Michael P. McDonald

While the rest of the world is enjoying one of the largest sporting events that brings people together from all over the world, LGBT imperialists in Seattle are planning to turn a World Cup match into a vehicle to promote their disordered ideology. The local organizers have gone so far as to bill the game between Egypt and Iran on June 26 at Lumen Stadium as the “World Cup Pride Match.”

Festivities celebrating “the mother of all sins” will take place around the stadium on game day. The Pride+ Match Impact Council is assisting the local organizers in coordinating the spectacle. They pledge to take advantage of this “once-in-a-lifetime moment to showcase and celebrate LGBTQIA+ communities in Washington.” To this end the council will “validate [LGBT] community-informed priorities,” “curate Pride stories,” provide “economic opportunities for LGBTQIA+-owned enterprises,” and help “shape…cultural programming.”

Fans en route to the match will be subjected to the grotesque scenes of Seattle’s annual “Pride” weekend, which in recent years featured a large contingent of naked men on bicycles joining in a public parade. Closer to the stadium, local organizers will display the winning art work from the Pride Match Design Contest. This artwork will celebrate “the creativity, inclusion, and the vibrant spirit of Seattle’s LGBTQ+ community.”

What could possibly explain why the local organizers would move ahead with these efforts and continue to brand the game as the “World Cup Pride Match?”

Seattle Mayor Kate Wilson, a radical socialist, opined on social media that it is an “incredible honor” to lead the charge for diversity and inclusion. “With matches on Juneteenth and pride, we get to show the world that in Seattle, everyone is welcome.”

Interestingly, the governing bodies for soccer in Egypt and Iran have made it widely known that they do not feel welcome.

The Egyptian Football Association said of the “Pride” festivities that it “completely rejects such activities, which directly contradict the cultural, religious, and social values in the region, especially in Arab and Islamic societies.”

Meanwhile, the Iranian Football Federation described the event as “an unreasonable and illogical move that essentially signals support for a particular group.”

Both have called on FIFA, the global governing body of soccer, to do more to prevent Seattle’s “Pride” celebrations from being foisted upon their teams and fans.

For its part, FIFA has long standing rules designed to ensure that messaging extraneous to soccer is kept to a minimum so the focus can be squarely on the competition. Of particular importance, Section 15(a) of the FIFA Statutes requires the national governing bodies of soccer “to be neutral in matters of politics and religion.” Forcing players and fans to participate in promoting an ideology that runs contrary to their deeply held religious convictions is a blatant violation of this neutrality rule, and FIFA has asked the local organizers to comply with the statute.

However, FIFA’s authority is limited only to the stadium and officially sanctioned “fan zones.” While there appears to be some walking back of “Pride” celebrations inside the stadium, the local organizers, along with other Seattle-based LGBT groups, have promised to do as much as they can as close as they can to the match to celebrate “Pride.” This may not be a technical violation of FIFA’s rule, but it certainly flaunts the spirit of the law.

Even though the teams involved asked for the festivities to be tapered back and FIFA mandated that the local organizers comply with its rule “to be neutral,” the “Pride” celebrations are scheduled to continue and the local organizers persist in calling it the “World Cup Pride Match.” Clearly this is not about sending the message that “everyone is welcome.” No, it is something much more sinister.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines cultural imperialism as “the imposition by one usually politically or economically dominant community of various aspects of its own culture onto another nondominant community.” The “Pride Match” is a textbook definition of this.

Wealthy elites in Seattle are telling athletes and fans from countries that do not embrace the LGBT agenda that they need to get onboard with it. The cultures of the nations involved in the match need to take a back seat to the machinations of LGBT imperialists in Seattle. While the teams thought they might be there to partake in a heated battle that will most likely determine a spot in the knockout rounds, the organizers are eclipsing their hopes and dreams to put the spotlight on this disordered ideology and forcing them to be complicit in these celebrations.

The “World Cup Pride Match” has nothing to do with diversity or inclusion, and it is certainly not making the traveling teams and fans feel welcome. Rather, it is cultural imperialism domineering over all other aspects of the beautiful game and overshadowing it with radical LGBT ideology.

Bill Donohue

The Catholic League’s digital billboard is now on display in Times Square; it will be featured from June 22nd to July 5th.

High above street level on the west side of Broadway, between 46th and 47th streets, passersby, tourists, World Cup fans and workers will get a chance to see our billboard—it will flash for 15 seconds every minute.

As we get ready to celebrate our nation’s birthday, we are making sure that the religious roots of our nation, which undergird our freedoms, are not forgotten amidst all the fanfare. Here is the script.

HAPPY 250th BIRTHDAY USA

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
IS OUR FOUNDATIONAL FREEDOM

DEFEND OUR
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HERITAGE

In a time when religious liberty is under attack, and many refuse to acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage, this Catholic League billboard serves as a much-needed antidote to those who always look at the dark side of our history.

There is a reason immigrants from all over the world want to come to our shores. It’s about time our nation’s critics finally figured it out.

The following letter lays out the Catholic League position on an issue that it is wrongly cast as a political controversy.

June 18, 2026

Mr. Robert Manfred
Commissioner
Major League Baseball
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020

Dear Commissioner Manfred:

As president of the nation’s oldest Catholic civil rights organization, I am writing in support of Sen. Josh Hawley’s recent letter to you regarding the controversy over some members of the San Francisco Giants who are protesting “Pride Night” by wearing a biblical verse on their caps.

I will not repeat what Senator Hawley has said, only to say that I am in complete agreement with his concern about the way Christian players are treated by the MLB. There seems to be a double standard: one for left-wing activists and one for practicing Christians.

At the heart of this issue is something that others who share my position have not addressed; ergo, I make no pretense that I speak for them.

This controversy is not about people with different political views on contemporary issues. It is about something much more serious: the right of those whose religious convictions does not allow them to affirm a set of behaviors they find morally offensive.

To be specific, to demand approval of the LGBTQ agenda—which is exactly what “Pride Night” proponents seek—is to violate the religious rights of objecting players. They have every right not to sanction behaviors that require them to prostitute their core moral values.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Sen. Josh Hawley

Contact Manfred: [email protected]

Bill Donohue

Juneteenth is a federal holiday that commemorates the freeing of the last slaves in Texas on June 19, 1865. It will be commemorated this year by elite colleges and universities across the nation. This is rich given that most of those who ran these institutions at that time owned slaves.

The Northeast Slavery Record Index is an online site that allows the public to access a host of records on slavery. Last year it posted, “Slavery by Alumni of Colonial Colleges.” It provides information on college officials and faculty that owned slaves.

It listed the following Ivy League schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. It also listed five other schools tied to slavery: Rutgers, University of Vermont, Williams, Union (Schenectady, NY) and Bowdoin.

It is striking to note that only one Ivy League school, Cornell, did not have any slaveowners associated with it. But that is not a tribute to the university—it was not founded until slavery ended in 1865. Here’s a look at the Ivies.

• Harvard slaveowners included political leaders and the heads of prominent families. Records show that the university continued to benefit from slavery even after it was outlawed in Massachusetts in 1783.
• Yale was named after slave trader Elihu Yale. Under his tutelage, the school benefited greatly from the slave trade.
• Princeton was home to slaveowning trustees—16 of 23 brought, sold and traded slaves; some inherited them.
• Columbia was run by ten men who served as president during the slavery years, and at least half were slaveowners.
• Brown was founded by a family of the university’s namesake. They not only owned slaves, they were deep into the slave trade, participating in two voyages to secure more of them.
• Dartmouth founder Eleazar Wheelock owned at least 18 slaves, and at its Hanover campus in 1770, slaves outnumbered the faculty, administrators and trustees.
• University of Pennsylvania’s benefactors, trustees and faculty owned slaves. The founder, Benjamin Franklin, owned seven of them.

Many graduates of these institutions—both the Ivies and the other five—are quick to condemn all expressions of racism, real and contrived, and will no doubt be beating their breasts over slavery on June 19. But few will mention their alma mater’s slaveowning legacy.

If there is one man who flouts his interest in fighting racism, and is a graduate of one of these slaveowning institutions, it is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He is a graduate of Bowdoin College.

Bowdoin received funding from benefactors who made their money from the slave trade. Most spectacular, in 1858 it awarded Jefferson Davis, who served as the president of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, an honorary doctorate.

In 1972, it doubled down by accepting an endowed gift from the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and established the Jefferson Davis Award. It took until 2015 before this award was discontinued.

Mamdani graduated in 2014, before the award was nixed. Why didn’t he lead a protest against it? He had plenty of time to join organizations that sought to punish Israel.

Today he is bellowing about the need of New York City to make reparations to African Americans. Where will he get the dough? He says the money should be collected through a targeted tax on white people who live in the city today. But wouldn’t it be racist to fleece those who had nothing to do with slavery, save for sharing the same skin color of some of the slavemasters? (Note: free blacks also owned slaves.)

Given the slaveowning legacy of his alma mater, will Mamdani do something that shows he has some skin in the game? To be specific, will he return his Bowdoin diploma, now that he knows it is soiled by the legacy of slavery?

Will he dig into his own deep pockets—he is worth a fortune—and make reparations? He could begin by greasing every black person in his employ. But it should not be up to him to decide how much—he should ask his African American employees how much he needs to pony up. If he is running low on cash, he can always ask his multi-millionaire Marxist parents to loan him the money (preferably interest-free).

Bill Donohue

Throughout western civilization, there have been waves of moral relativism, periods when “non-judgmentalism” reigns supreme. Never mind that the decision not to judge moral behaviors is indeed a judgment call, the most recent American iteration of this “live and let live” moral landscape began in the 1960s.

The Sixties was a time of “situation ethics” and a rejection of moral absolutes. It has not let up since, though there are signs of moral exhaustion. “Tune in, turn out and drop out” proved to be more attractive rhetorically than it did behaviorally.

A recent Gallup poll found that Americans are less enthusiastic about approving a host of behaviors now than they have been in recent years. There are eight behaviors that the public considers to be morally wrong: sex between teenagers, extramarital affairs, cloning humans, polygamy, suicide, cloning animals, pornography and changing one’s gender.

Five of these behaviors speak to sexuality; two to cloning; and one to suicide. That makes it clear that despite all the chatter about everyone being free to express oneself sexually, there is a growing reluctance to embrace libertinism.

Two of the behaviors—extramarital affairs and polygamy—suggest that cheating is still verboten. Three suggest that the public recoils at behaviors that cause social problems, namely sex between teenagers, pornography and changing one’s gender. From the perspective of religious Americans, who hold to traditional moral values, these are good signs.

What’s driving these changes? Though the poll does not address this issue, women, in particular, will never be inclined to take kindly to cheating; they want the undivided love of their husband. This explains their animus to adultery and multiple wives. Men and women alike have witnessed the real-life consequences of teen sex (e.g., abortion and illegitimacy), porn (dehumanization) and inane attempts to switch to the opposite sex (which don’t work anyway and are self-destructive).

In other words, a reality check is underway for many who fancy themselves as liberal Democrats. But it is also true that Democrats morally approved 14 of the 20 behaviors included in this survey, making them the most accepting. No matter, when it comes to cloning animals, changing one’s gender and polygamy, Democrats are significantly less likely to find them morally acceptable today than they have in the past.

The big news is the moral rejection of changing one’s gender. Finally, liberal Democrats are catching up with the rest of the public. Unfortunately, many people—mostly young girls—have suffered grave physical and psychological problems as a result of this sick fad.

All of this makes sense when we consider that just last month, Gallup found that a record-high 56 percent of Americans rate moral values in the U.S. as “poor” and 86 percent say moral values are “getting worse.”

So what’s the answer? The most recent Gallup poll, released June 16, found that two-of-three respondents believe it would be positive for society if more Americans were religious; 22 percent disagree (only those who are not personally religious believe that religion is not a good sign).

It is not likely we will see a wholesale return to traditional moral values any time soon, though the vector of change is moving that way. Are we at a moral tipping point? We can only hope so.

Bill Donohue

This originally appeared on The American Spectator.

Most Americans will proudly celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation, but there are some—all smug left-wing “deep thinkers”—who delight in telling us that many of the stories about the Founding that we believe are true are actually false.

A closer look at their account often reveals that they resort to challenging the conventional wisdom by making unsupported claims. In other words, they are very good at asserting something isn’t true, without providing the evidence that discredits stories about the Founding. A classic example was recently published on the website of National Public Radio, the government-run media outlet that the “deep thinkers” adore.

NPR focused on “The Prayer at Valley Forge,” a painting by Arnold Friberg that was done to celebrate America’s bicentennial in 1976; it shows Washington kneeling in prayer.

The painting is featured at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. The description on the wall says, “is a poignant portrayal of George Washington during one of the most critical moments in the American Revolution…many believe Washington knelt in a moment of solitary prayer, seeking guidance and strength from God.”

The NPR article seeks to punch a hole in this popular rendering, saying,  “many historians do not believe there is much evidence to this story.” Many historians. How many of them are there? How many historians disagree with them? Moreover, to say there is not much evidence suggests there is some. Where is the evidence that those evidentiary claims are wrong?

The NPR story cites Thomas Tweed, professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, as its source. Tweed claims that Parson Weems, Washington’s early biographer, “concocted this story.” How does Tweed know this to be true? Conveniently, he cites an essay he wrote for Yale University Press. So I accessed it.

I looked in vain to see the evidence that Weems “concocted this story.” What I found, instead, was Tweed admitting that “There is some truth in the claim, and in the images. Washington did pray, though perhaps not the way Weems described….”

Some truth. How much, and on what basis did Tweed come to this conclusion? Moreover, to say “perhaps not the way Weems described” is to admit that perhaps it is the way Weems described. So why is Tweed so cocksure that Weems “concocted this story”?

Tweed cites two books to support his claim. I accessed them both.

One book is by Sheila Brennan, Stamping American Memory, and the other is by Mary V. Thompson, In the Hands of a Good Providence. Neither offers the level of proof Tweed would have us believe.

Brennan argues that the image of Washington “was completely contrived.” How does she know that? She says it is “based on a tale first recanted by Parson Mason Weems in 1804.” In an endnote, she cites as evidence, “Weems’s claims have never been proven and attempts to debunk this particular myth were published in 1926 during the sesquicentennial.” Now if the attempts succeeded, she would have told us. But she didn’t.

Just as important, if Weems’ claims have never been proven, it is also true that no one has disproven them. To put it differently, why should we believe someone writing in the 21st century about an event that took place in the late 18th century, but not someone who wrote about an eyewitness account in the early 19th century?

Thompson is no better. She recounts the story told by Weems about a Quaker farmer named Potts. In the sixth edition of Weems’ biography, published in 1808, he tells the story of how Potts came across Washington praying on his knees in the woods near his Valley Forge headquarters. Thompson is free to believe that this is a “highly suspect” story, but she offers zero evidence that disproves the Potts-Weems account.

On the website of “Historic Valley Forge” there is a examination of the evidence regarding this event. It says that the “nearest to an authentication of the Potts story of Washington’s prayer in the woods seems to be supplied by the ‘Diary and Remembrances’ of the Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College.”

Snowden handwrote, “I knew personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen’l Washington alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself.” He then elaborated on what he heard, which supports the conventional wisdom.

The document ends by saying, “Is it not reasonable to believe that a man who had, on frequent occasions, paid homage publicly to the God of all nations and earnestly exhorted his soldiers and his fellow countrymen to ‘express our grateful acknowledgement to God, for the manifold blessings he has granted to us,’ may have sought seclusion for his own private communication with the Father.”

The cynics don’t want us to believe this story. They love to poke fun at patriotic Americans, setting themselves up as experts who are much smarter than the masses. Yet in the end all they have is conjecture. Their hubris is appalling.

Bill Donohue

If there is one member of the Catholic clergy who goes astray, the media will make sure everyone knows about him. But when the evidence shows that clergy sexual abuse has long been checked, the data are ignored. That’s because good news about priests and deacons is not deemed worthy of disseminating. Just bad news.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently released its annual audit on clergy sexual abuse. It reports on its findings from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025. The “2025 Annual Report” was based on an audit by Stonebridge Business Partners, the Progress Report of the USCCB’s Child and Youth Protection, and survey data from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

The Report found that during this period there were 1,070 allegations made by 973 persons about abuse that occurred extending back to 1950. Consistent with previous audits, most of the alleged abuse took place between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, the heyday of the sexual revolution. The good news is that almost all of the alleged offenders are either dead or have been kicked out of the priesthood; none are still in active ministry.

Also consistent with previous findings, over 80 percent of the victims were postpubescent males. This means—though the Report is reluctant to admit it—that the lion’s share of the abuse was committed by homosexuals. Not to admit that the Church had a homosexual crisis—not a pedophilia crisis—ill serves everyone. Proper remedies depend on a proper diagnosis.

What about what cases of alleged abuse that took place between July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2025? There were 24 cases of clergy sexual abuse reported during this period. Of that number, four were substantiated. Given that there were 47,818 members of the clergy during this time period, this means that .008 percent had a substantiated case made against them.

Understandably, the Report does not compare this figure to data from other religious and secular institutions where adults regularly interact with minors. But I have done so (see The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes) and I can say, without reservation, that there is no institution which has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Roman Catholic Church.

It is horrible for any adult to molest a minor, whether the victim is male or female. Having said that, it is important to note that of the 24 allegations, 6 were male, 17 were female and one was unidentified. This suggests that the steep decline in homosexual clergy members—a function of much-needed reforms—is working.

It would be great if those doing this audit had more to say about innocent clergy members who have had their reputations sullied by unsubstantiated accusations. The rights of accused priests have long been given a second-class status.

The fact of the matter is that it takes a whole lot more courage to stand up for the due process rights of priests than it does to stand up for the rights of victims. But this is not a zero-sum game.

There is no reason why the rights of accused priests should be treated any differently than the rights of victims. This is especially true now that the USCCB strengthened the Dallas Charter on June 11 to ensure that the accused are entitled to “the presumption of innocence.”

Bill Donohue

Attacking men, especially white, Christian, heterosexual men, is a popular sport enjoyed by left-wing pundits and activists. This is driven home every Father’s Day. Normal people do not get exercised over this special day, but these folks do. 

In New York State, there is a bill, supported by Democrats, to replace “father” with “non-gestating parent,” and to call a “putative” father, meaning a deadbeat dad, “an alleged parent.” 

Why the adoption of “neutral” terms? Who is offended by calling fathers “fathers”? Radical gays and radical feminists object. They have long been at war with nature so this bill does not surprise. But why? 

Radical gays, especially those who claim to be “married,” object that terms like “father” and “mother” are exclusionary, leaving people like them out of familial conversations and governmental policies. They are right about that. But it is not men—it is nature—that has excluded them. To be blunt, nature has determined that people of the same sex cannot reproduce. That was part of God’s design.

The problem for radical gays is that they do not believe in human nature: they think everything that exists is a “social construct.” But male and female genital organs are not a “social construct”—they are an anatomical reality. Gays can carp all they want, but nature exists and they cannot change what it has ordained. It is a fight they cannot win. God has seen to that, and it is useless to try to defeat Him. 

Radical feminists deplore “patriarchy.” But there is a reason why it is universal: men are predisposed, as a function of nature, to rule. How so? Sociologist Steven Goldberg, who wrote a classical book on this subject, found that male dominance can be explained by hormonal factors such as the higher levels of testosterone that males have. As he noted, “the hormonal renders the social inevitable (italics in the original).”

Radical feminists like to point out that Goldberg’s thesis was contradicted by anthropologist Margaret Mead. Wrong. “Nowhere do I suggest that I have found any material which disproves the existence of sex differences.” She even went so far as to say, “It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.”

In other words, radical gays and radical feminists can beat up on men, and especially fathers, all they want. But in the end, fatherhood is real and exclusionary, and so is patriarchy. The radicals may not like it, but most women throughout history have never had a problem with any of this. It’s only those with a fanciful ideological agenda who bitch about it. 

Happy Father’s Day!

Bill Donohue

It is well known that the FBI under President Biden operated an anti-Catholic cell group within the Agency. Yet some in the media, especially the Associated Press, MSNOW and the New York Times, are trying hard to exonerate the FBI spy ring.

The most egregious attempt to cover-up for Biden’s FBI was committed by MSNOW and the Times: they focused their remarks on the Justice Department’s inspector general report. MSNOW said the report found “no evidence of anti-Catholic bias or malicious intent.” Similarly, the Times said the report showed “no evidence of malicious intent.”

These media outlets are referring to Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s conclusion that the probe of Catholics “lacked sufficient evidence” to establish a relationship between the extremists and Radical Traditionalist Catholic ideology, but “there was no evidence of malice.”

Had they not been so incurious they would have dug deeper and raised reasonable questions. I did. I addressed this issue in my letter of March 24, 2025 to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

“This begs the question: Why did the Analysts think there was a relationship in the first place? It is one thing to concede that there are racial and ethnic extremists in every religious and secular organization; it is quite another to assume a nexus between a mainstream religious organization and violence, especially when the grounds for making such an assumption are spurious.”

It is important to note that the idea that the FBI was only interested in extremist elements within the Catholic community was proven false—the FBI targeted what it admitted were “mainline” Catholics. FBI Director Christopher Wray said he was “appalled” to learn of this. Similarly, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was “aghast” at this news.

It is also important to note that Biden’s FBI called Catholics “domestic terrorists” if they are “pro-life,” “pro-family,” and believe there are only two sexes. In other words, practicing Catholics are considered “domestic terrorists.” This at a time when true domestic terrorists, such as Antifa, were given a pass.

If malice was not evident in the FBI witch-hunt against practicing Catholics, what would the media call a large-scale spy operation that was based on just one person? Not only that, what if the one person had no affiliation with the group under scrutiny? That’s what happened under Biden’s FBI. I also addressed this aspect in my letter to Jordan.

The Horowitz report admitted that the entire probe was based on one person, Defendant A. That’s right—there was no Defendant B. Not only that, he did not even belong to the Catholic Church; he belonged to some splinter, break-a-way group.

To top things off, the report said that “he had been on the radar ‘as an unstable, dangerous individual’ before ‘any association with any Catholic related entity whatsoever.’” It added that “there was no evidence that Defendant A was being radicalized at the church he attended.”

As I said at the time, “That being the case, why was it necessary to investigate his fellow churchgoers? Since when does the FBI conduct an investigation of a world religion on the basis of one miscreant, who was not a member of it, and whom they admit was not radicalized by it?”

The media never addressed any of these matters.

If the Trump FBI was spying on Muslims on the basis of one crazy person who wasn’t even a Muslim, the media would be all over it. Moreover, they would find it risible to conclude that malice was not in play. But when the victims are Catholics, that’s a different story. Nice to  know whose side they are on.

Bill Donohue

So-called progressives are expected to deliver progress, but these days most of those who describe themselves as such are more likely to deliver anarchy.

Darializa Avila Chevalier wants to unseat Democrat incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat, a New York congressman. She says “A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward.”

She wants taxpayer-funded abortion, an end to support for Israel, legalized prostitution, and the right of males to shower with females. She also hates America, saying it is a “f***ing disgrace.” She won the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Maureen Galindo recently ran unsuccessfully in the Democrat runoff primary for a congressional seat in Texas. She said we need to imprison Zionists and castrate Jewish men.

New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver recently won 87 percent of the vote in her reelection bid for Congress, despite the fact—or because of it—she recently assaulted a law enforcement officer; she is facing up to 17 years in prison.

Graham Platner is running for Senate in Maine. He calls himself a communist, wears a Nazi tattoo, admits to taking cocaine while serving in the Marines, is accused by multiple women of sexually assaulting them, likes to masturbate in port o johns, sides with Hamas, calls Jesus a “zombie,” and labels Our Blessed Mother a “skank.”

Chris Rabb won the Democratic primary for a congressional seat in a Philadelphia district. He is an advocate of sex-reassignment surgery for children, is rabidly pro-abortion, wants to abolish Columbus Day, hates Israel, supports national grocery stores, says corporate CEOs “should fry,” and has campaigned with Hasan Piker (who says “America deserved 9/11”).

James Talarico is running for Senate in Texas. He claims to be a “deeply religious” Christian who supports genital mutilation, chemical castration and puberty blockers for disturbed young people, says there are six sexes (he now says there are two), wants to allow sexually explicit material—but not the Ten Commandments—in the schools, and says abortion-on-demand should be legal, claiming God gave the Virgin Mary the right to abort Jesus.

When I was in the Air Force, I had a chance to shake hands with presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. He was campaigning in northern California in 1968; shortly thereafter he was assassinated in Los Angeles. He was known as a “progressive.”

It is a sure bet that Kennedy would have absolutely nothing to do with those who call themselves “progressives” today. Indeed, he would be revolted by their behavior and their policies.