church in a nutshell. Why don't you quit with all your deceit, excuses and lying manipulations.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
And that fantasy-myth served very focused and self-interested purposes: it was greatly nourished by the Anderson/Blaine/media synergy, and beyond that a kickback scheme hatched between the torties and SNAP (and perhaps similar organizations as well).
It was a fantasy-myth that paid off all its investors very nicely indeed: those who wished to weaken the Church’s role in society (secularists and assorted anti-Catholic types) / the media that got lurid stories and the status of having ‘heroically’ uncovered the stories / the torties who got huge chunks of cash in fees / the ‘victim’ group (or groups) that got hefty cash from the torties / the allegants who provided the stories in the first place who got even more cash in ‘settlements’ while being hailed by the same media for being ‘heroic’ in ‘coming forward’ with the oh-so-necessary stories, endowed with the status of ‘reports’, that fed the whole scheme. Something for everyone, as it were.
And followed up by more nonsense. Nice to see you, like your cult, is more worried about the money you paid out than the victimization of innocent lives you pedophile creeps have destroyed. You creeps are despicable personified. Secularists and anti-heathens are on to your trash and damn tired of listening to your piss-poor excuses.
Correction – 'are' more worried about the money you paid out than the victimization of innocent lives you pedophile creeps have destroyed.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 821PM:
And while all of JR’s basic “questions” may be “sane”, his answers in the form of insinuations and his TCC bits about the Church not only a) being guilty of everything in the Stampede fever-visions but also b) being behind all of the players and events that ‘made victims look bad’ (and didn’t give JR a starring role) are hardly “sane”, and certainly not rationally supportable, and constitute a mush of fantasy-myth of their own.
And in his conclusion, JR seeks to paint himself as being above the “smokescreen”; but he has been laying down smoke like a destroyer from the get-go – and even continues to do so after the smokescreen of his own ‘story’ was penetrated.
Those would be my thoughts on the matter. And I didn’t mention “the reformation” once.
Have you finished your daily lies?
I wish there was a hell where assholes like you could and would burn for eternity. You so deserve hell.
I don't want a starring role here. I want the best role here. And i have it. The guy who tells the whole truth. I'm not P the obfuscator nor Dan the evangalist.
You know what I hink? I think the tide's turning in my favor. If Barbra had to die. And now SNAP will die (after the trial you've set up of course.) Then that means the folks who created this entire false flag operation are frightened. They are running for the hills. That's why you 2 blow your smoke.to cover up their escape. Someday we will have justice and that's why P has a nom de plume. So no one will be able to hold him responsibile for his part in this deceit.
Dan if you weren't here they would have had to invent you. So maybe they did. I can only go by the effect you and P have created here. Even KenW is bored with the smoke. The actions here speak far louder than the smoke that is constantly blown here. Like two stage hands with smoke machines. Blowing blowing constantly blowing. to hide what ever needs to be hidden according to the chuch, atleast the tiny part of the church that came up with SNAP Scam.
After Tom Petty and Vegas I feel that the masses are being played like an organ. Hit this note the crowd goes this way hit that note the crowd moves another. Leading where?
Nowhere.
in circles.
Keep that herd a moving through fear.if they have a chance to talk to each other they might turn and stampede their owners..
All these shocks have made America the opposite, catatonic, rigid with fear. or failure, constantly moving in circles of loss and tragedy. Rigid with confusion.
Jim, What is your problem with me? I've done more to expose the pedophilia and perversions of the cult, which should if anything work in your favor, as far as getting money or settlements from the creeps. All you've done is come up with these somewhat crazy conspiracy theories and half the time I haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Other victims have voiced their opinions of SNAP and said how they helped them and what a great job they had done. Who am I supposed to believe, when some of your comments are quite confusing.
Do you have a problem with my quoting the Bible and don't like the things said in regards to homosexuality. It's plain unnatural and disgusting as far as I'm concerned, but I never held that against you. Go ahead and hate on myself and my beliefs, but I feel your conscience is what really is bothering you. Sick of you blaming me for your problems, they seem to be of your own making. It's stupid to claim that I provide smoke for the very belief system I've come to despise. Stupid! Plain stupid!
Here's a picture of Barbra Blaine. In most of her pictures she looked afraid. Always looked super woried and frightened. What would she have to be so consistantly frightened about? .http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/barbara-blaine-founder-snap-dies-61-50068579
With Barbra there was never relaxation. Never self confidence. Odd for a "leader" It was like dealing with a robot uttering platitudes. With Barbra there was never connection. With her obvious fans who sang the party line she'd let go, just a bit but with the rest of us she looked like she was walking through landmines. I'm a pretty tightly wound person but Barbra was a fist.
But that fist was only ever raised politely or tragically never insightfully or connectively. She'd come in do her little SNAP dance. And gone.
What you saw on TV was all you got. Thar veneer was all there was. She never cracked a joke. At dinner nothing. She was a pr pro who had a job to do rolled in and did it and she was out. But get down with the victims? Never. She'd smile and nod at people who admired her and act like their bud for a minute or two and then busy got to go. and out of there.
You'd think she was Rosa Parks or MLK she was so busy. She was in LA probably 5/6 times in 7 years. The biggest settlement in all of the scandal but St. Babs wasn't here but 6 times. Why? She didn't dare be around too much she'd be questioned. Not by the press but by her fellow victims.
See how lucky I am to be attacked by two believers in God. P is the Republican and Dan is the village religious fanatic but just like the Repubs and the Dems (they are both capitalist parties.) Dan and P are both god believers. We flip from 2 fighting each other to 2 fighting me . Both on the side of god and me not. They fight each other and there's smoke. They fight me, smoke. I tell the truth they turn it into fodder for more smoke.
And no one else has a fuckin' thing intelligent to say. If they had They'd need a gas mask to get in here.
What's the church's role in society that's been weakened?
You still attack gay people and women. you still through your untaxed millions, are against individual freedom as in the right to marry. Everyone knows the church thinks it's role in society (read money gatherer and "morality" definer) is "important" but what does it do but flaunt it's self importance? (Which is really a whine about lost power. )
What morality do you bring to the table that others don't? Including atheists and Communists? All you got is being antiabortion and antiGay. Less and less people see those positions as equating to "morality".
Jim, If your nonsense wasn't so damn hilarious, I think I'd be worried. You think you're the poster child of sanity, "truth" and even the best judge if "morality". This forum gets more comical by the minute. Here we have it folks, in this corner! - The compulsive and blatant deceiver from the cult of pedophiles, perverts and liars, peewee – And in the other corner! – The deceived Queen of Homosexuals, who thinks he's the "guy who tells the whole truth", the only "sane" one in the bunch, and even the "moral" one since many in this immoral world seem to now accept going against God's moral law as OK. Hilariass! You two should be prime candidates for the Comedy Awards. What false pride and twisted egos you two display.
My correction of "if" to "of" got separated by more of publiar's longwinded ignorance
As regular readers may recall, whenever JR starts to lose control of his grammar, he’s up to something even more surely than when he’s in control of it.
Thus his comment of the 1st at 1046PM opens with a sentence that makes no sense but seems to be clinging to the “reformation” meme.
If there is any point to it at all, it would appear to be his effort to make an excuse for his a) complaining that the ‘conversation’ has been ‘hijacked’ while b) not actually having much to put up on his own that could constitute food for conversation in the first place. He’s good at making excuses for himself.
And the little snotty grammar cop is back.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1046PM:
Thus too his second paragraph, where – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – he tries the same gambit to which ‘Dan’ so frequently resorts: JR isn’t going to debate anything because “we all know what you think about everything”. That gets him off the debating hook … where his TCC theory doesn’t fare well at all.
Readers may consider – especially as we work through JR’s most recent stuff – whether that claim doesn’t actually better fit JR, whose ‘conversation’ about SNAP and so on remains merely the repeated reassertions of his TCC theory of it all.
And – right along with his pea-pod mate ‘Dan’ – JR huffs about “nonsense”, as if merely delivering epithets somehow constitutes intelligent response or comment.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1106PM:
Here he starts off by trying to dispose – to his own satisfaction at least – of that website that mentioned “Satan” and “Vatican” in its title. And how will he accomplish that? Easy-peezy: the site – doncha know? – was “planted” … we are to accept that it was a “fraud” that was “planted” by “the church’s CIA”, no doubt as part of its TCC plan.
Regular longtime readers here will recall that we went over the Economus ‘revelations’ about the Doyle Report (to the US Bishops in 1985, and it was actually more of a Proposal for the Bishops to set Doyle and some associates up in their own well-funded fiefdom); the Economus material – if memory serves – was big about the “secret” nature of the thing, although a reading of the text of the Report quickly shows that the term “secret” or its grammatical variants does not appear there at all.
Having put up that wobbly bit, JR then quickly tries to distract from its wobbliness by riffing on about FDR and Clare Booth Luce (because – doncha see? – JR knows a lot of stuff and is no mere dummy just pretending to know a lot of stuff).
And he concludes with a bit of epithetical snark, just because that’s really what he does best.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:
Here he again repeats his bit that Jeff Anderson, a long-established tortie up in the Twin Cities area, “was chosen by the Church” and it was he who “created SNAP [and] not the other way around”.
JR had originally claimed – and Michael D’Antonio had noted in his Stampede-friendly book “Mortal Sins” – that SNAP had actually been started several years before, in the early ‘80s. But D’Antonio goes on to note that it had not been doing well; and then Anderson invited Blaine to coffee in early 1988, made Blaine an offer of some form of cooperation (perhaps, as the current lawsuit alleges, some form of kickback scheme), and SNAP took off from there to become what we now know as SNAP.
Curiously, the SNAP website now claims that it was started in 1989, thus sidestepping the Anderson-Blaine events completely.
I never said Anderson created SNAP. I say the church created Anderson and SNAP.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:
Jeff Anderson “was chosen by the Church”? He was a tortie and realized that the long-established tortie strategy of creating large lawsuits against corporations or deep-pockets defendants, such that the defendants or their insurers would consider it cheaper in the long run to pay out settlement money rather than go to trial over each allegation … could be run against the Church.
And when combined with the then-ascendant Victimist trend in both law and public opinion (fed and formed by the media) the allegations would now run little if any risk of being adversarially examined (since to question somebody who was (already presumed to be) a ‘victim’ would be ‘blaming the victim’ and ‘re-victimizing’ the ‘victim’.
He paved the way for the billons paid out, with the torties raking in hefty fees and costs, with which – if the current lawsuit’s allegations about SNAP be accurate – the torties then used to kickback money to their front and funneling organizations such as SNAP.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1114PM:
JR then tries to establish how “dumb” I am but manages – nothing new here – his own mis-reading (intentional or through incompetence) of my statement about his claim to have been “on FB” with the attorney who is also the plaintiff in the current lawsuit.
Yes, again, he claims to have been in communication with her “on FB”. That’s what I had noted. Whether he was actually in such communication and whether she responded to him is anybody’s guess. Clearly she did not discuss the case, which renders the ‘communication’ irrelevant here.
And – if readers haven’t seen enough of JR’s whackery already – he then tries to keep his TCC theory going by claiming that “the church would never hire a transgendered woman” … “but that’s what they did” … apparently – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – to reely reely hide the TCC plan by doing what “they” “would never” do.
Of such ‘logic’ are JR’s ‘theories’ comprised.
And was the attorney/plaintiff transgendered when hired? Or did the plaintiff/attorney decide on that course later?
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1120PM:
Here JR tells us – because he just knows this stuff and we can trust him as a veracious and reliable reporter of actual events – that B-A was for a while given a funding check “every year from one man”.
Was that “man” a tortie? That would certainly be a strong probability since B-A, by compiling a handy online reference for enterprising allegants and media types, was certainly useful to the torties.
JR, however, would “guess” that the “man” “would be the church”. Thus again we are faced with JR’s ‘theory’ that the Church funded organizations that were feeding the Stampede against the Church.
And this whole bit presumes that JR is accurate and veracious in his hearsay report that B-A derived its funds from a single source in the first place.
But if such checks exist, then they can be traced and that might prove very interesting indeed.
Readers may consider and judge as they will.
No it was a man who's last name was like Puddles??? he wrote a book and was hocking it at the 2008 SNAP conference in Chicago. He gave a check to BA that floated it for the year.!!! The whole year's budget out of the blue. It could have been Jeff Anderson who gave Mr. "Puddles" the check. But how do we know Jeff Anderson isn't the lawyer referred to in Doyle's paper? The lawyer who'd hand out checks
There's the Cardinal in Anderson's own town, The Cardinal who's now the NY Cardinal and Anderson seemed to give him enough time to transfer 21 millionn into a Catholic cemetary account. So the victims would get zilch. Zilch or close to zilch.
Oh checks will be shown to prove SNAP was a tool of our lawyers. The question should be who pulled our lawyers chains? Not us and not SNAP
As with all false flagged events like SNAP there are far more questiones left unanswered than answered.
A conpiracy creates a program and follows it. Doyle created the program in the early '80's. It was created before SNAP. it was the battle plan and the matrix for SNAP; BA; Anderson the whole chrade.
I wonder if Blaine was a stooge who obeyed Doyle and Anderson untill it finally dawned on her what SNAP was .If I was that evilly wrong, I think it would tear my heart out as well.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 1128PM:
Here JR strikes his favorite pose, that of the innocent victim: I am “insulting and wrong” , apparently in regard to my saying he received a million (in a massive 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit a decade and more ago) for allegedly having a teacher’s hand stuck down his pants (40-plus years before that).
Apparently this happened “over a two-week period”, which – JR apparently doesn’t or didn’t ever realize – raises rather more questions than it answers. Just how many times it actually happened “over a two-week period” JR doesn’t mention, and perhaps he realizes this is a road he really doesn’t want to go down too much farther.
There’s actually no way I can “disrespect” (and thus, of course, ‘re-victimize’) him since I have always expressed doubt as to the veracity of his claim to begin with, for all the reasons I explicated at length here a while back when this whole bit was first considered.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 1128PM:
But again we see here the old Victimist ploy: if you doubt the allegant’s story then you are ‘disrespecting’ and ‘re-victimizing’ the allegant.
And we also see another ploy as well: having cashed the settlement check (gleaned through that old tortie stratagem I mentioned in a prior comment above) an allegant can then claim that he would surely have gotten even more had he gone to trial. Whether a jury would have bought the story is anybody’s guess, although it was California and it was during the salad-days of the Stampede.
And actually, as an allegant/plaintiff it was JR’s responsibility as to whether he would allow his counsel to be chosen by anybody else. He might have gone to court on his own, filing an individual lawsuit with his own individual counsel – but he didn’t choose that route.
And to claim that the Anderson was the tool of the Church and chose a subordinate tool or set of tools to handle the massive California lawsuit is for readers to judge. Certainly, if Anderson was not certified to practice in California, then he – like any out-of-state, non-certified attorney – would have had to engage California-certified attorneys to do the actual legal work in that State. But at any rate, handling a 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit was going to require help.
There were 6 lawyers and a couple of assistants tops for L.A. on"our side". Given there were 500 L.A. clients. Not a whole lot of lawyers.
Interesting how P defends the myths of upfront honesty that SNAP and Anderson portray. But when it comes to victims none of us are telling the truth of the huge number of victims P has read about.
Have you ever met a victim you liked or better, believed, P? (This is where he trots out the rational posture of middle class sagacity, it's his party piece, to say no he hasn't )
Go into your dance, Princess Pretty Girl. We've all seen it before but it's all you do.
(By the way people who curse more are more intelligent, studies have found.)
And only 2 lawyers had the vast majority of those cases. Bouchet chosen by Anderson and Freeburg, my lawyer, who ollowed everything Bouchet did. Bouchet had the most casses well over 300 and Freeburg ran second at 160 more or less. So the other 4 lawyers had but few clients.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 620AM:
I had put up a sequence of comments (the 28th of September from 1217PM to 1237PM).
‘Dan’ has waited a while – perhaps hoping readers would forget the questions posed in those comments – but comes now on the 2nd at 620AM. He excuses his delay by claiming that he had been merely (and innocently) waiting to see if anyone else would respond to those comments and their questions about his material. (So – doncha see? – it’s everybody else’s fault that he waited.)
And – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – merely dismisses it all as “trash”. Which is then followed in his second paragraph by an epithetical riff against my material (and those questions) and also against “the brainwashed sheep”.
I have put up “poor examinations”. Does he identify or explicate any? He does not. Ditto any “lying assessments”.
Basically, ‘Dan’s position is that if he doesn’t like it or can’t deal with it (because it questions or contradicts his 3×5 cartoon bits) then he needn’t answer and can just indulge himself in epithetical riffs.
Then a pericope that apparently seeks to establish that God says you don’t have to know anything about Scripture as long as you make the right claims about Scripture, and – but of course – ‘Dan’ is certain he knows all that needs to be known (i.e. his cartoons).
You're such a flamin' idiot. If I don't think your ignorance and stupidity is worth responding to, do you think I'd be expecting others to respond to your ignorant comments and worthless questions. KenW and JR were complaining that we hog an open forum, where anyone is free to comment. I was giving them the chance to do that. Don't act so stupid, or is it not an act?
And once again publiar demonstrates with his weak worldly wisdom and knowledge, his lack of understanding when it comes to Scripture and the reason for his misinterpretations of Scripture. God grants wisdom and understanding only to His children who have faith in Him. If you're too afraid to go to the Almighty God and His "Awe-ful" Son, and like the typicable cowardly momma's boy, would rather aproach Mother Mary with your needs (i.e. wisdom, mercy, hope, etc.), then you should expect nothing from the Lord. Compound that with all your other idolatry, lies, greed and disgusting sexual immorality, and you shouldn't expect much of anything from God, let alone His wisdom and understanding.
"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But he must act in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." James 1:5-6
"Behold, thou desireth truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me know wisdom." Psalm 51:6 (KJV) How can a habitual liar think he will ever gain wisdom from the Lord? Lying hypocrites must rely on your father Satan to give you wisdom and knowledge, and that is why your trash is flooded with lies, especially when confronting a worthy opponent. Remember, "He is the father of all lies and liars." servant, tired of teaching the stubbornly ignorant
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 511PM:
Here he reverts to his old ‘smokescreen’ ploy. And … well, there’s really nothing else to it except more epithetical riffing to substitute for any substantive content.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 610PM:
Apparently JR is now going to do some reading-into a photo of Blaine, based – he would have us believe – on his knowledge of her (he worked at SNAP for a while, readers may recall, until he tried to get himself ‘elected’ to take over the operation and was shown the door).
And thus the entire comment trails off into JR’s ‘reminiscences’ of her and readers can do with it what they will.
But few of the “victims” – many having been steered to the torties and having cashed their settlement checks – appear to have come forth, in the past or in the present. They don’t seem to have a beef with SNAP’s operation or with the torties’ to whom they were steered (except perhaps to complain about the size of the torties’ take of their winnings).
JR has a beef though: they got rid of him when they realized what they had on their hands and he’s gonna get back at ‘em all because in the final analysis that’s what JR does. Which, by amazing coincidence, is precisely what the faculty at his school figured about him long ago, as documents finally revealed a few years ago when examined here.
Got rid of e. I quit SNAP after the first convention in St Louis in '03. I LEFT them. Later on when Steve Sanchez left the leadership post in L.A. we voted Udo Stratinsky in Udo was a lawyer with two doctorates and also an L.A. victim. That election was ignored by SNAP. I was elected later because the only way to stop SNAP's behavior was to become it. That election was ifnored by SNAP.
See P's lies here? I'm gonna get back at them all? Who's " 'em all"? The people who molested me? the people who enabled that abuse? The people who told me they were there for me and other victims but proved themselves not to be? Or am I just out to get anybody? I don't like people who use me who lie about me and cheat me. Anything wrong in wanting to get those "em"?
What a living piece of dung you are. Am I on your hands here P? Cuz I'm definitly out to get you.
Why would anybody believe you? You twist and lie for what the Catholic church? I thought the church was supposed to be better than that. How naive I was. They, the hierarchs, rise on how much money and influence they bring in and keep. That's the real church. The rest is all Xmas windows and fluff.
I ask the readership? Am I the kind of person you would keep around if you felt I was on your hands? I left SNAP in 2003. I went to their press conferences at the Cathedral to support my fellow victims but I knew SNAP was incompetant for victims in 2003. I gort elected SNAP leader in 2007. I only returned to take control away from the idiots running SNAP in L.A.. And even then I only sought the position after another election was ignored by SNAP.
That was democracy. My "nuttiness", as P would paint me, had nothing to do with anything but my rightful anger when democracy was over ridden with no reason. i.e. ignoring Udo's election. And in 2007 I hadn't even figured out that SNAP was a false flag yet. That they all were false flags including TMR and P.
Why wouldn't anybody have a beef with being manipulated ignored and lied about? I hired a lawyer not a nest of harpies.
Dear Lord Baby Jesus, so cute, please one day in the near future before I die please let the truth come out about this false flagged adventure in piracy and please let P die a miserable death. In your name I pray. Amen.
BT
‘Dan’s most recent crop is merely a bunch of his usual epitheticals with no substance, no refutation, no explication.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 802PM:
Here JR merely tosses out his – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – conspiracy theory about Ken Lay’s death.
Not to see that it was a conspiracy like JR does is simply to prove one is “an idiot!”.
Much like his pod-mate ‘Dan’, JR has his cartoons and if you can’t see what he sees then … and so on.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 804PM:
Much like his pod-mate ‘Dan’ JR here will simply declare – clutching the pearls – that my material is “lies”. Any examples? Not a one.
It concludes with an epithetical bit of scatology because – doncha see? – in the adolescent back-of-the-cafeteria world that JR still inhabits, scatology proves both that you are much-man and are surely right and very clever.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 854PM:
Here he seeks to spell out what he sees as his role here (in case readers who consider his material might come to a less congenial conclusion): he doth have “the best role here”, that of “the guy who tells the whole truth”.
Readers may judge as they will.
And – in case reads who consider his material might come to a less congenial conclusion – he also suggests that “the tide’s turning in [his] favor here”. That’s because it is apparently becoming clear (to JR anyway) that the “trial” that the Church has “set up” (i.e. the current lawsuit against SNAP) means – popcorn, please – that the Church (which JR considers to have “created this entire false flag operation”) is now “frightened” and “running for the hills”. And the evidence for that?
Well, to JR’s mind, that’s proven by the fact that ‘Dan’ and I are – JR would say – blowing so much smoke. The fact that I began posting here long before the current lawsuit or Blaine’s death … well, JR can’t be expected to explain everything and why quibble over mere inconvenient facts?
And then a pious bleat about “justice”. From the well-remunerated but never-raped one. JR might want to give some further and serious thought as to what any eventual “justice” might do.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 824PM (appearing after his 854PM comment):
Here JR will try to simultaneously a) distract from his material and b) demonstrate his fancied current-events chops by going about Democrats and Republicans. The upshot of the whole thing being that JR blows no smoke and yet he doth “tell the truth”.
Which popcorn-inducing bit is then supported by more scatology and the presumptive implication that JR and he alone doth have “intelligent” things to say.
Readers may judge as they will.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 914PM:
Here he confuses or deliberately conflates the objectives of secularists and anti-Catholics with either a) the results of their efforts or b) the Church’s positions on various issues or c) both.
But when you are in the cartoon and smoke-blowing business, you can’t let inconvenient facts get in your way.
His effort to plump for ‘atheist’ and ‘Communist’ “morality” is there for any popcorn-equipped reader to consider.
On the 3rd at 553PM ‘Dan’ will – no doubt eagerly and gratefully – take the opportunity to evade his own lack of response and try to position himself on the rhetorical high-ground by chuckling about how “hilarious” all the “nonsense” is.
Nicely, he yet again rather comically digs himself in deeper as he’s trying to dig himself out: he punctuates his bit against homosexuality with the exclamation “Hilariass!”, a bit of scatology that is apparently supposed to a) reinforce his much-man creds but actually b) only throws into bright relief his own adolescent reliance on scatology, just like his pod-mate JR.
And then – even more comically – he declaims against “false pride and twisted egos” … this from someone who claims he is God’s very own very speshull deputy dawg.
Hey asshole i don't have pearls. It's Grande Dames like you who wear them and clutch them like God to your saggy bosom.
You lied about my abuse. You lie of how you've outed me by saying I oughted myself about my abuse. You lie about what i've said regarding Who created SNAP and who created Anderson as players.
The money that SNAP required came from somewhere. Victims didn't give them didilly. And Jeff Anderson couldn't afford to keep SNAP afloat.all by himself. There were three or four full time paid employees plus Travel expenses hotels food. Let's say SNAP's annual budget was $600,000. Jeff Anderson wouldn't be laying that amount of money out. So who was SNAP's matrix if not the church? The media? No. Victims? No. Given our damage from the abuse few of us could afford to give to SNAP. Where did SNAP's 25+ years of budgets come from? The lawyers, "our" lawyers You think they'd lay out $18 million to get SNAP to do the little it did?
And I'm not even mentioning Bishop Accountabilities annual budgets. Fr. Tom Doyle's expenses. The books that have been funded to never look deeper and to pretend that SNAP was everything it pretended to be.
That's one hell of a lot of money over 25 years. Where did that kind of money come from? Who else but the church had that amount readily available?
SNAP came from nowhere. There were no grass roots. They couldn't have grassroots because they were not running what they claimed they were. They sprang fully grown from the head of Tom Doyle and the wealth and approval of the church and from nowhere else.
Correction – judge of "morality" – Thought I'd better correct that quick. Next thing you know JR might be joining peewee's grammar police.
Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" They are all corrupt, and they have done terrible things; there is no one who does what is right. The Lord looks down from heaven at us humans to see if there are any who are wise, any who worship Him. But they have all gone wrong; they are all equally bad. Not one of them does what is right, not a single one. "Don't they know?" asks the Lord. "Are all these evildoers ignorant?" Psalm 14:1-4
"If you fear the Lord and put your trust in Him, He will keep you safe, and so you can be brave and face any danger. The Lord will bless you if you fear Him and ask for His help. And if you love the Lord, He will give you strength and keep you from falling. He will be your shield, protecting you and giving shade from the burning heat of the summer sun at noon. Your eyes will sparkle with the happiness He gives, and He will bless you with health and a long life." Sirach 34:14-20
First paragraph – A Psalm of David – Slew Goliath, the figure of ultimate evil. Sinner? Yes. Truly sorry for his sins? Absolutely. Jim, You think you're wiser than King David, Solomon's father. Like I said, "What an ego!" Ever heard that "Pride disgusts the Lord". Why do you think the movement was named "Gay Pride". Those refusing to listen to their Creator.
Don't get any idea that your cult is any better there, publiar. Actually worse for being idolators, into more disgusting homosexual pedophilia and perversions. They may believe there's a god, but they surely have no fear in going against the True God. Hypocrites and Liars.
Glad to see you back Jim, so we can blame you again for all the life choking smoke you give to the conversation, not to mention the opportunity you afford to publiar to resond with his longwinded life choking answers of nothingness. Well done, KenW should be proud of you.
Fuck that! Here's P's post in a nutshell of his own making.
Dan's wrong
Jim's wrong
He's right.
Resort to this post it will save you much time here.
JR, on the 2nd, makes some interesting comments about Barbara Blaine, who died recently. Apparently he was speaking from an eye witness viewpoint, when he described her as appearing uncomfortable addressing an audience. Even when the audience were her own suppporters. He called her "St. Babs". Suggesting an individual who was seemingly above it all….and not prepared to be questioned… not even by her own adoring supporters. Sometimes this can be a mask to hide insecurity. As the less we say…the less anybody can find fault with us. But think about it?. If she was so apprehensive about interacting with her own people…..then imagine her anxiety about being cross-examinded in a court of law by a plaintiff's lawyer? Moreover the plaintiff, a former employee, would have the evidence to substantiate her accusations against SNAP. That prospect could easily be the final straw for any stressed-out person. So I can't see any good reason to speculate about a conspiracy… as JR has done.
The only reason, Malcolm Harris , that I speculate about a conspiracy is because I don't. I speculate about very little here. Maybe Barbra's death but the conspiracy that I espouse, that I know to be true is directly from the paper written to The American Bishops by the Canon lawyer at the Vatican embassy in Washington D.C..That Canon lawyer was Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P.. He created the conspiracy. Fr, Econimus let that conspiracy out and he also analyized Doyle's paper so that even someone as thick as me about the word "committees" became illuminated. It's that simple.
When's the last time you heard any thing about big settlements by the church worldwide? It was California in 2007. Australia has yet to come to a settlement. So this stampede Pearl Bailey has been on about, hasn't trampled a blade of grass in over 10 years. A geriatric stampede of sloths no doubt.
Following in line with the majority of publiar's ignorance and stupidity, he states on Oct.4 @ 6:14pm – [Dan] declaims against "false pride and twisted egos" … this from someone who claims he is God's very own very speshull deputy dawg." First off – Anyone by now should be able to recognise publiar's insistent childish mocking of God and His servant (i.e. God's very own very speshull deputy dawg). Mr. Vocabulary might want to look up the definition of servant, the word I've used most often to identify my place with the Lord. My boast has always been in my God and Savior Jesus Christ, and servant is in no way a word of pride or ego. Once again the liar thinks he can continually accuse or label myself with infantile titles or lies and in his own mind that now becomes truth. How can you catholics ever come to this liars defense and think he is a good example or worthy apologist for your church? Nothing but a despicable lying hypocrite.
I have absolutely no need to reinforce my manhood. I'm not the one who runs to hide under my Mother Mary's dress, because I'm so afraid of the God of Judgment and His "Awe-ful" Son. What a cowardly, feminine man you've turned out to be. servant of the Lord
Dan, you have no proof of any god existing let alone your version and I'm the fool? You believe with no proof and I'm the fool.
Jim, Did you even look at what proof I stated Oct.1 @ 2:44am? I just mentioned a small portion of proof in His Creation that He exists, and in the last paragraph how He proved that existence in saving me from the Hell that I was suffering on earth. You have absolutely no proof that He doesn't exist and disbelief works better for you so you don't have to face your sins. I get it, Jim. Sorry but as it says, Only a fool would say, "There is no God." I'm not calling you a fool, but the Creator who made you apparently is. Sorry about that.
On the 4th at 339PM JR wishes a correction to be entered: he said not that Anderson created SNAP but rather than “the church created Anderson and SNAP”.
When we are already as far down the rabbit hole as JR’s TCC visions have already gone, then I say Sure, why not? Does it make the TCC any more plausible? Does it make the TCC any less implausible?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 956PM:
In response to mine of the 3rd at 103PM, noting ‘Dan’s failure to answer various clear questions, ‘Dan’ once again doth bleat his now-familiar bleat: that since I am “such a flamin’ idiot” (the left-off ‘g’ is to demonstrate his much-man ‘cool’ or ‘kewl’ creds) that he doesn’t think my “ignorance and stupidity is worth responding to”.
Also – and here we see just how sly and well-practiced in sleazy evasions ‘Dan’ actually is – ‘Dan’ didn’t want to “hog an open forum” by putting up answers to the questions … or, rather, my “ignorant comment and worthless questions”.
If it’s ‘in the Bible’ pure and simple and clear as a bell that Jesus was born both in the reign of Herod and also a decade later in the time of Quirinius who replaced the deceased Herod, then how do ‘Dan’s divinely-inspired Scriptural chops explain that?
If ‘Dan’ is not “sinless” and yet remains a “true Christian” then how do ‘Dan’s theological chops square that circle?
What’s really “worthless” and “ignorant” in all this is ‘Dan’s stuff.
I'm far from stupid or delusional as you like to accuse me of. I've listened to John Martignoni, catholic apologetic and founder of "Queen of Heaven catholic radio" in Birmingham, Ala.. I'm not going to play into your little game, like he suggests that you question the Christian opponent and see if you can throw him off. This is the Lord's answer to your silly questioning, so you can "square" your own "circles". Take your pick, which version suits you.
"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes." 2 Tim 2:23 (KJV)
"Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." (ESV)
"Abstain from disputes of fools who are without instruction, for you know that they generate conflict."
"But foolish and ignorant questions avoid, knowing that they do they do produce strife." 2 Tim 2:23
'If anyone teaches another doctrine and disagrees with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind who are devoid of the truth [LIARS]." 1 Tim 6:3-5 Sounds pretty much to describe the publiar to a tee.
So add to this your lies, slander, mocking and childish sarcasm, and I feel I'm under absolutely no obligation to answer to any of your stupid questioning. If you need answers to your ignorance, you should consult Google. I'm sure you'll find an answer you'll be satisfied with, seeing that you have such trouble understanding or accepting God's answers. servant
"
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1115PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to slather on more lardy frosting to cover his ill-baked Scriptural and theological cake: the questions – we are apparently to accept – dissolve or disappear or something if you have been infused with the “wisdom and understanding” that “God grants to His children who have faith in Him”.
Thus – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ knows the answers to my questions, but he can’t tell me because God only sent the answer-fax to ‘Dan’. Sort of like classified information that’s been faxed to one person: if others haven’t received the fax, then they aren’t cleared for it and it’s obviously intended to be none of their business. ‘Dan’ also knows the true purchase price of the Brooklyn bridge, if you’re in the market.
This is what a nice tight delusional system will get you. But let’s not forget that ‘Dan’s delusional system (he’s a ‘prophet’, don’t forget) also requires that he insist that others accept his delusions or else God’ll getcha.
And as a cherry to top it all off, if you don’t have the answers already, then you obviously aren’t on God’s Secret Compartmented Information clearance list, so you’re not worth ‘Dan’ taking the time and effort to answer you anyway. It’s all very hush-hush – doncha know? – at least until ‘Dan’ starts bleating, braying, and screaming.
And more mocking ignorance. And you'll bake in the oven, while I have my cake and eat it too.
And by the way, If you're dumb enough to buy into and defend the lies of your cult, and expound on them, then you're probably dumb enough to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. I saw a vision of the "Queen of Heaven" last night telling me to sell it to you for half price, 666 dollars.
And she'll throw in some plastic rosary beads for ya.