More On The USCCB's Special Message

On November 12, the USCCB issued a "Special Message" from its Baltimore Plenary Assembly "addressing their concern for the evolving situation impacting immigrants in the United States." The video embedded above contains one reaction from Fr Robert McTeigue, SJ to an Instagram post featuring some of the bishops drawing attention to the Special Message.

CatholicVote also issued a response to the bishops' message stressing that

"properly speaking, there is no such thing as an official ‘Catholic position’ on the practical details of immigration policy." Instead, it frames individual Catholics’ stances on immigration enforcement as "a matter of prudential political judgment," which it says is "an area of responsibility that belongs properly to Catholic laypersons rather than the bishops."

CatholicVote President Kelsey Reinhardt told Fox News Digital the group "wants to foster a more complete conversation on immigration and give moral standing and freedom of conscience for Catholics and Christians who recognize a need to secure the border and the importance of the rule of law."

One problem I see in the bishops' statement is that it, and some people who support it, frequently refer to migrants in the singular, as in "the migrant", "the sojourner", or "the stranger":

As pastors, we look to Sacred Scripture and the example of the Lord Himself, where we find the wisdom of God’s compassion. The priority of the Lord, as the Prophets remind us, is for those who are most vulnerable: the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger (Zechariah 7:10). In the Lord Jesus, we see the One who became poor for our sake (2 Corinthians 8:9), we see the Good Samaritan who lifts us from the dust (Luke 10:30–37), and we see the One who is found in the least of these (Matthew 25). The Church’s concern for neighbor and our concern here for immigrants is a response to the Lord’s command to love as He has loved us (John 13:34).

I asked Chrome AI mode, "What is the range of estimates for the number of illegal migrants now in the US?" It answered,

Estimates for the number of illegal or unauthorized migrants currently in the United States generally range from approximately 14 million to over 18 million, according to recent reports from various research organizations. The most recent figures are as of mid-2025.

AI being AI, it gave a lowball estimate. In his Butler, PA speech shortly before he was interrupted, Trump gave an estimate of 20 million, while Chrome AI mode itself concludes,

A 2018 study by Yale-affiliated researchers, using a different modeling approach, suggested an even higher possible figure of over 22 million, though this study has been widely critiqued for its methodology.

Differences in these estimates largely stem from varying methodologies, definitions of who counts as "unauthorized," and how effectively different surveys and models account for the population, particularly recent arrivals. Most official estimates are based on U.S. Census Bureau data, which some critics argue has historically undercounted recent unauthorized immigrants.

The problem isn't just "the migrant", "the sojourner", or "the stranger"; the problem is that there are millions of migrants, sojourners, and strangers making enormous claims on community resources. This becomes very noticeable when the migrants, sojourners, and strangers deem it prudent to stay out of view when ICE raids are impending, as the evidence from Charlotte, NC suggests:

OMG. Charlotte, NC teacher says his class of 16 only had 4 students show up amid ICE raids.

The district had over 30,000 kids absent, over 20% of their entire student body.

Schools are not underfunded and understaffed. They’re just full of illegals. pic.twitter.com/oGpMyUwmak

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 19, 2025

In fact, I think we're looking at levels of mass migration equivalent to what Rome faced in the fifth century. I asked Chrome AI mode, "Did inability to control mass migration contribute to the fall of Rome?" It answered,

Yes, many historians agree that the Western Roman Empire's inability to control and effectively manage mass migrations of Germanic and other tribes was a major contributing factor to its collapse. The empire's internal weaknesses, such as political instability, economic troubles, and military overextension, meant it could no longer manage the large influx of people as it had in the past.

But we need to recognize that this was after Rome had converted to Christianity -- specifically, Catholicism. I asked Chrome AI mode, "What effect did the Vandal invasion have on Christian North Africa in the 5th century?" It answered,

The Vandal invasion of Christian North Africa in the 5th century led to the decline of the flourishing Nicene (Catholic) Church in the region, marked by the confiscation of church property, exile of clergy, and intermittent, severe persecution of the Nicene Christian population by the Arian Vandal rulers.

In fact, the Vandal invasion extinguished the entire highly productive North African branch of Christianity, represented by St Augustine of Hippo, who died durng the siege of that city. I asked Chrome AI mode, "Was the Vandal invasion of North Africa an organized invasion or a migration?" It answered,

The Vandal movement into North Africa was a mass migration that was also an organized military invasion. It was not a standing Roman-style army, but a "people in arms" that included their entire society: warriors, women, children, and the elderly.

. . . The Vandals, a Germanic people, had been migrating across Europe for decades, driven by pressures from other groups like the Huns. Their crossing into North Africa in 429 CE was a move to find a new territory to settle permanently after being pressured in Spain by the Visigoths.

. . . The group was led by their effective and cunning King Gaiseric (Genseric), who organized the crossing of an estimated 80,000 people across the Strait of Gibraltar.

This isn't that different from what's been happening in the US: the invasion is partly spontaneous, but partly organized, on one hand by the cartels, who control the border from the Mexican side and in effect sponsor most illegal crossings, but also by NGOs, many of which are funded by the US Catholic bishops, which organize and subsidize large-scale settlement of illegal migrant communities on arrival at designated destinations. How did such large numbers settle in Charlotte, NC, of all places? A quick search found this from the Catholic Charities Diocese of Charlotte:

• Serve over 19,000 clients in Western NC through direct assistance, food pantry, counseling, refugee resettlement, employment services and elder ministry.
• Resettled over 15,000 refugees representing 27 different nationalities over the past 40 years.

To what extent are the bishops themselves creating situations in which migrant populations, large enough to destabilize communities, are encouraged to develop a sense of permanent entitlement? Apparently tens of thousands of migrant children, 20%, are in the Charlotte public schools. Could the Catholic schools in the Diocese of Charlotte accommodate migrant children at 20% of its enrollment at the bishop's expense? Has the bishop made any such offer?

What effect would putting migrant children into the Catholic schools at 20% enrollment have on the schools themselves? How many ESL teachers would they need to hire? What sort of disciplinary problems would they need to deal with? How would the school administrators respond? How would the parents respond? Heck, how would the parish priests respond?

It sounds very much to me as though the bishops are preaching to the public at large to respond to the Lord's command to love others in ways that their own dioceses could not remotely consider -- for instance, by allowing a massive influx of migrant children into their own school systems. But hey, why not set an example for the rest of us? Show us the way forward, bishops!

But the Church has a major example in its own history of how failure to address mass migration has had disastrous effects on its own faithful.

Trump Beats Conventional Wisdom

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse makes a worthwhile, though not a stunnningly insightful, point:

[W]hen AI was launched on the various platforms being used by the larger public, the inputs which frame the AI results are controlled by the same people who built the AI systems. When you engage with AI, you are engaging with a system that only has “approved information” behind it to deliver the outputs.

In other words, if you ask any public AI platform a question about any current topic, you're going to get an answer based on a pre-digested body of conventional wisdom, pretty much the same thing you'd get going to Real Clear Politics. I use Chrome AI mode, which I don't have to pay for, and the answers are worth what I pay for them. ChatGPT and Grok are overpriced and ought to charge nothing. But given public AI's limitations, you can at least get a good take on conventional wisdom. I asked Chrome AI mode, "What was last week's conventional wisdom about Trump's position on the Epstein files?" It answered,

Last week's conventional wisdom regarding Donald Trump's position on the Jeffrey Epstein files was that he was privately attempting to block their release, while publicly calling the entire issue a "Democratic hoax". This was seen as a major point of political vulnerability and a source of tension within his own party.

Key elements of this conventional wisdom included:

• Opposition to Transparency: Trump and his administration were perceived as actively resisting efforts to make the files public, despite his campaign promises to support transparency.
• "Hoax" Narrative: The prevailing White House strategy was to dismiss the entire affair as a politically motivated distraction.
• Political Pressure: There was significant bipartisan pressure, including from some Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie, for the White House to stop blocking the release.
• Impending Reversal: By the end of last week (around November 16, 2025), it became clear that a House vote to compel the release of the files was inevitable.

The conventional wisdom changed dramatically over the weekend as Trump abruptly reversed his stance and publicly called for House Republicans to vote for the release, a move widely interpreted as an attempt to save face and control the political narrative once it was clear the bill would pass anyway.

But what really happened, independent of any abrupt reversal on Trump's part, was that a tranche of releases from the House Oversight Committee last week, completely unrelated to the files in question in Tuesday's House vote, had already begun to damage Democrats.

The first case was Stacey Plaskett, Democrat House delegate from the US Virgin Islands:

In November 2025, newly released documents showed that during Michael Cohen's February 2019 testimony to the House Oversight Committee, Plaskett received and responded to text messages from Epstein before, during, and after her questions. Epstein directed her to question Cohen on Trump's executive assistant, Rhona Graff, and messaged her "Good work" after her questioning concluded.

Although a Republican move to censure her for this failed, it did reinforce the idea that the Epstein files were a net Democrat liability.

The next Epstein victim was former Clinton Treasury Secratary and Harvard president Larry Summers:

Larry Summers said Monday night that he was “deeply ashamed” about his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, telling CNN that he would pause all public engagements as he works to “rebuild trust and repair relationships” — but the Harvard University professor added that he will continue teaching as some call for the university to sever ties with him.

. . . New details of Summers’ relationship with Epstein emerged last week when a House committee released emails showing years of personal correspondence between the two men, including Summers making sexist comments and seeking Epstein’s romantic advice.

The romantic advice concerned his attempts to arrange a romantic weekend with a woman who wasn't his wife, which appears now to have threatened that marriage. The situation in turn has caused Harvard to launch additional new investigations:

The investigation will also examine the roles of other people associated with the university who are implicated in the tens of thousands of pages released by the House Oversight Committee – including Summers’ wife, a professor emerita of American literature at Harvard, and nearly a dozen current and former Harvard affiliates, the paper said.

As of last night, new revelations emerged concerning House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries:

The materials, disclosed by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, included a 2013 email to the disgraced financier—who died by suicide in a New York City jail cell six years later—promoting Jeffries as a rising figure in the party, calling him "Brooklyn's Barack." Comer seized on the outreach in a floor speech and on social media, arguing that the communication amounted to an effort to draw Epstein into Democratic fundraising circles.

. . . The Washington Times first reported on the email exchange Tuesday, emphasizing that Epstein had already been convicted as a sex offender in 2008 and was facing mounting lawsuits by 2013. The documents do not show evidence of Jeffries meeting Epstein or of Epstein donating in response to the solicitation. It is also unclear if Epstein responded to the email.

Meanwhile, the Clintons, who had previously delayed scheduled depositions concerning Epstein with the House Oversight Committee, now appear to be refusing to cooperate at all:

🚨🇺🇸 REP. LUNA ACCUSES CLINTONS OF REFUSING EPSTEIN DEPOSITIONS

“Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to appear before House Oversight for their depositions regarding Jeffrey Epstein.

Notice how House Democrats suddenly have nothing to say about it.”

Source: @RepLuna https://t.co/Si4XEaDpW2 pic.twitter.com/Fqzvm7x5Yw

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) November 17, 2025

At the start of the YouTube video embedded at the top of this post, Mark Halperin points out,

So, the Democrats are convinced that this is a scandal about Donald Trump, that this is gonna finally destroy Donald Trump, that his failure to be for disclosure up until the last minute reflects the fact that he's worried about his relationship with Epstein. . . . Back in 2015, ten years ago, I was covering Donald Trump speaking in Washington to the annual CPAC meeting, and he did an event onstage with Sean Hannity, and in that event, again, think about 2015 where he's thinking about running for president the next year, he knows that Hillary Clinton is likely to run, and . . . he's likely to face her in the general election. In that event, he brings up Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Bill Clinton. Ten years ago.

Halperin goes on to outline his own brief exposure to Epstein during that time, noting that Epstein could be found at pretty much any gathering of the rich and connected in New York -- but he seems to forget that if Epstein was rich and connected, that would always apply even more to Trump. Tidbits are now dropping in releases from the files that I've got to think Trump already knew about ten, a dozen, 15 years ago, whispered to him first hand. Trump must have been aware of what would drop about Summers, the Clintons, Staley, Gates, likely plenty of others, from the time the events took place.

So why did he resist releasing the documents? On one hand, he likely felt that the various tidbits weren't all that important -- the Summers business would mostly threaten Summers's marriage, something Trump probably felt wasn't worth the trouble. Anything about Clinton might potentially be of use, but it would be about Bill, not Hillary, and he wound up not using it.

On balance, it's pretty clear that Trump thought Epstein stuff didn't affect him, that it would hurt other people unnecessarily, and it was a distraction from his overall success. But if the Democrats and never-Trumpers want it so badly, hey, let them have it. It's not as though any of it affects him -- and nobody can now accuse him of ordering its release in any case.

It's a major error to underestimate Trump. I've sometimes pointed out here concerning Trump that it's better to be lucky than good -- but that doesn't mean Trump isn't often just good.

Was Thomas Crooks A Trans-Obsessed Furry?

It has now been confirmed that attempted Trump assassin Thomas Crooks used they/them pronouns, had a deep interest in furries, and was exploring gender identity.

Add it to the list:

- Charlie Kirk’s assassin Tyler Robinson had a furry obsession and lived with transgender… pic.twitter.com/JyAK9qO8ix

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 17, 2025

The idea that Thomas Crooks, the Butler, PA shooter, was trans isn't new. Just as I started a web search, Google AI hastened to set me straight:

The person identified by the FBI as the shooter in the July 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump was Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old cisgender man who was a registered Republican.

Following the shooting, a false online conspiracy theory spread rapidly, claiming the shooter was transgender. This was based on a misidentification using a photo of an unrelated transgender woman named Rose, an artist who was falsely targeted in the smear campaign. Fact-checking organizations, including Reuters and AFP, have confirmed that the claims identifying the shooter as trans are false.

I'm sure glad that's settled, huh? Thank goodness for fact-checking organizations! But now, more than a year later, we have Trump shooter Thomas Crooks's disturbing trans 'furry' fantasies revealed:

Donald Trump's would-be assassin appears to have used 'they/them' pronouns on a website known for hosting pornographic 'furry' material.

Thomas Crooks, who shot Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, at the height of the presidential campaign in 2024, is linked to the accounts 'epicmicrowave' and 'theepicmicrowave' on the website DeviantArt.

The website hosts sexually explicit images of 'furries' - human-like animal characters.

The accounts linked to Crooks used 'they/them' pronouns used by the transgender community and his activity suggested an interest in cartoon characters with ripped male physiques and female heads.

It comes amid renewed scrutiny on Crooks after Tucker Carlson carried out a forensic examination of his online footprint, including his violent statements, as well as his political journey from Trump supporter to rabid leftist.

Prior to Tucker's reporting, very little was known about Crooks, to the extent that the FBI was accused of a cover-up, which has fueled various conspiracy theories - including that the shooter may have been backed by a foreign government.

According to the New York Post,

[FBI Director Christopher] Wray’s deputy Paul Abbate told Congress that comments posted on one of Crooks’ social media accounts “appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature.”

Thanks to an enterprising source who uncovered Crooks’ hidden digital footprint, we can see that Abbate misled Congress by omission, because he left out an entire section of Crooks’ online interactions from January to August 2020 when he did an ideological backflip and went from rabidly pro-Trump to rabidly anti-Trump and then went dark, never seeming to post again.Thanks to an enterprising source who uncovered Crooks’ hidden digital footprint, we can see that Abbate misled Congress by omission, because he left out an entire section of Crooks’ online interactions from January to August 2020 when he did an ideological backflip and went from rabidly pro-Trump to rabidly anti-Trump and then went dark, never seeming to post again.

Among the 17 accounts uncovered by our source were ones on YouTube, Snapchat, Venmo, Zelle, GroupMe, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com and Quora.

The online interactions from when Crooks was ages 15 to 17 give us a better understanding of his evolution into an assassin, and invite more questions about what — or who — reversed his ideology.

The problem appears to be that you can pick and choose pretty much anything Crooks posted as an adolescent and prove he was anywhere on the polirical and psychological spectrum -- as you can with any adolescent -- but then you have to add that he went completely silent at age 17, three years before he did the shooting. Here's also a CBS News investigation from this past July, before the latest story broke:

His habits started to rapidly shift that fall [2023]. To his professors, he still appeared focused on getting straight A's and preparing to apply to the engineering programs at the University of Pittsburgh and Robert Morris University. But his online activity suggests his attention was elsewhere. He began to more frequently use an encrypted email service called Mailfence and a virtual private network called Mullvad. Both would shield his online life from anyone who might pry.

An analysis by CBS News of Crooks' internet routines shows he developed an increasing interest in news, explosives and ammo, and secrecy. The records include nearly a year of Crooks' activity on his college's wireless internet network. They show hundreds of visits to websites ranging from his academic email account and discussion boards, to his bank, news sites, gaming platforms, social media, weapons blogs and Steelers fan sites.

Logs of Crooks' on-campus internet activity, which CBS News obtained through a public records request, indicate that in the last months of his life, he became increasingly rigid about secrecy, shrouding his activities through encrypted services.

. . . In December 2023, a month before Crooks' final semester started, his life began to split in two. He was focused on his college applications, and at the same time fixated on mass violence. One day, he emailed himself to review his personal statement for his application; on another, he emailed customer service to complain that the explosive fuel he ordered had not yet shipped. Investigators later concluded he would have been able to engineer bombs in his bedroom without his parents knowing.

Around this time, some in Crooks' life did notice erratic behavior.

. . . "Crooks' father explained that within the last year he observed several instances of his son dancing in his bedroom throughout the night," a Pennsylvania investigator wrote. "He would occasionally see Crooks talking to himself with his hands moving, which he expressed as uncommon and had become more prevalent after he had finished his last semester."

But according to the Post story, he'd already gone dark in 2020; his 2023 secrecy was nothing new, and the CBS story indicates that he'd been solitary and unsocial all his life. He was teased and bullied about his body odor. Some of these characteristics might be consistent with the onset of schizophrenia in late adolescence or early adulthood, but not necessarily.

On the other hand, much of the story suggests that, although he was secretive in his habits, he was disorganized: he took homemade bombs with him in his car, along with remote detonators, but he doesn't seem to have had a fully developed plan to detonate them once he arrived at the Butler site. He doesn't seem to have been able to interact especially well with others, which would make him a poor co-conspirator. All of these qualities made him similar to Lee Harvey Oswald, to the extent that the Soviets never took Oswald seriously as a potential agent.

Does the FBI still have competent profilers? Maybe we should be hearing from them. The bottom line is that we still don't know enough about Crooks, and posts he may have made at 16 don't tell us much about him at 20. But so far, nothing indicates to me that he didn't work alone.

The Epstein Files???

Just this morning, via Time Magazine:

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky went against the most powerful leaders of his party to push forward with a vote to release more Jeffrey Epstein investigation files.

Except that last night,

President Donald Trump called for House Republicans to take a “vote to release” files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, explaining that it is time for the nation “to move on from this Democrat Hoax.”

. . . “As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown,'” Trump said in his post.

According to Wikipedia,

The term "Epstein files" refers to documents collected as evidence in the criminal cases against Epstein and his associates, stored as over 300 gigabytes of data, plus other media, in the FBI's case management system. They include his contacts book, flight logs of his planes, and court documents; some have been publicly released in redacted form. For example, court documents and flight logs have contained various prominent individuals as having traveled with Epstein, or been in contact with him.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "Why is there such a widespread expectation that the Epstein files will contain dirt on trump?" It answered,

The widespread expectation that the Jeffrey Epstein files would contain incriminating information ("dirt") on Donald Trump stemmed primarily from two factors: their past personal association and years of speculation and political maneuvering by figures on both sides.

Surprisingly, it added farther down, under "Reality of the Files",

The actual released documents contain mentions of Trump but no direct evidence has emerged of his participation in any illicit activity. The emails released are hearsay, and testimony from an ex-butler and the victim Virginia Giuffre in a 2016 deposition indicated Trump was a visitor for dinner but never stayed overnight, got a massage from Epstein's victims, or was seen in an inappropriate setting. The expectation of "dirt" largely stemmed from the combination of their past social ties, an absence of full transparency, and years of political posturing and conspiracy theories, rather than confirmed facts of wrongdoing in the files.

So I went on to ask, "Can you name which public figures have actually had their reputations damaged by association with Jeffrey Epstein?" It answered,

The most significant and publicly documented cases of reputational damage and professional consequences due to association with Jeffrey Epstein are those of Prince Andrew, Alexander Acosta, and Jes Staley.

OK, we know all about the former HRH Prince Andrew, now known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Jes Staley resigned as the CEO of Barclays Bank in 2021 after allegations that he concealed his relationship with Epstein from UK bank regulators. Acosta is in a different category; he never cavorted with Epstein's nymphets, but he succumbed to political pressure while a US Attorney to give Epstein favorable treatment in negotiating his 2008 non-prosecution agreement.

But then Chrome AI notes,

While many other prominent names, including . . . Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and various celebrities, appear in contact lists, flight logs, and court documents, they have largely avoided the career-ending fallout experienced by the figures above. The presence of their names in records does not automatically imply involvement in wrongdoing, and they have denied any knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

In fact, of the numerous figures mentioned for one reason or another in the "Epstein files", very few have had their reputations seriously damaged simply as a result of being named in the files. The idea of "Epstein files" in itself appears to be a product of Epstein's own self-promotion as a highly connected, highly influential individual, which in turn appears to have been a cover story invented to explain the mysterious origin of his fortune, which was probably acquired largely through embezzlement of Leslie Wexner's money.

Since Trump's return to the White House, a few people, briefly including Elon Musk, have tried to hitchhike on Trump's prestige by claiming they somehow know enough about the "Epstein files" to bring Trump down a la now-Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. Musk seems to have recognized almost immediately that this was a bad strategy and quickly dropped it. Reps Massie and Taylor Greene seem to be more obtuse. It's a bad strategy in general to try to base your career on underestimating Trump.

Bp Strickland Provokes A Silence In Baltimore

Via The Catholic Herald:

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops was briefly unsettled this week when Bishop Joseph Strickland intervened against Fr James Martin over a recent confirmation liturgy involving an openly “married” homosexual couple.

The exchange occurred during the Committee on Doctrine’s consideration of Action Item #03, which concerns updated Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.

Bishop Strickland spoke briefly and drew attention to images widely circulated online of a recent liturgy involving a well-known American broadcaster. “Since we’re in the area of doctrine,” he said, “I don’t know how many of us have seen on social media, priests and others gathered celebrating the confirmation of a man living with a man openly. And it just needs to be addressed.”

Bishop Strickland continued, stating, “Father James Martin once again involved. Great pictures of all of them smiling. Here we are talking about doctrine. I just thought I need to raise that issue. I know it’s not part of any agenda, but this body gathered, we need to address it. Thank you.”

At about 6:00 in the video embedded above, he comments,

I said a few words, spoke for maybe 30 seconds, not very long, and then the rest of the clip [from the session] was total silence, until, I guess, the bishops said, that were leading the meeting, sort of recovered from my interruption, and just told the bishop that was there at the podium, "Oh, Bishop, continue with your presentation." It was like I didn't exist, and the words that I'd spoken were not heard. It was just sort of a blip in the broadcast.

On one hand, the Baltimore bishops are generally seen to have taken conservative steps in electing Abp Coakley as president, as well as formally adopting a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender patients in Catholic hospitals. On the other, Bp Strickland's simple request that the meeting address the question of Fr James Martin endorsing communion for individuals in a state of mortal sin provoked a stunned silence, a "does not compute".

The request, of course, is hardly as simple as Strickland made it seem. Pope Leo granted a private audience to Fr Martin this past September 1, which is taken as a signal that Leo intends to continue Francis's legacy of "openness and welcome" toward the LGBTQ+ community. It's hard not to imagine the thoughts that were racing through the bishops' heads in the ensuing silence.

Thus places Bp Strickland in the position of truthteller, a Huckleberry Finn, a James Dean playing Caleb Trask in East of Eden, a Holden Caulfield, even a Froggy Gremlin.

Froggy the Gremlin was a character created by Smilin' Ed McConnell and brought to radio in the 1940s and television in 1950s on the Smilin' Ed's Gang show, and later Andy's Gang TV show, hosted by actor Andy Devine after McConnell's death.

. . . Froggy was a troublemaker. Disrespectful of adult authority figures, Froggy played practical jokes and disrupted the presentations of other guests. If a guest were to demonstrate how to paint a wall, he might say, "And now I'm going to take this can of paint..." Froggy would chime in, "And dump it over my head." And the confused guest would proceed to do so.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "Are there any Catholic saints who resemble Froggy the Gremlin in certain ways?" It replied,

There is no Catholic saint who physically resembles Froggy the Gremlin or has an appearance based on an amphibian. Froggy the Gremlin is an American fictional character from mid-20th century children's television, and the Catholic Church does not have saints with a physical description or iconography matching a green, mischievous, frog-like creature.

So there you have it. Bp Strickland is neither a frog nor a saint, nor is any case for his canonization likely to be taken up in any foreseeable future. Nevertheless, I wondered exactly why he was removed as a bishop, and I discovered that nobody really knows.

In an online interview given several hours after his dismissal, Strickland stated that he was uncertain of the exact reason he was removed from office, "except I've threatened some of the powers that be with the truth of the Gospel".

But it appears that he's been on point over a good many issues, including of all things, COVID:

In May 2020, Strickland signed a petition released by [Abp Carlo Maria] Viganò that criticized government restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Viganò characterized them as intentionally "...creating panic among the world's population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms." The petition singled out the use of contact tracing devices as well as mandatory vaccination as infringements on people's rights. It also cited "growing doubts ... about the actual contagiousness, danger, and resistance of the virus."

In a December 2020 letter to his diocese regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, Strickland wrote "I urge you to reject any vaccine that uses the remains of aborted children." He later tweeted, "The fact remains that ANY vaccine available today involves using murdered children before they could even be born." Strickland added, "I renew my pledge — I will not extend my life by USING murdered children. This is evil WAKE UP!"

I can only conclude that I haven't been praying fervently enough for our bishops.

Biden showered half a billion dollars on @USCCB for resettling his foreign invasion force.

Trump took office and stopped it, and now @USCCB is doing a PR campaign condemning Trump’s immigration policies.

We all know what’s happening here. https://t.co/V1KwTEfkZa

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) November 14, 2025

Yesterday,

As The New York Times reported, the United States’ Conference of Bishops sharply rebuked the Trump Administration over its mass deportation policy of illegals during the bishops’ annual conference in Baltimore.

In a statement, the bishops slammed the Trump Administration for creating “a climate of fear,” vilifying illegals, and not granting lawbreakers access to pastoral care.

. . . The statement overwhelmingly passed, with 216 anonymous votes in favor. Five bishops voted no, and three abstained.

I asked Chrome AI mnode, "What are major catholic NGOs that support migrants, and has the trump administration withdrawn funding?" It replied,

Major Catholic NGOs that support migrants include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Catholic Charities USA, and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). Following funding freezes and policy changes by the Trump administration in 2025, the USCCB ended its partnerships with the federal government for refugee and children's aid programs, and Catholic Charities agencies experienced layoffs and program cuts.

Major Catholic NGOs supporting migrants

• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): Through its Migration and Refugee Services, the USCCB has historically been a major partner with the federal government in refugee resettlement. They also operate the "You Are Not Alone" initiative to provide support to migrants.
• Catholic Charities USA: Local Catholic Charities agencies across the U.S. provide direct services to migrants, including food, housing, legal aid, and resettlement assistance.
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS): CRS provides humanitarian aid to migrants and refugees internationally, particularly throughout Latin America, offering aid beyond the U.S. border.
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC): CLINIC provides legal support to immigrants in need.

These were just the first entrries in a long list. It also linked to several news stories, including this from The Washington Post last April:

Citing “drastic” government funding cuts, U.S. Catholic bishops Monday said they’re ending a century-old program of resettling refugees fleeing war or persecution.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, the largest refugee resettlement agency in the world, will also end its support of undocumented children who come into the United States.

I askexd Chrome AI mode, "What is the total amount of funding the US Catholic resettlement NGOs have lost in the Trump funding cuts?" It replied,

A precise, single figure for the total amount of funding lost by all U.S. Catholic resettlement NGOs due to the Trump administration's cuts is not publicly available, as the impact was fragmented across numerous local agencies and programs. However, reports indicate widespread and substantial losses, with specific agencies losing millions of dollars and a large portion of their budgets.

Howevef, this site carries a lengthy breakdown of grants and amounts to the USCCB alone under the Biden administration, including

• $138 million for refugee reception and placement services, with $38.4 million specifically for evacuated Afghan refugees
• $110 million for the “Preferred Communities Program” (refugee aid program established in the 1990’s by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, includes one year of comprehensive assistance
• $48.8 million for USCCB’s Unaccompanied Alien Children program
• $66.1 million for general post-resettlement refugee assistance

In other words, the USCCB isn't necessarily addressing this issue from a disinterested moral perspective. But various statements from the USCCB, some individual bishops, and even the Holy Father consistently fail to mention CCC 2241:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

It appears that over the course of this year in particular, a consensus has emerged in the UK, Europe, the US, and Canada that the level of migration has now exceeded the ability of the prosperous nations to accommodate it without serious social disruption. In the US, programs from the USCCB and Catholic Charities were identified last year as enabling problems in places like Springfield, OH and Charleroi, PA that included migrants being able to drive unregistered cars without licenses or insurance, resulting in accidents, injuries, fatalities, and insurance rate increases for law-abiding citizens.

These issues affected the 2024 presidential election, which led directly to the Trump administration cutting the funding to the programs that created a situation in which Catholic NGOs were seen as enabling migrants to disobey laws and avoid carrying civic burdens. And it's a Catholic principle that citizens should participate in public decisionmaking through voting. As Border Czar Homan put it in response to the USCCB statement in the first link above,

So, according to them, the message we should send to the whole world is that if you cross the border illegally, which is a crime, don’t worry about it.

If you get ordered to be removed by a federal judge after due process, don’t worry about it because there shouldn’t be mass deportations.

In 2024, the US electorate made it plain that the level of immigration had exceeded the point where the country was able to accommodate it. This was one of the top issues in the election. The voters insisted that the political authorities enforce existing juridical conditions surrounding the right to immigrate.

It intrigues me that the USCCB vote was anonymous. And due to its near unanimity, I suspect that some centrist-to-conservative bishops like Bp Barron voted for it, but they would probably be unwilling to defend their votes publicly if forced to do so. But that brings me to another question: given a similar anonymous vote on whether the bishops support CCC 1994, which says in part,

[T]radition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

would there be the same level of near-unanimity in support? I can't disagree with Border Czar Homan who urges the bishops to turn their attention to fixing the Catholic Church.

One FBI, Two Stories

Let me start by saying I don't think "gait analysis" had much to do with identifying either Osama bin Laden or alleged J6 pipe bomber Shauni Kerkhoff. I'm sure there is such a thing as "gait analysis", but I don't think it's used independently without a lot of other pointers, and something else, including human sources, put investigators on the track in both cases. In fact, I think "gait analysis" is being used here mostly as a cover to protect human informants.

Next, the basic investigative tool these days is camera footage. Cameras are everywhere, something the putative bomber apparently neglected to keep in mind on her bomb planting expedition, even though she was allegedly in law enforcement. If there was so much footage of her as she circumnavigated Capitol Hill for nearly an hour on January 5, 2021 -- this is beyond dispute -- investigators must have other footage of her entering and leaving the area in that distinctive outfit. Either she drove in and parked a car nearby, or someone dropped her off, or she took a bus or the Metro. Cameras would confirm or dismiss every possibility.

Law enforcement, either Metro PD or the FBI, would have resources scouring camera footage covering every possibility in the applicable timeframe, especially given her highly distinctive outfit. I can only assume there's relevant footage that hasn't been released.

Now we get to the question of a Metro card that was traced to one of the stations in Falls Church (there are two, East Falls Church and West Falls Church, but I'll refer to them colletively as just "Falls Church"). I can only assume this was traced by reviewing video of the distinctive figure's path from Capitol Hill to a downtown Metro station, possibly Capitol South, which would put her on either the Orange or Silver Lines to Falls Church, where camera footage would show her getting off the train.

Her use of a Metro card to ride the train would have been noted, and the electronic record of its use would have been traced to the time she was recorded on camera in the station. Thus we get to the specific card that was used, apparently purchased by credit card, so that the purchaser of the card could be identified. Thus we somehow got to Ms Kerkhoff's next door neighbor, who had in fact bought the card a year earlier.

At this point, I need to point out that this is a version of events constructed entirely from the Blaze Media account identifying Ms Kerkhoff. The advantage of this version is that it conforms to the surmise a person generally informed about law envorcement methods might make about how the suspect's path was traced. But as I say, I don't believe "gait analysis" had much to do with it, and I suspect that in general, the FBI knows more than it has released, while I also suspect FBI sources were involved in developing the Blaze Media version of events.

But on November 1, before the Blaze story broke, I noted that there are two conflicting versions of how the bombs were planted, and this continues to be the case. The other version simply discounts the role of the 5'7" figure in hoodie and face mask, whoever this may be, and insists there must be some entirely different explanation, although the alternate hypothesis is never very clearly outlined. The most recent iteration of this is from Julie Kelly on X:

I spoke this morning with the individual believed to be “Person of Interest 3” (POI3) in the FBI’s original pipe bomb investigation related to January 6.

I will not name this individual to protect his privacy since he just found out today (by me) that he had been under FBI…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 12, 2025

The person she identifies appears to be consiatent with the "next door neighbor" (identified as POI3) who provided his spare Metro card either to Ms Kerkhoff (the Blaze Media version) or an old friend from out of town, POI2 in the Julie Kelly version. Kelly quotes the neighbor, POI3, whom she describes as a 66-year-old man currently employed by the Air Force:

I have a friend who came up for the January 6 Stop the Steal protest, he lives out of state. . . . he’s very Republican, very pro-Trump person.

. . . He came up a day before or a couple days before the January 6 date and I took him to the Metro. . . .I let him borrow my Metro card. I have an extra Metro card, I have one that I use to ride the Metro every day and one that I keep [as] my personal thing.

. . . So he went downtown the day prior to January 6 and he was downtown on January 6. I know he was doing some type of journaling for this event. I know he posted some stuff on Facebook. He was keeping a log telling everybody about all the events and activities that took place.

. . . And then I think on the 7th of January, I took him back to Dulles to catch his flight.

. . . All I can say is there’s two people involved in this that I know--my friend who I went to elementary school and high school together who asked for a favor to let him stay at my house during the January 6 rally.

As it relates to this lady, this policeman, other than her living next door to me, I have no involvement with her in any way shape or form. It was my understanding they worked for the Metropolitan Police Department, that’s all I know and they were not here that long.

A subsequent post from Rep Barry Loudermilk, chairman of the current House January 6 committee, confirms this version from FBI files:

This information fills in some of the blanks the previous administration refused to provide about the pipe bomb investigation.

Thank you @fbi and @FBIDDBongino for your quick and transparent response and continued partnership in getting to the truth on these issues. pic.twitter.com/LM5UDRvavo

— Rep. Barry Loudermilk (@RepLoudermilk) November 13, 2025

This overall version is reported separately in a Daily Wire story from Wednesday. In a November 12 update to its November 8 story, The Blaze reported,

Kerkhoff has not been charged with any criminal conduct by any law enforcement agency in connection with the pipe-bomb incident.

After publication, Steve Bunnell, who the Washington Post identified as an attorney for Kerkhoff, told the Post his client "categorically denies" that she planted the pipe bombs.

So we finally have what we hoped to see, an attorney hired by Ms Kerkhoff making a categorical denial, for whatever it's worth. On the other hand, at the same link,

The Biden FBI is guilty of “gross misconduct and/or fraud” for calling off surveillance of an early person of interest in the Jan. 6 pipe-bomb case, an FBI whistleblower alleges in a letter to Congress. The letter refers to events that occurred nearly five years before Blaze News disclosed that the surveillance subject lived next door to a Capitol Police officer who is now a potential forensic match to the gait of the bomb suspect.

. . . Attorney Kurt Siuzdak of Madison, Conn., filed a 10-page protected disclosure on behalf of his client, the whistleblower, with Massie and U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), among the most active lawmakers still investigating Jan. 6 and its aftermath. Loudermilk is the chairman of the House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the Remaining Questions Surrounding Jan. 6.

. . . “The ‘neighbor’ identified below [in the whistleblower complaint] lived within feet of [Person of Interest 3] and she appears to be the same individual as investigative reporter Steve Baker identified as a former U.S. Capital [sic] Police officer, who is currently associated with a U.S. intelligence agency,” Siuzdak wrote.

. . . The new whistleblower said the female next-door neighbor of the man being surveilled was photographed by FBI agents.

“The ‘neighbor’ had been photographed by the FBI surveillance team, and her photograph and attire are similar to the individual who [allegedly] placed the devices,” Siuzdak said.

So this "whistleblower" is said to be a current FBI supervisor who must be presumed to have inside knowledge -- and his version, published by Blaze Media, appears to support Blaze Media. At this point, we seem to be getting two separate stories on the pipe bomber, both apparently emanating from sources within the FBI itself, neither confirmed, and with no defnititive comment from FBI leadership.

I wish I knew what J Edgar Hoover would do with this.