Writings. Thoughts. Musings.

Month: September 2025

A Catholic Reflects on Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

It’s been a rough few days. When I first heard Charlie Kirk had been shot, I sort of dismissed it, not knowing whether it meant “shot at” or “hit.” I’d gotten too used to the crazies not being able to shoot straight and the hand of providence deflecting bullets. But as the posts became more frantic, I sought out a reliable source and found the video. I watched in horror, immediately knowing that was a kill shot, but hoping for a miracle. I grabbed my Rosary and left the electronic distractions; I took a walk through the neighborhood and recited my prayers. By the time I returned home, I knew for certain Charlie had passed, and a quick look at my phone confirmed it.

Why, Lord? We needed him. Of course, we’d needed Andrew, too. How’d that work out?

I’m a child of the assassination age. I’ve lived through JFK, RFK, MLK, Gerald Ford (twice attempted), Moscone and Milk, Anwar Sadat, Ronald Reagan (attempted), John Paul II (attempted), and Indira Ghandi. I’m sure there are others I’m forgetting.

The attack on Donald Trump was horrific for what might have been, but like Reagan and JPII, it was affirming in its apparently providential outcome. Pope John Paul II had credited his survival to Our Lady deflecting the bullet with her finger. Could Donald Trump have gotten a supernatural nudge to tilt his head at that precise moment? There have been rumors that his Catholic wife, Melania, has asked a priest to place her husband under the protection of the Blessed Virgin. Whether Our Lady acted to spare the once-again US President is highly classified, and we won’t know until… you know.

Providence in Our Nation’s Founding

There’s a story about George Washington’s time as 23-year-old aide-de-camp to British General Edward Braddock during the French and Indian War. It’s told that during the Battle of Monongahela, Washington and other mounted officers rode across the battlefield through enemy gunfire to deliver vital messages. Every other officer on horseback was killed, and Washington had two horses shot from underneath him. His coat was later found have four bullet holes in it, and Washington even pulled shrapnel from his hair. But his person had not even a scratch.

Years later, an elderly Indian chief who’d fought against Washington visited our country’s first President. He recalled that he’d personally shot at Washington 17 times and had ordered his men to do the same. The chief explained the reason for his visit. Before he died, he’d wanted to meet the man who was “protected by the Great Presence Above.” Is it possible that heaven had preserved Washington for his future role as Commander-in-Chief, because he was the indispensable man of the American Revolution? Is it possible that God saved Donald Trump from an assassin’s bullet, because he is the essential man in America’s rebirth? The Lord works in mysterious ways, and He often chooses unlikely servants.

But what about Charlie Kirk? He was a deeply religious man, a devoted family man, and someone very necessary to the conservative movement seeking to restore America. Only 31 years old, he deserved 40 or 50 more years to serve his country, love his wife, and guide his children into adulthood. All that was stolen from him. Why couldn’t the bullet miss?

Twisted Trans violence in Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

As I’m writing this, facts are coming to light about the twisted, disordered mind of his assassin. To no one’s surprise, the trans madness is part of this warped scenario. Weirdly, that diabolical movement has enjoyed near universal support on the Left, despite making no logical sense. It is anti-God, anti-nature, narcissistic, exhibitionistic, and ruthlessly demanding. It is so flimsily pseudo-scientific, that only the highly educated are stupid enough to swallow it. And it has been ever so trendy, affording elites ample opportunity to virtue signal by supporting it, especially if they’re the type of parents who use their children as fashion accessories. In short, the trans movement has everything the modern Left seems to love.

Now it has become hyperviolent. Which again is not surprising. As any homicide detective will tell you, the most brutal murders always have a twisted sexual element. Charlie was an opponent of trans ideology, but a compassionate ally for those whom the movement had harmed. Of course, we’re not allowed to say the movement is harmful, are we? So, Charlie became a target. And we’re left to wonder, why did God let the crazies win?

Harvesting Eden: A Teen Soul’s Journey in the Age of Woke

Of Obi-Wan, Stephen, and Joan

Again, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Sometimes, He takes away what we need and, in doing so, makes it more powerful. Already, millennials are talking about Charlie’s Obi-Wan effect, a reference to Luke Skywalker’s mentor being absorbed by The Force, which expanded his power beyond his Jedi limits. I’ve never been a Star Wars fan, so I’ll draw my inspiration from scripture and Church history.

I immediately thought of St. Stephen, the great debater that the Pharisees couldn’t contend with. They resorted to twisting his words to accuse him of blasphemy, much like the Left took Charlie’s statements out of context to accuse him of their usual litany of sins. Stephen’s crowd didn’t buy what the Pharisees were selling, because they’d heard the words straight from Stephen’s mouth. Just so, Charlie’s audience can access his complete statements in his videos. The Pharisees knew they were losing the crowd and were struck with fear. Just so, the Left knew that they were losing the youth vote in the US, as Charlie’s influence grew. So, the Pharisees resorted to violence, stoning Stephen, who became the first Christian martyr. They couldn’t out-argue him, so they killed him. (And Charlie…?)

Stephen’s death, however, is not the end of the story. Because God decided to use the instigator of the plot to kill Stephen for His own purposes. The Pharisees gathered their stones, not knowing they were dropping their mantles at the feet of a future saint, whose conversion would change the Western world. How many of Charlie’s converts are out there right now, ready to make a difference?

Another saint that comes to mind is Joan of Arc. I recently read an account of her life, The Maid of Orleans by Sven Stolpe. Joan arose at a time when the men of France were in decline, and had allowed their territory to be conquered by an outside force. (Need we list the many ways that Western manhood is in decline today, and how young men especially are struggling with despair?) Joan showed the men of her time how to stand up and fight, leading them to reclaim several key cities. (Likewise, Charlie served as an example to young men on college campuses, who hunger for purpose.) But Joan couldn’t overcome the inertia of the leadership and the political infighting to make a decisive push against the English. Joan was captured, tried as a witch, and burned at the stake.

Version 1.0.0

Joan’s mockery of a trial was a horrible miscarriage of justice, and Joan prayed to be spared her sentence. But God declined. His purpose did not require Joan on the field as a warrior. In fact, Joan’s testimony clearly states that she never took a life in battle. What God needed from Joan was sacrifice. The God who would not spare His only Son would not spare Joan. But Joan’s martyrdom filled the French with such resolve that they were finally able to expel the English and restore France.

Nor did God spare Charlie. But, in the aftermath of Charlie’s murder, in American and across the sea, we’re already witnessing an awakening, especially among young people.

The 19th century Danish theologian, Soren Kierkegaard wrote, “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” Charlie’s assassination will prevent him from working campuses across the country in the run up to the midterm elections. This delights Democrats. But we can be confident that Charlie’s influence will still be felt in the tens of thousands of hearts that he touched in life, magnified by the millions who will come to know him only after his death.

The good news for Catholics, as always, is that we know Christ triumphs in the end. In the meantime, we must prayer harder, love more deeply, and find the forgiveness in our hearts that Jesus challenges us to bestow. Yes, there must be justice for Charlie, but then we must move forward. We are in a battle for hearts, minds, and souls. We must use the weapons of persuasion that Charlie wielded so effectively, engaging with the pure intention of uplifting those around us whom the modern world has taught nothing but despair.

Great news: Get started with NAD for 10 percent off!

Vitality Boost from Jinfiniti Precision Medicine

You can get started with Vitality Boost for 10 percent off the standard price by using my offer code KevinRush10 at checkout. Just follow this linkJinfiniti!

Disclaimer: The column may contain affiliate links, which help support the website. When you click on a link and make a purchase, the website receives a small commission at no additional charge to you. Thanks for your support!

A Ballsnatcher Breaches Baseball Etiquette

This Karen’s viral embarrassment could be a societal tipping point

Much has been said about the abhorrent behavior of a female Phillies fan who demanded and received a homerun ball that a father had recovered and given as a trophy to his son. The incident, occurring at Miami’s loanDepot park (sic) on Friday evening September 5, set the Internet on fire, as fans everywhere castigated the gray-haired harridan, dubbed Karen Ballsnatcher, who literally cowed a man into reneging on a  gift to his son. Fans have been more divided on the father. Some praised him for being the bigger person and de-escalating the confrontation; others criticized him for showing weakness in a feeble attempt to appease the unappeasable. I find myself in the latter camp; the symbolism of a sullen dad coughing up a ball to a shrieking harpy is too potent to ignore. I’m not saying he should have gone full Al Bundy on her. (You never want to go full Bundy.) But a firm “No,” was the proper response to her entitled demands. And not just in this instance, but at all times when horrid women demand that men stop being men, because their mere existence is oppressive.

What’s baseball protocol for balls in the stands?

There have long existed unwritten rules for balls hit into the stands. 1. Any ticketholder can recover them. 2. Touching the ball is insufficient to establish ownership. 3. Incidental contact is expected, but going out of your way to interfere with another person’s efforts, such as grabbing their arm as they reach, is foul play. 4. After a fan establishes firm possession, the scrum ends.

crowd enjoying baseball game at iconic stadium
Photo by Alec Adriano on Pexels.com

According to all established rules for recovering balls in the stands, the dad had played fair and deserved the ball. Yet, Karen Ballsnatcher somehow thought the ball belonged to her. She marched down the row and confronted the father. Subsequent reports indicate that her argument consisted of “the ball landed in our section, so it belongs to us,” and “I had it.” The first point is irrelevant, since anyone who can get to the ball has a right to recover it. The father had simply walked down an empty row to the spot where the ball landed. Yet, Karen acted like he had invaded a foreign country to steal natural resources. If the argument had gone longer, I’m sure she’d have accused him of colonization. Her second point is equally fatuous, since touching the ball establishes nothing. How many fans in the 150 year history of Major League Baseball have lamented, “I had it!” Of course, those fans realized they didn’t really have it because they didn’t close the deal. Ask any fisherman about the one that got away.

The only reasonable argument Karen Ballsnatcher could have made is that she had established possession with a firm grip on the ball, and the father had wrested it away. In other words, he stole it. Video of the incident plainly shows the ball loose in the scrum when the father picked it up.

More than a souvenir, a moment to bond father and son

Despite having no basis to claim ownership, Karen Ballsnatcher climbed over a row of seats and beat a path towards the father. At this point, we must note that the father had given the ball to his son, who had closed his glove around it. In the annals of Americana, this is a sacred ritual. It is a moment that every father who has ever taken a child to a ball game longs for. There is no more heroic act a man can perform in the normal course of a game than to snag a souvenir ball and give it to his son. In doing so, he passes on his love of the game in a form of benediction. Few fathers ever have the opportunity to perform this act. Scarcity enhances solemnity.

two person holding white baseball ball
Photo by Michael Morse on Pexels.com

Karen Ballsnatcher knew this ritual had occurred, but she didn’t care. And her callous indifference is what makes her intrusion upon the scene truly monstrous. In this moment, the shrieking harpy becomes the embodiment of the Leftist war against fatherhood that’s been waged in Western culture over the last two decades. She’s not going to let this toxic masculinity stand, not while she’s aggrieved. She is woman and they will hear her roar. At this moment, she seems the epitome of the chronically angry feminist malcontent who, having long ago donned the mantle of victimhood, feels entitled to demand special rights whenever equal treatment does not resound in her favor. Having shrieked the father into submission, she retreats triumphantly to her seat brandishing her prize, a Gollum with her precious. It’s a truly ugly and disordered moment, which, to no one’s surprise, unites the fans in the stands against her. When fans being to heckle her, she stands and raises a defiant middle finger to them. This is the point at which I would have had security remove her for disruptive conduct.

The awful court decision that paved the way for Karen Ballsnatcher

All this raises the question: Why would someone with no reasonable claim to possession have the gall to demand someone else’s property? Have we all forgotten the unwritten rules that governed civil society for centuries?

This incident reminds me of the hubbub over a Barry Bonds homerun ball in 2001, which unfortunately sowed the seeds for baseless claims like Karen Ballsnatcher’s. The San Francisco Giants slugger was chasing Mark McGwire’s, single-season, steroid-assisted, homerun record. On October 7, during the final game of the season, Barry Bonds hit his record-breaking 73rd home run into the rightfield bleachers of San Francisco’s Pac Bell Park.

One fan, Alex Popov initially caught the ball in his glove, but was immediately swarmed by other fans. In the melee, the ball came loose. A furious scramble ensued. A second fan, Patrick Hayashi, who was also knocked down in the scrum, ended up with the ball when the chaos subsided.

Popov sued Hayashi in San Francisco Superior Court, arguing he had established possession (and therefore title) when the ball first entered his glove, and that the subsequent mob interference unlawfully deprived him of it.

In December 2002, Judge Kevin McCarthy delivered a verdict that twisted the tenets of property law beyond recognition. McCarthy found that because Popov had control of the ball before the crowd’s unlawful interference, he had a “pre-possessory interest” in the ball. McCarthy stated that Hayashi had “legitimate possession” because he had ended up with the ball without any wrongdoing. Since both fans had valid, competing claims, McCarthy ordered that the ball be sold at auction and the proceeds be divided between the two. In 2003, the ball sold for $450,000, each man receiving half, which probably barely covered their legal fees. Yay, lawyers!

(Have you read the novel behind your favorite baseball movies?)

baseball player playing in baseball stadium
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

McCarthy’s decision was revolting on numerous levels, but the press, which loves to praise revolting things, hailed it as a Solomon-like decision. Yes, so wise. Split the baseball, just as Solomon split the baby. Of course, if the press weren’t just as ignorant of the Bible as they are of property law, they would have known that Solomon’s decree to cut the baby in half was simply a ruse by which he gathered the additional evidence he needed to restore the baby (intact) to its true mother. Just as the baby could only belong to one woman, the baseball could only belonged to one fan.

McCarthy found that although Popov did “not achieve full legal possession,” he had taken “significant but incomplete steps” toward it—steps that were interrupted by others’ unlawful conduct. The court held this created a “legally cognizable pre-possessory interest.” This is all nonsense. Either Popov caught the ball (video confirms he did) or he did not. If he did, he established title and is the legal owner of the ball. The subsequent melee might strip him of possession, but cannot invalidate his title. Anyone who took possession of the ball after wrongdoers stripped it from Popov cannot establish title/ownership. Like the person who finds a wallet full of cash on the sidewalk, Hayashi is obligated to return the ball to its rightful owner, Popov. Hayashi wouldn’t be able to keep the wallet (legally, at least) simply because he hadn’t mugged Popov to get it. Conversely, If Popov did not catch the ball (and thus did not establish title), he has no rights and Hayashi is the true owner.

But McCarthy wrote that “Each man has a claim of equal dignity as to the other,” a fanciful conclusion that only a liberal nitwit unconstrained by logic or law could have reached. He continued, “The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball.” McCarthy’s order that the ball must be sold further violates the rights of a true owner, who might have valued an historic souvenir above its cash value.

Judge McCarthy’s ruling is a smoke and mirrors attempt to be fair and not hurt anyone’s feelings. “Pre-possessory interest” is a nonsense phrase McCarthy made up to wheedle his way out of a difficult but necessary enforcement of established law. But ruling for Popov would have caused angst to Hayashi. May the baseball gods forbid! Even in 2001, a San Francisco court couldn’t grant relief to a white man if it would hurt the feelings of a minority. Legal norms be damned; courts must be empathetic. Courts must redress historical inequities. Remember Korematsu! Feelings uber alles, so equity trumps justice. It’s not whether you catch the ball, it’s how you feel about whether you should have caught the ball.

The fallout from two decades of indulging complainers’ feelings

It’s not surprising that more than 20 years later, we’re at a point where people’s feelings about what they’re entitled to are more important than societal norms and written law. We’re also at the point where men and fathers have been so debased, especially by militant harpies, that they cave immediately, accepting abject humiliation in front of their wives and children, rather than responding with the firm, unyielding “No,” the situation calls for.

Karen Ballsnatcher action figure. Thanks, Interwebs!!

If there’s anything positive to take from the incident, it’s the crowd’s unequivocal condemnation of Karen Ballsnatcher. Good luck coming back from this crass display, sweetheart. Not that I’m eager to condemn any person for a single incident. But, let’s face it, she acted the stereotype put forth by her short, battleship gray, Liz Warren haircut and oversized Julie Felss Masino glasses. She deftly conjured the image of the AWFUL destroyer, advocate for transing schoolchildren, defunding the police, and doxxing ICE agents. Ready to march for higher taxes, more censorship, and less oppression, without noting the irony. An ardent crusader who banishes ethnic mascots from the marketplace, then complains about white supremacy. First among her professionally aggrieved, pink-hatted peers to take offence on behalf of any minority who isn’t educated enough to be offended themselves. In other words, the tedious, meddlesome, humorless shrew that we see far too often and wish would go away.

I fervently hope that this incident has brought us to the tipping point, where people are just plain tired of spoiled brat behavior by adults who should know better. It seems like most of the country now agrees that it’s time to accept life’s disappointments without the entitled tantrum. In short, it’s time to make being a grownup great again.

Karen Ballsnatcher as the villain of The Sandlot. Thanks, Interwebs!

Revitalize Your Smile with Larine!

woman with pink lipstick
Photo by Shiny Diamond on Pexels.com

Sensitive teeth? Dull smile? Revitalize your smile by re-mineralizing your teeth. Larine has a revolutionary line of oral care products from tooth paste to chewing gum fortified with hydroxyapatite to restore enamel. Your teeth are alive and capable of healing themselves (even repairing cavities!) if you treat them to the natural compounds they need. Use this link to visit Larine, and get 10 percent off every order.

Disclaimer: This column contains affiliate links. When you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, this website receives a small commission at no extra cost to you. We than

© 2025 kevinrush.us

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑