Bill Donohue

No administration in American history has tried harder to promote thought control than the Biden administration. Orwellian at its finest, the goal is to induce the public to accept its highly politicized vocabulary as a means of controlling its thought patterns.

To read the entire report click here. Here are some examples.

Gender Identity

Just hours into his presidential term, Mr. Biden’s White House website allowed users to choose their pronouns, a change that drew swift praise from advocates. As part of the website revamp that occurs during presidential transitions, the White House changed its contact form. The form now allows individuals to select from the following list: she/her, he/him, they/them, other, or prefer not to share.

Illegal Immigration

Suggested terminology swaps reportedly include using “noncitizen” or “undocumented noncitizen” instead of “alien” or “illegal alien,” and referring to the “integration” of immigrants into society instead of “assimilation,” which has been criticized as racist.

Health

• “Convict/ex-convict” becomes “People who were formerly incarcerated”
• “Crazy” is replaced by “People with a pre-existing mental disorder”
• “Homosexuals” should be called “Queer”
• “Transgenders/transgendered/transsexual” is replaced by “LGBTQ (or LGBTQIA or LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA2)”

Aviation

Recommendations included replacing “airman” with “aircrew,” “manned aviation” with “traditional aviation” and “cockpit” with “flight deck.”

General Accountability Office

Leaked internal memos obtained by DailyMail.com show the Government Accountability Office (GAO) forbids employees from using male and female terms.

State Department

Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a memo instructing State Department employees to refrain from using what he deemed to be “problematic” language.  He  instructs staffers not to “pressure someone to state their pronouns.” Instead, he offers a list of commonly used pronouns including “she/her, he/him, they/them, and ze/zir” explaining that people use a variety of pronouns.

Additionally, Blinken identified other common terms that State Department employees should avoid using. Rather than saying “mother/father,” staffers should say “parent” instead. Likewise, “son/daughter” should be replaced with “child.” Meanwhile, “spouse” or “partner” should be used in place of “husband/wife.”

Just for a moment, imagine if those who died as recently as at the end of the last century were informed of this madness. What would they say? Our cultural descent is happening very quickly, and those leading the charge are mostly well-educated white people who have declared war on truth, nature, and nature’s God.

Contact the White House Press Secretary: Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov

Bill Donohue

It was the day after Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. I was smiling (I had run Reagan’s campaign in the North Hills of Pittsburgh), but most of the other professors at La Roche College (now a university) were sulking, and many appeared depressed. However, their mood was not uncharacteristic of the way they were most of the time: There are a lot of unhappy campers in the professoriate, especially in the liberal arts.

Nothing has changed.

In a new study by psychologists in Finland assessing the state of mind of radical social justice devotees, it was found that those who bought into progressive ideas are profoundly unhappy. Published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, the researchers started with a sample of 851 persons, mostly students and professors at the University of Turku, and then expanded it to 5,030 adults. They distinguished between those who hold to a traditional liberal perspective and those who identify with a  radical one. They focused on the latter.

The researchers devised a Critical Social Justice Attitude Scale (CSJAS) that measured seven aspects of what they deemed as representative of “woke” politics. Most of the items dealt with race, though one tapped transgenderism (the idea that the sexes are interchangeable). For example, “University reading lists should include fewer white or European authors” was deemed reflective of the “woke” view.

Social justice attitudes, the study’s authors said, “perceive people foremost as members of identity groups and as being, witting or unwitting, perpetrators or victims of oppression based on the groups’ perceived power differentials; and advocate regulating how or how much people speak and how they act if there is a perceived power differential between speakers, and intervening in action or speech deemed oppressive.”

The conclusions were riveting.

Regarding the initial small sample, it was determined that high CSJAS scores were “linked to anxiety, depression, and a lack of happiness.” On the larger sample, “this lower mental well-being was mostly associated with being on the political left and not specifically with having a high CSJAS score.” Women were more likely than men to have high CSJAS scores, which explains why their happiness quotient was smaller.

The researchers noted that their findings were consistent with that of other studies on this subject. They are right about that.

“Liberals, especially liberal women, are significantly less likely to be happy with their lives and satisfied with their ‘mental health,’ compared to their conservative peers aged 18-55.” According to University of Virginia sociologist W. Brad Wilcox, this was “the big takeaway from the 2022 American Family Survey, a striking new poll from YouGov and the Deseret News.”

In 2023, Musa al-Gharbi, a sociologist at Columbia University, examined data from many studies on this subject and concluded that conservatives are indeed happier than liberals. He said this finding “is consistent across countries and extends back in time.”

The question remains: Why are those on the left so miserable?

For starters, consider this. Imagine waking up each day thinking the world is made up of oppressors, racists, sexists, homophobes and their victims. Is that likely to put a smile on your dial?

It’s actually worse than this. Left-wing professors, which is to say most of them in the social sciences and humanities, love to bask in their negativity. Smug as can be, they love thinking that those who don’t share their views are ignorant buffoons; they, of course, are the only really bright ones. Their darkness is their defining characteristic.

But why do these malcontents think this way?

It has much to do with what Catholicism calls the sin of pride, the belief that we are self-sufficient human beings and have no need for God. The big thinkers believe they are too smart to believe in God. Too bad they aren’t smart enough to know that boys who claim to be girls should not be allowed to compete against girls in sports and shower with them. There must be a cavity in their brain when it comes to sex.

It must be said that while those on the left are the most likely to be unhappy, it has been my experience that extremists on the right are just as likely to be despondent.

I have often said that when I encounter a highly educated person, or an activist, for the first time, I know within minutes if I am dealing with an extremist. The individual could be on the right or the left—it doesn’t matter. The common denominator is humorlessness. They rarely smile and their bouts of laughter usually come at someone else’s expense.

Smiling is important. Laughter is important. They are staples of mental health. Hanging around those who are habitually unhappy—for reasons wholly due to their cast of mind and their inflated idea of who they are—is a chore. It’s also a bore.

The Finnish psychologists learned that left-wing “woke” mavens find it hard to be happy. The deeper problem is that they actually like it that way.

Bill Donohue

On Thursday, April 18, 2024, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael E. Horowitz released his report on the FBI’s leaked memo targeting Catholics, and once again the loyal sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have been slapped in the face.

While the IG’s report notes that the memo “improperly conflated religious beliefs of activists with the likelihood they would engage in domestic terrorism,” it goes on to say that there was no evidence that “anyone ordered or directed” an investigation of Catholics because of their religious beliefs.

To say that no one ordered an investigation of Catholics because of their religion is about as persuasive as saying no one ordered an investigation of blacks because of their race.

Frankly, the IG’s report does little to bring this issue to a close. It is overly vague, ambiguous, and littered with contradictions. Catholics deserve a better accounting of the FBI’s and DOJ’s actions.

The IG insists that the memo grew out of the FBI’s investigation of alleged domestic terrorists. But if the intent of this investigation was to focus on right-wing nationalists, how did Catholics become the focus of the leaked FBI memo last year? Why did the FBI look into establishing sources and other contacts in the Church, instead of focusing on the stomping grounds unique to right-wing nationalists? The IG’s report has nothing to clarify these questions.

Further, the IG’s report admits that one of the authors of the leaked memo says she was “really interested in this resurgence of interest in the Catholic Church” by what the FBI claim are domestic terrorists. This statement alone contradicts the claim in the IG’s report that Catholics were just tangentially connected to the FBI’s investigation of genuine targets. From the jump, the authors clearly were “interested” in the Catholic Church.

Ultimately, the IG’s report does not put this matter to rest. Certain elements within the FBI and DOJ went rogue and have not been held accountable for their actions. For a year, they could have taken proactive steps to assure Catholics across the country that these renegades faced serious consequences; however, they have admitted they were “aghast” and even “appalled” by the leaked memo but took no substantive actions to resolve the matter.

Therefore, I call upon the Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to exercise its oversight authority to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has rightfully pointed out that the IG’s report glosses over the fact that critical files associated with the memo were deleted. This is a serious breach. These files are federal records and bureaucrats cannot just destroy them on a whim.

Additionally, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has shown great tenacity in taking on the FBI. I would encourage him in the strongest terms possible to call for new hearings on this matter so we can hear directly from IG Horowitz to clear up the vagueness and ambiguities in his written report.

Last year, I sent several letters to Rep. Jordan with direct questions that would help allay the fears of Catholics regarding the FBI’s memo. Many of them remain unanswered. It is paramount we get the answers to these questions:

Was it someone from outside the FBI that crafted this egregious abuse of power?

Has there been a broader internal investigation of the FBI seeking to learn if other agents have also been spying on Catholics?

How common is it for FBI agents to infiltrate houses of worship—of any religion—employing “tripwire sources”?

What did they intend to do with the information once they completed their probe?

Without new hearings and concrete efforts not only to resolve the lingering questions but also to hold these rogue agents accountable, Catholics will rightly remain skeptical of the FBI and DOJ. We are not walking away from this, and I will have more to say on this in the future.

Bill Donohue

The Diocese of Brooklyn, ably led by Bishop Robert J. Brennan, has entered into an agreement with the Office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James regarding the diocese’s two-decade child protection policy. Both organizations have issued a press release on this matter. But there are instances where the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) account misrepresents the terms of the agreement that were reached with the Diocese of Brooklyn (DB); in some instances, existing Diocesan policies are not properly noted by OAG.

• OAG says the Diocese “failed to consistently comply with its own policies and procedures for responding to sexual abuse.”

DB notes that the agreement specified that the Diocese’s “policies and procedures were significant and improved the Diocese’s response to sexual abuse.”

• OAG claims “The Diocese did not have policies in place to ensure a prompt and thorough response to allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct.”

DB says the agreement admitted that “in most cases, the Diocese timely referred the Abuse Allegations to the Diocesan Review Board and hired an independent investigator to investigate the charges.”

• OAG argues that “the Diocese will also post online a confidential portal and telephone number for submitting complaints.”

Breaking News: The Diocese has had such a phone number for 20 years.

• OAG opines that “The Diocese will also refer all complaints it receives to law enforcement.”

Hello! Unlike other religious and secular institutions—which are never scrutinized—the Diocese has been doing this for a very long time.

• OAG contends that “The agreement requires the Diocese to take significant action to prevent and address allegations of clergy sexual abuse” and make reforms such as “Installing an independent,  secular monitor who will oversee the Diocese’s compliance with policies and procedures….”

Fact Check: It was the Diocese which proposed the appointment of an independent third party to monitor compliance.

Why OAG misrepresented the Brooklyn Diocese’s response to these issues is unknown. But the public, and state lawmakers, need to know the truth. It is important for the state not to feed anti-Catholicism, and one way to avoid doing that is to accurately report interactions with Catholic officials.

As I recount in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, there is no institution in the nation that has a better record in combating the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. This is not open to debate: the data are conclusive. And this has been true for decades.

The heyday of the scandal was between 1965 and 1985. Current reports are typically about old cases. The fact of the matter is that almost all the offending priests are either dead or have been kicked out of ministry. To suggest otherwise is egregiously unjust.

We are contacting Attorney General Letitia James and all members of the New York State legislature.

Contact James Sheehan, author of the OAG report: james.sheehan@ag.ny.gov

Bill Donohue

The latest Pew Research Center poll on Catholics reveals that Pope Francis’ favorability rating is tanking. The survey does not attempt to explain why, though its findings are suggestive of what’s happening.

In 2015, the pope’s favorability rating was 90 percent. In 2021, it was 83 percent. Today it is 75 percent. Those Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly are the least supportive of him: his favorability rating is 71 percent.

Why are Catholics who are the most practicing also the least happy with Pope Francis? It is surely not because they are hearing the Holy Father denounced from the pulpit—that just doesn’t happen. But we know from virtually every survey that these Catholics are mostly orthodox, and it is likely that they are also more attentive to what he has been doing. That may explain their relative dissatisfaction with him.

In the few years since the last poll in 2021, the pope has endorsed civil unions, putting no conditions on its acceptance. More provocative was his decision to allow the blessing of homosexual couples; it has led to unprecedented pushback by the clergy all over the world.

He reorganized the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, appointing Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez to head it; he previously published a book that was seen by many as pornographic. More than anyone, he defended same-sex blessings.

Pope Francis allowed Fr. Marco Rupnik, a fellow Jesuit, to remain a priest in good standing, notwithstanding his being thrown out of the Society for Jesus for sacrilegious and sexual offenses. After Rupnik was excommunicated, he was reinstated. The pope similarly failed to deal forthrightly with his Jesuit friend, Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, who was sentenced to prison by an Argentine court for sexually abusing seminarians.

The pope has put severe restrictions on the Latin Mass, curtailing its availability and alienating millions of Catholics. After San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone publicly denied Communion to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the pope granted her a private audience at the Vatican. He dismissed one of his critics, Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, and stripped Cardinal Raymond Burke of his salary and his subsidized apartment in Rome.

All of these issues, and others like them, are seen by many practicing Catholics as wrongheaded. It is not likely that at this late date in his pontificate that Pope Francis will be able to substantially increase his favorability rating with these Catholics.

Bill Donohue

On his April 12 HBO show, “Real Time,” Bill Maher justified the killing of innocent children. Speaking of pro-life Americans, he said, “They think it’s murder, and it kind of is. I’m just okay with that. I am. There [are] 8 billion people in the world, I’m sorry, we won’t miss you. That’s my position on that.” He did not volunteer to make a personal contribution to that end.

Maher’s sincerity is appreciated, if not his promotion of violence. He knows, as every honest person who agrees with science knows, that abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

The most famous person to warn of overpopulation, Thomas Malthus, was opposed to abortion as a remedy. Perhaps that’s because he was an Anglican minister. Maher is an atheist.

Maher has more in common with Paul Ehrlich, the most famous overpopulation zealot in recent times. He predicted in 1968 that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the next decade. It never happened. In fact, obesity spiked in the 1970s. Like Maher, however, he recommended aborting more children to “solve” this alleged problem.

Maher makes abortion rights advocates jittery. On his show, two guests, Gillian Tett and Piers Morgan, admitted they are fans of abortion rights, but when Maher said he was okay with the killing of innocent kids, they branded his position “quite harsh.” They did not explain what was harsh about it.

It is dishonest to say that some abortion rights advocates are not happy to be pro-abortion. They most certainly are.

• In 1975, Anne Nicol Gaylor, the atheist co-founder of Freedom from Religion Foundation, wrote a book titled, Abortion Is A Blessing. Feminists such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem loved it.
• In 2009, the newly appointed president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, wrote that “abortion is a blessing.”
• In 2019, an obstetrician-gynecologist-abortionist, Lisa H. Harris, writing in the New York Times, said, “I know that for every woman whose abortion I perform, I stop a developing human being from being born. I know that for each of them [her patients], there was a second entity there—a baby, a person, a potential life, a life, depending on your beliefs.”
• In 2021, Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi testified before the House Oversight Committee on abortion. She told the panel that “for thousands of people I’ve cared for, abortion is a blessing, abortion is an act of love, abortion is freedom.”
• In 2022, Sarah Lopez testified before the House Oversight Committee and labeled her abortion “an act of self love.” She said “it was the best decision I ever made.”

Yes, there are people who really love abortion, and some readily confess that its victims are innocent children. Maher is just the latest to do so.

Contact the vice president of media relations at Warner Bros. Discovery: Ashley.Mokma@wbd.com

Bill Donohue

On the cover of the latest edition of Interview magazine, Rihanna is dressed as a sexy nun, wearing bright red lipstick adorned in a black and white habit. This is not the first time she has appropriated Catholic garb.

In 2018, she was dressed as a bishop in an exhibition, “Heavenly Bodies,” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. One reviewer offered a detailed description of her outfit. “The lavishly embroidered and jeweled robes matched the garments’ accompanying ‘mitre,’ a kind of headdress for bishops.” The Vatican loaned the mitres and some other items.

While Rihanna’s presence at the New York event was not disrespectful—she won the applause of Cardinal Timothy Dolan—the photo on the cover of Interview is meant to be provocative, even edgy. Why she chose to depict herself as a trampy-looking nun is unclear.

Mel Ottenberg interviewed her for the magazine. Most of what they said is what we would expect from foul-mouthed adolescents. He said toward the end, “This is such a sick interview, by the way.” She replied, “I love it.”

But there is a side to Rihanna that is serious, and it is ennobling. She cares deeply about her two children, saying, “The well-being of your kids, you worry about that constantly. Nobody warns you that having kids means you’re going to worry every second of your life.” It should be noted that she spontaneously mentioned her kids—she was not asked about them.

When she was later asked about having more children, she answered, “As many as god [sic] wants me to have. I don’t know what god [sic] wants, but I would go for more than two. I would try for my girl. But of course if it’s another boy, it’s another boy.”

God is on Rihanna’s mind.

In an interview she gave last year to Relevant magazine, she said, “I have been in a place where I felt like maybe I had disappointed God so much that we weren’t as close.” She also knows what it’s like to surrender to God. “When you give God complete control, it’s very hard not to be fearless.”

The devil is also on her mind.

“The devil just has a way of making you feel like you’re not good enough, and that you’re not worthy of God being close to you. It’s really not the truth, but you wind up feeling like that.”

Those are not the words of some blasphemous celebrity. Rihanna is no saint but her flirtation with Catholicism has redeeming qualities. Hope she stays the course.

Bill Donohue

The Vatican Declaration on Human Dignity, Dignitas Infinita, shows once again that the teachings of the Catholic Church are at one with science. Ironically, this comes at a time when many elites in the scientific community are out of step with well-established scientific truths. To be specific, the conviction that the sexes are interchangeable and not fixed by nature is not based on science. It is based on politics.

The document affirms that “Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter.”

The saliency of this principal finds expression in the Church’s rejection of ideological colonization. Gender theory not only plays a central role, it “is extremely dangerous since it cancels differences in its claim to make everyone equal.” Similarly, gender theory “intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference.”

To deny sexual differences, the Vatican says, is to eliminate “the anthropological basis of the family.” This can lead to a situation where it becomes acceptable to dictate “how children should be raised.” It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.”

Pope Francis’ exhortation on this issue, Amoris Laetitia (2016), is cited in the document. “We cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore.” Importantly, the Vatican statement also says that “sex-change intervention” is problematic because it “risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.”

To the average person, especially Catholics, this document makes perfect sense. But unfortunately we live in a world where many elites are in a massive state of denial.

Just this week, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota announced—to great fanfare—that puberty blockers have harmful effects, including cancer, and that it is not at all certain that they can be reversed (as the “gender-affirming” cheerleaders in medicine have claimed). This was hardly breaking news to most people, but to the anti-science crowd, it was bad news.

The Associated Press latest style book, now available, advises journalists not to use the term “female” anymore because it “can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender ideology.” Another triumph of politics over science.

Meanwhile, the female coach of the South Carolina women’s basketball team, which won the championship on Sunday, said that men should be allowed to compete against women in women’s sports. “If you consider yourself a woman and you want to play sports, or vice versa, you should be able to play.” Let’s see how everyone reacts if a flood of men want to play on her team next year.

The Catholic Church is not at war with science. But many of the elites in the scientific community are. Worse, they have influenced legions of others in elite positions. The biggest losers are women, or what journalists used to call females.

Bill Donohue

An atheist inmate at an upstate New York prison won in a backdoor fashion when he joined five of his fellow prisoners in a lawsuit asserting religious rights to witness the April 8 total eclipse despite a prison lockdown. In a settlement agreement, the six felons will be permitted to view the eclipse.

The law firm representing the inmates said the agreement “will allow our six clients to view the solar eclipse in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Granting religious rights to the five prisoners who belong to a religion is not the issue: the issue is granting religious rights to the atheist. That is absurd.

The root of the problem lay in the boneheaded decision recently made by the Woodbourne Correctional Facility to grant the request of the atheist, Jeremy Zielinski, to recognize atheism as an official religion. The fact that he is a convicted serial rapist (he previously served time for raping a child) is reason enough to deny him anything but the most elementary of rights. But the ruling by the prison declaring atheism to be a religion still needs to be reversed.

To say that atheism is a religion is an oxymoron. It makes as much sense as talking about true fiction. Atheism is the absence of belief in God, thus its negation is also its disqualifier: the proposition that atheism is a religion implodes. Moreover, the Secular Humanist Association defines atheism as “religious disbelief.”

To be sure, there are websites, such as quora.com, that argue otherwise. It says that “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.” The “numerous occasions” amount to two, and it is wrong on both.

In neither decision (McCreary County, KY v. ACLU and Torcaso v. Watkins) does it mention the words “atheist” or “atheism” even once. The website says that in the latter decision, it “specifically included ‘Secular Humanism’ as an example of religion.”

Not so fast.

It is true that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a former Klansman who joined the KKK to fight Catholics) rendered a footnote in Torcaso that named “Secular Humanism” as a religion that does not believe in God. But unlike Buddhism, which fits this description, Secular Humanism does not. Black’s assertion is contradicted by the American Humanist Association.

It defines Humanism as “without theism and other supernatural beliefs” (its italics). It says its mission “is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces.” The organization further contends that “More than two-thirds of people who identify as humanists and who are members of the American Humanist Association also identify as atheists.”

To blow an even bigger hole in these myths about atheism and Secular Humanism, consider that according to the Atheist Revolution, “secular humanists go beyond atheism, rejecting not just the notion of god(s) but of anything supernatural.”

This does not mean that atheists and non-theists have no rights. The International Religious Freedom Act, signed by President Obama, says that “The freedom of thought and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion.”

Just don’t call atheism a religion and waste time weighing the “religious” rights of atheist felons. They have none.

Bill Donohue

The Biden administration is claiming that conservative critics of its Easter Egg ban on religious symbols and themes are wrong, and that this policy has been observed by previous administrations.

They are the ones who are wrong. We proved it on April 3rd: click here to read our news release on this subject and see for yourself a picture of a Catholic missionary shrine that was painted on the New Mexico Easter Egg submission in 2002. It obviously passed muster with the administration of President George W. Bush.

The White House is now saying that it is following the rules established by the American Egg Board (AEB), and officials there say they are following rules established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Searching for “Easter Egg Roll” on the USDA website yields articles such as, “How long can I store bread?” There is one titled, “White House Easter Egg Roll”; it is about the 2018 event. When trying to access it, the reader is taken to “Page Not Found.”

Why was this page scrubbed?

On Easter Sunday, March 31, AEB released a statement about the history of this annual White House celebration. The one reference to religion says this event does not show “preference to any individual religious or political viewpoints as AEB is prohibited from doing as a national Checkoff organization.” [Checkoff organizations are USDA entities that  promote research about agricultural commodities without endorsing producers or brands.]

It makes sense that AEB cannot show “preference to any individual religious or political viewpoints.” It’s a government agency. But that hardly settles the issue.

Public school teachers cannot show preference to any religion. But they are also banned from stopping students from religious expression. If a student in a music or art class decides to sing a religious hymn or draw a religious symbol, the teacher has no legal right to stop him.

Similarly, it is one thing for AEB not to promote religion; it is quite another for it, or the USDA, to prohibit individuals from depicting a religious theme in a government-sponsored event.

The White House is wrong historically and constitutionally. And the media are just as corrupt for not reporting this story accurately.

Contact the White House Press Secretary: Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov