Lies Dressed as Journalism

Does the truth matter? Of course, it does, folks. Then why aren't people living that way? Why aren't people reasoning that way? Why are people thinking with their emotions?

I'm gonna talk about two specific things or at the very least one specific thing. Let's see if I have time to get to the second. Talking about a story from LifeSite News about, Pope Leo having appointed an LGBT a pro LGBT archbishop as the secretary for the dicastery of clergy. Can you believe it? Can you believe pope Leo would do would do such a thing as to appoint a pro LGBTQPQRST archbishop as secretary for the dicastery of clergy.

Oh my god. So scandalous. Can you believe it? You better not believe it. Because if it's coming out of LifeSite News, you can bet it's unbelievable because it's untrue.

And I'm going to break down for you why it's untrue, not necessarily as an indictment of LifeSite News and not even to defend the archbishop, which we'll talk about what that story is behind. I'm talking about this because I want you to understand that there are people who swear to god that they are aligned with the truth, and they want nothing to do with it at all. Yes. Even in the Catholic world. And then I'm gonna explain why that's so similar, what we find in the Catholic world, why it's so similar to what we're seeing in secular liberal circles.

Again, I am TJ Haynes. Thank you very much for joining me. This is January 23 in the year of our lord 2026, and I say thank you, Catholic church. Mister producer, please bring that music to a nice, slow buttery fade. Yes.

This really gets under my skin. Let's go right into it. The LifeSite News propaganda machine always churning out high fiction. Great journalism if great journalism means I know exactly how to format this story so that what actually happened looks like something completely different. Well, you have to be a great journalist to pull off that trick because there are specific things that you do in journalism to keep a story accurate, clear, and truthful.

There's a difference between factual and truthful Because the truth I'm sorry. The facts don't always tell the truth. It depends on what you do with them. And a well trained journalist knows how to make that happen, knows the different knobs and levers and switches and buttons, knows the components of written editorial, and knows how to how to execute those components, leverage those components to make a story accurate, clear, factual, and truthful. Which means when you know how to do that, you know how to do the reverse.

How to modify a story so that it tells a different story from what the facts suggest. Now, let me go through how this started. So yesterday I don't know why. I don't know why LifeSci News stuff keeps popping up on my Twitter feed, but it does. And yesterday I saw this.

I know you don't have the visual. That's alright because I don't want you to vomit, so I'm glad you can't see the visual. They did two posts. Now as I'm talking, I'm gonna have to try and find the second one because now I only have the first one. But the first post that I saw says, breaking.

Pope Leo appoints pro LGBT archbishop as secretary for the dicastery for clergy. Now, full disclosure, I did not read this story because I don't wanna give them any traffic. Okay? So if I'm and and I and I want to be honest about that. If if I were really being thorough, would have read the story and deconstructed the story, but I've done that so many times.

I'm just so over it, you know, deconstructing their stories, and I'm just going straight to the post. Just give me a second here, folks. This one was one of the one of the posts that I saw, which I think is the strongest. So let me start there. Again, from this is from LifeSite News', Twitter feed.

Breaking. Pope Leo appoints pro LGBT archbishop Carlo Roberto Rendali known for refusing to condemn homosexual marriage. Let me repeat that, but I'm gonna shorten this ridiculously long name. Pope Leo appoints pro LGBT archbishop known for refusing to condemn homosexual marriage. Well, that's pretty strong.

And if you're not seeing the visual, let me just describe this. It's accompanied by a picture or really two pictures in the one graphic. On the left, have Pope Leo who looks a little timid, almost ashamed. It's not a good look for him. There's a gay flag in the background, and then behind the gay flag is, the Vatican.

Obviously, is photoshopped. I don't think they're trying to pass it off as an authentic picture, like someone took a selfie and there was a gay flag there. It's photoshopped, but they're saying something with that image. The timid looking Pope Francis, oh, I'm sorry, Pope Leo, and he looks a little embarrassed and ashamed or undecisive, And behind him is a gay flag and behind the gay flag is the Vatican. They're saying something with the construction of that image.

And then on the other side of the image is an image of archbishop Carlo Roberto LMNOP. And the picture of the archbishop, he does not look good. It looks like a a still image from an interview, from a video or something, and he looks a little, I don't know, sinister. I say that because my first reaction when this popped up on my screen was not the copy, it was the picture of this priest. I didn't know for that second that I saw it, I didn't know it was an archbishop, but he he's in clerics, so I just see him as a priest.

He looks a little sinister. Right? And then Pope Leo looks, you know, kind of afraid and timid and whatnot. And then the copy. Pope Leo points pro LGBT archbishop known for refusing to condemn homosexual marriage. And then I put the two together, I'm like, yeah, he looks like the type. That was my instant reaction to that. Yeah, he looks like the type. And then I saw that it came from LifeSide News. And I said, okay.

Well, here we go. Here we go. Now my next thought went something like this. Well, there's this is probably true because that's that's a damn crazy thing to say in a post if it's not true. So it's probably mostly true, but there's probably something untrue about it.

Let me do some fact checking on this archbishop, and I'll find out for myself. Well, what I discovered is that there's no truth to the post at all. I wanna say again, I did not read the article that they wrote. I wanna make that very clear. I'm basing my judgment on two posts to Twitter slash X.

Alright. Now let's get to the one that I originally was going to start with. So that was an image and and a post on X. This second one is the posting of the article itself. And again, it's not too different.

It says breaking Pope Leo points, pro LGBT archbishop as secretary for the dicastery of clergy. So it says less. But the first thing they posted said who refused to condemn homosexual marriage or something to that effect. That was the first thing they posted. The second thing, as far as I can tell, the second thing they posted said a little bit less.

Okay, fine. But that first one is awfully damning, isn't it? Really damning. Paul Bleo points pro LGDIA, yeah, yeah, who who refuse to condemn homosexual marriage. Well, let me tell you what the facts are.

And I'm gonna this so this flows, I'm going to read basically what I posted to Twitter in response to this. So if it sounds like I'm reading a script, it's because I am. Just so that this flow is a little bit better, and I'm not doing a whole lot of uhs and ums. Alright. So let me outline the facts for you.

Again, the allegation is Pope Leo appoints this pro gay, pro LGBT archbishop who refused to condemn homosexual marriage. What image does that put in in your mind? It almost sounds like he's an advocate for, I don't know. I don't know what you would call it. I wouldn't call it a gay ideology, but an advocate for gay stuff.

Right? It almost makes it sound like that. It also puts this idea, this image in your head that he specifically said there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. Doesn't it put that idea in your head who refused to condemn homosexual marriage? Doesn't it put that idea in your head that he's that he's basically the other James Martin?

Right? Okay. Let's look at what the facts are. And I want you to know too, I did some pretty thorough searching, and I have zero, zero evidence that there is any pro LGBT advocacy from this archbishop. There's no evidence of that, and there's no evidence that he said anything contrary.

Not only did he not say anything contrary to the church's teaching on marriage, he didn't say anything positive or affirming or supportive of, same sex unions. I have found no evidence of that. Let's get to the facts. Why is is LifeSite News saying this then? Here's the facts.

In 2017, a local leader of the Catholic scouts entered a civil same sex union. Parish priest, Father Francesco publicly asked this guy whose last name is D, D I, but I'm just, I'm just gonna kind of replace that because that's like a ridiculous thing to say. So Father Francesco, the parish priest asked the guy who entered into the same sex civil union, asked him to step down as scout leader. Makes sense. Right?

Parishioners and clergy looked to archbishop Carlo Maria Rendeli to resolve the situation with many of them expecting a clear decision removing the scout leader from leadership. Let me pause there. This is not a clean-cut situation or scenario because you're talking about the scouts. That's a separate organization. This is not a matter of a clown mass or illicit sacraments or priest abuse situation.

This is nothing like that. A local ordinary, as far as I know, and if you know better, please drop a comment because I'm always willing to listen and I'm always willing to be corrected. A local bishop doesn't have a whole lot of of legal or canonical power to step in and, for instance, fire a parish employee. Yeah. Mean, he just doesn't.

It's parish governance. So that's the first thing you have to have in your mind. Okay? That the local ordinary in a situation like this doesn't he has some power, but he does not have anywhere near the amount of power, legal or canonical, that people think. And again, if you know better, that's fine.

I'm open to correction. So please feel free to correct me, but don't correct me with your opinion. If you're correcting me with law or canon law, please cite the the law you're that you're basing this on. Okay? But I'm definitely open to being corrected.

So the local ordinary doesn't have a whole lot of power here. What's the situation we have then? A scout leader entered into a same sex civil union. The pastor at the parish asked the guy to step down. There was another priest there who was supporting him and encouraged the guy not to step down.

So there's a lot of drama here in this soup bowl. A whole lot of drama going on. At a point, and this did not happen immediately, at a point, people were asking the archbishop to step in and to do something about this. Now, let's go to the to bishop I think he was a bishop then. I can't remember.

Anyway, let's go to his response. Okay. What was his response or his reaction to this, the archbishop Rendelli? The archbishop issued a long pastoral letter on the case saying that he had deliberately avoided immediately immediate public intervention to reduce media amplification. So basically he took a little time, I think it was a month or two, before he finally responded to this.

Now folks, as you hear this, you're going to hear things that you're like, that's not good. He shouldn't have done that. Or he should have done something else. That's fine. That's okay. We'll get to that. But that's not important right now. Okay? Your judgment or assessment of of what the archbishop did or didn't do, that's okay, but don't don't go there yet. We'll go there later.

Let's keep our eyes on the facts. Okay? So he took a month or two to respond. And then when he finally did, the archbishop issued a long pastoral letter on the case saying he had deliberately avoided immediate, so this is why he delayed, He deliberately avoided immediate public intervention to reduce media amplification. I have to tell you that's very believable because that is very Catholic church.

That is in the church, you're really supposed to do things quietly, which is biblical. You're supposed to do things quietly. When there's a lot of media surrounding something that, again, it's the scouts, it's the pastor asking the guy to step down, it's a gay civil union, so you know the media's gonna be all over that. And then it's the pastor versus, I guess, his associate priest, the associate who's at the the other priest who's at the parish. So a lot of media attention going on here.

Right? So the archbishop waited until the media frenzy cooled down a little bit. Let's continue. The archbishop called for discernment and patience inviting the priests, the scouts, and lay leaders to a shared reflection on how to handle the situation and to seek any aspects of grace that might be present even in a divisive event. Now, he's basically telling the two priests, the scouts, and the and, the scout leader, figure it out peacefully, prayerfully, but I'm not going to intervene here.

You guys have to figure it out. Was that the best way to handle it? I'm on the outside looking in, so I'm not in the situation. From my perspective, on the outside looking in, I think the bishop should have done more than that. Maybe encouraged the guy to step down himself, like, you know, privately, really as a priest to a lay person.

Encouraged the guy to step down or I I I don't know. I don't know what he could have. Or made a public statement saying, you know, the thing is, when you're a lay leader in a Catholic parish, you have to be living what you claim to believe. In this case, Mr. D is not doing that.

And so it is appropriate to step down. If he really cares about these kids, and if he really cares about the church, that is what I would expect him to do is to step down. I think the archbishop should have done at least that, but in a situation that this that's this heated and this layered, sometimes even that can be a little problematic. Not from my perspective, but from the perspective of of some bishops. They don't even they don't want to touch a hot potato that's really that hot.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, don't think it's a good thing. I'm just telling you how it is. Okay? Let's continue. So he calls for discernment. He asked all the parties to figure it out on their own. So he did not support this gay civil union, and he also did not condemn it. Why? Let's ask him.

Why did you need the support nor condemn it? He explicitly refused the role of judge. He refused the role of judge, choosing neither to issue a formal condemnation nor to offer what I wrote here was absolution an absolution of the situation. Okay. I I think that's enough.

There there are other points. I have, like, five or six other points, but here's here's what I'm trying to say. Those are the facts. What you do not have is LGBT advocacy. What you do not have is an archbishop being asked about gay marriage and refusing to condemn it.

That's not what you have here. What you have here is a very complicated situation at a parish. And and I'll say also, probably the archbishop got involved more than what what we're seeing. Right? He probably had a lot of conversations with the pastor, probably had a lot of conversations with the other priest.

We don't know what happened behind closed doors, folks. But all we can do is judge what we see. And what we see is not an archbishop who refused to condemn homosexual marriage. Because what again, what image does that put in your head? He refuses to condemn it because he supports it.

That's the image it puts in your head. But is that what the facts tell you? That is not what the facts tell you. What the facts tell you is that he refused to get involved in a situation of a parish employee who entered into a same sex civil union. That's really what happened.

This is really not about the gay marriage or the gay civil union. That's not what this situation is about at all. This is about a private volunteer who is supposed to be living what he believes and then did something contrary to that. The something was he entered into a gay civil union. So the gay civil union is a component here, but it is not the center.

The center here is a dispute between a parish, the scouts, and two parish priests. That's at the center. The gay civil union is a component kind of on the side. It's kind of an incidental component. It's operative, but it's incidental.

It's not the center of the attention here. But LifeSite News makes it look like it's the center of the attention. So to conclude that point, I'm gonna read what I wrote here. Whether you think the archbishop should have intervened or not is irrelevant. I think he should have, but that's irrelevant. The point is this. Put the facts of the matter against LifeSite News's claim. Do they match? No, they do not. Do they meet in the middle?

No, they do not. Are they opposed to each other? Yes, they are. What LifeSite News is claiming in that post and again, I wanna say I did not read the article, but I'm sure the article is going to be almost as ridiculous because this is how they always do. So I'm I'm judging the post.

Do the facts match what we see in the post? They objectively do not. Folks, this is not a matter of opinion. They simply do not meet. They just don't. They are opposed to each other. This framing does not match the facts. It does not have the same emotional gravity. What do I mean by that? If I told you these facts first, told you all about this story, gave you all the these facts, you're going to have an emotional reaction or response to that.

Right? Doesn't matter what it is. Positive, negative, whatever. It doesn't matter. You're going to have an emotional response to that. It could be an oh wow, could be an oh my god, it could be a scandal. Doesn't matter. You're gonna have a response. Right? You're also going to have a response from this post by LifeSite News.

Paul Bleo appoints pro LGBT archbishop known for refusing to condemn homosexual marriage. You're gonna have a response to that too. Right? Are you going to have the same response to that as you might have had to just the story and the facts had you received that first? You're going to have two different emotional responses.

Are they going to be the same? Are they going to be identical? Are they going to be similar? I'll bet they would be quite different, wouldn't they? The response you would have to each of these things in isolation.

I mean, you can try this sort of experiment yourself. Go up to someone and tell them these two things. Right? The life site news post, and then the story that I just told you about this archbishop. But tell it to someone as if it's two different stories about two different bishops, and watch for yourself that you're going to get two different reactions.

Two very different reactions. It wouldn't shock me at all and it shouldn't shock you if they say something like, boy, that, that archbishop who refused to condemn homosexual marriage, that's much worse than that other guy who just didn't want to get involved because he wanted the parish to figure it out. That first one is much worse. The facts don't align. The claims don't align.

The post does not align with the truth. And even your emotional or or intellectual response to this would would not be identical between the post and the facts. I have said this before, and I, you know, I I try not to harp on this because at the end of the day, there there are real people who work at LifeSite News. And I do not want people to lose job ever, anyone. I don't want people to lose jobs, including people at LifeSite News.

I don't want LifeSite News to fold and all these people lose jobs. But what I do want is for the people at LifeSite News to do their jobs better, to do their jobs correctly. Good journalism, good storytelling. Not this nonsense, this sensationalism. And these flat out lies that are coming out of LifeSite News day after day after day.

Lies. And I've broken down their stories in the past. I'm not gonna keep, you know, I'm not making my business all about that. But at times like this where the where the lies are just so clear and so well and the truth is so well documented, at times like this, I do call it out not to harm life site news, but to inform Catholics that you better choose your friends in Catholic media much more carefully. Now let's get to part two of this.

Don't know what it is, but I feel like Trump is always helping Putin has become the new song that liberals like to sing. Because I'm noti I mean, they've always kind of chattered that sort of thing. Even some conservatives have in the past since Donald Trump's first term. But I feel like it's been coming up a lot. Recently, I had an exchange with someone on Substack notes, not heated, but it was an argument.

So that that was the environment of this conversation. It was, adversarial. And one of the things he said was Trump is always doing things in Putin's best interests. And I said, what are you talking about? And I I went down the line of specific things that Trump did that directly go against Putin's interests.

He placed heavy tariffs on Russia. He supports Ukraine. He's selling weapons to Ukraine. Trump taking out Maduro, arresting Maduro in Venezuela. That really, really hurt Vladimir Putin and, Russia.

Increased oil production in The United States really hurt Russia because it severely devalued Russian energy, the value and and worth of oil exported from Russia. And I went on and on a list of about seven or eight things just off the top of my head. Things that not just maybe, sort of, might have, coulda hurt Vladimir Putin and Russia. No. These were things that directly, directly worked against Putin's interests and Russia's interests.

Seven, things I think I listed. And I said, okay. Now it's your turn. Tell me specific things Donald Trump did that worked in Russia's interests. And the response came back he deleted the response, so I can't read it to you, but it came back something like this. He and his cronies are chipping away at democracy. Okay. Let me pause there. My problem with that, first, it's an abstraction. There's nothing specific in there.

Who are these cronies? How are they chipping away at democracy? And how does that help Russia? Because I don't see it. First of all, that claim is an assessment. He and his cronies are chipping away at democracy. Well, that's your assessment. Okay. That that's fine. What is that based on?

You have to tell me the actions, and then you have to tell me how that works in Russia's interests or in Putin's interests. Because that's what I did. I gave him a list of seven or eight things, and I specifically, concisely listed why this goes against Russia's interests. And I was simply asking him to do the same thing. He listed about four things, long paragraphs of things.

Okay. That that's fine. I was able to do that much more concisely, but okay. He listed about four things, long paragraphs. Each and every one of them were these weird broad abstractions of things, but nothing specific.

All of them ridiculous too, have to say. That was one of my reactions to it. But okay, I'm trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Nothing, nothing, nothing specific, absolutely nothing, all of them vast stretches of imagination, and none of them, in none of these points did he say why this works in Putin's favor, why this is in favor of Putin's interests. I calmly responded pointing this out to him.

What I just told you. I won't repeat it, but it was basically what I just told you. Not only did I not get a response, but he deleted everything in the conversation. So now I can't even read it back to you. Well, that's all well and good, except somebody pulled this nonsense on me again today.

I posted to X celebrating the fact that The United States has pulled out of the World Health Organization. I have been the two agencies that I have really paid a lot of attention to over the past maybe fifteen years are the World Health Organization, the WHO, and the CDC, the American Centers for Disease Control. So I can tell you my experience first of all, never trust the CDC. Never ever trust the CDC. That's number one, but we're not talking about that right now.

The WHO is similarly so ridiculously politicized, it would floor you if you could see it yourselves. Highly politicized. Talk about misinformation. Let me tell you, they released a report, a very, very deeply researched report, very deeply researched, very trustworthy on recommendations for sexual education for school children as young as five years old. Very deeply, very thoroughly researched.

Well, you can believe that caught my attention. We're talking about sexual education. These are recommendations being sent to schools in Europe. My fear is you're going to see this sort of thing pop up in The United States too because after all, it's the World Health Organization. They're they're like they're CDC on steroids. They're like the super CDC. Real trustworthy. Real authoritative. Okay. So I'm offering commentary on this report, and here's I'm I'm not gonna go through the whole thing.

I'm just gonna basically tell you this. This is what I found. First of all, everything in there was sick and disgusting, and it was all based either directly or indirectly on the research of Alfred Kinsey from like the nineteen twenties. It was like really old research from a a really questionable sexual psychologist whose research methodology was so shoddy that no one, no one in the field respects it. No one does.

At best, they'll turn to Kinsey's research for clues, not for facts. And that's if they even do that at all. Well, wouldn't you know, Kinsey's research, because I looked at the footnotes, Kinsey's research was all over this WHO document. In fact, I think it was exclusively Kinsey's. It was either directly from Kinsey or it was research from a psychologist who was basing his findings on Kinsey.

So Kinsey was all over it. You know what else I found? Not one of the researchers was an actual professional researcher or psychologist. Not one. Zero. Not one. I checked every name. Zero. Not one authoritative agent there. Well, no, there was one. I forget her her name. Obviously, I'm not committing these things to memory. But there was one actual psychologist there, and all she did was signed the report. She endorsed the report. That's all she did.

Talk about misinformation. So I posted to Twitter celebrating that we're pulling out of the WHO. I alluded to that example of the, the WHO's weird, sicko, sexual education, report. Someone, I will not name names because I don't do like that unless I have to, Someone dropped a comment with a post of their own that said the pandemic of misinformation, The US exiting WHO is a boost to Putin and authoritarians. Oh, so now exiting the WHO is also working in Putin's favor.

Of course. You see what I'm saying? This has become the new song that they're all singing. Okay. So now it's this. Okay. So I guess if Donald Trump wipes his ass the wrong way, that also works in Putin's favor. Gotcha. Here's what I said in response to this guy's post, which is just okay. Here's what I said.

If I had a dime for every time someone said this, that this or that works in Putin's favor, I'd be a millionaire. I go on to say, I'm so over these stretches of logic, the rhetorical acrobatics, and the twisted imaginations of people who can't even make basic arguments. You can't make a basic argument that survives even the tiniest tiniest pressure of logical scrutiny. And you want me to believe you when you say the pandemic of misinformation, The US exiting the WHO is a boost to put You want me to believe a statement like that when you can't even form an argument? Okay.

I go on to say, I'm sorry, but Donald Trump blowing his nose does not help Putin either. And neither does exiting the WHO, which has been masterful at misinformation for the past fifteen years. Probably longer than that, but I only go back fifteen years with it. I have been and this again is the comment. I've been tracking them for a long time.

To give one example, and then I gave the example of the sexual education thing. I conclude with there was a single psychologist on the board and all she did was sign the report. Ridiculous exclamation point, tap post. I can't repeat what his response was. It was vulgar.

I don't Hey, man. I I I don't shy away from vulgarity, but, I'm just not gonna repeat it because it was especially vulgar, which doesn't burn my ears, but I just don't wanna put that in this product. And and then he blocked me. Okay. Fine.

I'm totally okay with being blocked, but this is what I'm talking about. Do you see how this Putin helps Russia brigade uses abstractions and ideas to manufacture truths that don't align with the facts. Do you see how they do that? Now it's Putin loves Russia. Tomorrow it's going to be Jesus was an alien. I I have no idea. You never know what they're gonna come up with. But do you see what they do? How they emotionalize everything? They use emotion to get to your reason.

Well, how is that any different from LifeSite News, which uses emotion to bypass your reason so they can manipulate your will in favor of their agendas? How is that different? It's the same components they're just swapped. The liberals are using emotion to manufacture truth. Lies Dressed News is manufacturing truth to bypass your reason so that they can get to your emotions.

Why? Because an appeal to your emotion prompts your will. It goes a little something like this. The Pope is evil. He is known for beating children half to death. Well, you don't even scrutinize that because it's so damn shocking. It goes right to your emotions. Right? And what does it do to your will? Well, it may not do something immediately, but your will is now prompted to act or speak against the Pope.

I'm and obviously I'm making this story up. But now your will is prompted either now or progressively later to act and speak against the Pope. You don't trust his catechesis. You don't listen to him when he says something. Whatever.

So they manufacture a truth, which is a lie. They manufacture a truth to go straight to your emotions so they can manipulate your will. The liberals manufacture emotions to bypass truth so that they can get to your emotions and manipulate your will. Oh my god. I've heard that the that Donald Trump is constantly doing things to help Russia. Oh my god. Well, what has he done? I don't know. But I heard he's been doing a lot. It's all over the place.

How are the secular liberals any different from what we're seeing coming out of LifeSite News? They aren't. And so those of you listening to this, if you are a loyal LifeSite News reader, if this, what you've heard me say today, does not get you to change your mind about visiting LifeSite News, I don't think an apparition of the blessed virgin Mary telling you to do so will have any effect either. Because what I'm telling you is fact based and truthful. I get nothing out of telling it to you.

I don't get paid for what I do. I it doesn't put money in my pocket if billions of people are reading my articles and listening to my podcasts, and it doesn't take a dime out of my pocket if nobody's reading or listening. I have nothing to gain, nothing to lose. So what I'm telling you is is is truth without reward. That's a truth you can trust when someone has nothing to gain by telling it to you.

So if what I've said to you today, which is fact based, truthful, well documented, if what I've said to you today is not enough to get you to reconsider who you trust in independent Catholic media, nothing will change your mind. Because what I've laid out for you here today is about as damning as a judgment from God. I And wanna be very clear before I bring this to a close. I'm not trying to get your attention away from LifeSite News and onto me. I don't care if you never listen to me again.

I really don't. I don't care if you never read one of my articles at stokingtheembers, which you can find at stokingembers.com. Thank you very much for your consideration. I really don't care. I really don't care as I insert that plug. No. But seriously, I'm not getting this to to shift your attention from them to me. I'm I'm really not. I do what I do to empower my brothers and sisters in the faith or in the church. That's what I do that's why I do what I do.

So if if I get you to shift your attention away from LifeSite News, that's perfectly fine with me whether you you shifted to me or not. I really, I don't care. That's not why I'm doing this. How is LifeSite News different from secular liberals? The people at LifeSite News go to mass. I I guess that's about the only difference. But let me tell you something. Is going to mass enough? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The devil believes in Jesus more than you do, and the devil's in hell.

My friends, truth matters or it does not. So stop kidding yourselves thinking there's a middle ground. Maybe the ends justify the means. Maybe it's okay that LifeSci News is bullshitting the masses as long as it leads to a more faithful Catholic populace. Nonsense.

Truth matters or it does not. Don't fool yourself by thinking, and I shouldn't say you and personalize it. This is true for all of us. We should not fool ourselves thinking we can hide somewhere in the gray areas where, yes, it's it's untruthful. Yes, it offends the truth. Yes, it's distorting people's minds. Yes, it's manipulating their wills, but maybe the ends justify the means. Nonsense. Truth matters or it does not. I am TJ Haynes.

You may know me as the Catholic Fire Brand, or you may know me as something much, much worse. I don't know. You may not know me at all. Follow me everywhere on socials at real t j haynes. There's an I in there. Look at your screen. Real t j haynes everywhere on socials. Check out stoking the embers. The jewel of the crown of all my work, stokingembers.com. And I thank you very much for your consideration. God bless you. God be with you all. Bye bye.