Bill Donohue comments on his role in the FBI probe of Anthony Weiner:

Two months ago to the day, I asked for an investigation of Anthony Weiner on suspicion of sexually abusing his four-year-old child, Jordan. I was subsequently notified that my complaint had been honored: a formal investigation was underway.

Never did I think that my call for a probe might evolve into an FBI investigation into electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin. I will explain my involvement in this matter after I offer a summary of recent events as reported by Yahoo on October 28 in an article (also found on people.com) titled, “Everything You Should Know About the Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation—And Its Impact on Clinton’s Campaign.”

The article cites seven key developments leading to the FBI investigation of new emails found on the joint laptop of Abedin and Weiner.

The first item reads: “Weiner’s third scandal in August 2016, when the New York Post reported that he had been sexting another woman.” It goes on to say that the text exchanges included “an image he sent of himself lying in bed next to his 4-year-old son with Abedin, Jordan.”

The third item reads: “Child Services launched an investigation into Weiner’s parenting amid the scandal.” It then says, “The New York Post reported in October that the Administration for Children’s Services had launched an investigation into Weiner’s care of his son.”

My role in triggering the investigation is as follows.

On August 31, the same day that the most explosive story on this issue was published in the New York Post—it showed Weiner using his son as a “chick magnet” to lure sexual relations—I filed a complaint with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the New York branch of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

That same day, Daily Mail Online, a British media outlet, reported that “a ACS spokesman said: ‘In order to protect children and their privacy, ACS does not comment on specific cases of allegations of child maltreatment, regardless of whether or not allegations have been reported, are being investigated, or have not resulted in an investigation. It came after Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, urged the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to investigate Weiner for sexually abusing his young son.'”

On September 26, I received a phone call from ACS. I was told that my complaint has been accepted and that Weiner would be investigated. The next day, the same ACS official called to question me further. A week later, on October 3, FBI agents seized Weiner’s laptop, phone and tablet.

Why did I trigger this investigation? As I said in my news release of August 31, “I am well aware of the plague of child sexual abuse that marks virtually every sector of society, including, regrettably, the Catholic Church. I am writing to express my concerns about the emotional and physical well being of Jordan Weiner, son of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.”

The political fallout that is now apparent must be laid squarely at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton. Had she not had her own server, the FBI would have nothing to investigate.

Bill Donohue comments on a new project by the Smithsonian:

The Smithsonian has hired its first religious curator since the 1890s. “Peter Manseau was born for the job,” says the Washington Post. “The son of a priest and a nun,” the story notes, “Manseau was meant to be a scholar making sense of history.” For five years, he will oversee new exhibitions on American religious history, and will add to the museum’s holdings on religious objects.

This could signal a real breakthrough, providing wonderful opportunities for the public to rediscover the religious roots of America. Or it could wind up like so many other Smithsonian projects and become another exercise in political correctness.

To the latter point, the Smithsonian’s new African American Museum is a disgrace: every major black scholar, politician, and activist of a conservative bent has been whitewashed out of existence. Also, the Smithsonian’s willingness to offend Christian sensibilities was on grand display six years ago when it launched the exhibit, “Hide/Seek.” It featured large ants eating away at Jesus on the crucifix. A Catholic League protest of this scurrilous video led curators to withdraw it.

Therefore, much depends on Manseau. From what we know, there is cause for concern.

His book, One Nation Under Gods: A New American History, was hailed by Publishers Weekly for being “subversive.” What was subversive about it? Manseau wrote extensively about “the supposed Christian roots of the Republic.” So who does he think founded America? Buddhists?

Manseau’s Catholic roots are themselves interesting. It is telling that his father, Bill, did not accept the Church’s teachings on ordination: he said he was called to be a married priest. Also, both of his parents worked to reform the Church along the lines of the mainline Protestant denominations. By any measure, that hasn’t worked out too well.

It should also be noted that Manseau is not a practicing Catholic. No wonder he likes Andrew Greeley’s definition of a Catholic: it depends on whether the person is “loyal to the poetry of Catholicism.” For some reason, there are no entries in the Catholic Catechism on that interpretation.

Stay tuned.

Bill Donohue comments on an editorial by the New York Daily News that was posted on its website:

Yesterday, I took the Daily News and the New York Times to task for not running a story on a Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish school that agreed to pay $2.1 million to two former students. Rabbi Joel Kolko was charged with molesting the boys, beginning at the age of six.

The Daily News has now offered a responsible rejoinder. It concedes that it “blew it,” explaining that it “sometimes misses stories.” Fair enough. It then contends that it covers the sexual abuse of minors whenever and wherever it occurs. It also defends itself against charges of anti-Catholicism, providing some examples of its fairness.

Unlike the Daily News, the New York Times has not explained why it did not cover the story about Rabbi Kolko. While I believe that the absence of a story in the Daily News was indeed an error, I do not believe that the Times erred.

Quite frankly, the Times has a history of omitting stories on rabbis who molest youngsters, something one of its previous public editors even admitted to me. Yet little has changed.

The reasoned response by the Daily News is much appreciated. We will certainly let our supporters know of it.

Bill Donohue comments on biased reporting by two New York dailies:

We have repeatedly said that the vast majority of media outlets and pundits who dwell on priestly sexual abuse—a problem that occurred mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s—are not seriously interested in the sexual abuse of minors. One way to prove this is to review how the media cover this issue when the victimizers are not Catholic. The evidence is overwhelming: the Catholic League conclusion is correct.

Just this week, the New York Post and the Jewish Forward reported on an Orthodox yeshiva in Brooklyn that agreed to pay $2.1 million in a child sexual abuse settlement. The case involves Rabbi Joel Kolko, a senior rabbi, who was charged with molesting two boys at the Jewish day school. This was not the first time that charges had been made against this rabbi—they have been going on for 25 years.

Rabbi Kolko is quite unlike most of the priests accused of abusing minors. In the case of priests, almost all of the abusers were homosexuals: 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were postpubescent. In the case of Rabbi Kolko, he started molesting the boys when they were six-years-old. He is a true pedophile.

The other two New York newspapers, the Daily News and the New York Times, are known for their fixation on priestly sexual abuse, and for their hard-hitting editorials on this subject. But neither paper ran a story on Rabbi Kolko, and there will be no editorial. So predictable.

The bias is even more blatant than this. Just last month, the Daily News ran a story on a Bronx priest accused of molesting a 15-year-old boy 30 years ago. The previous month, the New York Times ran a story about a teenage boy at Fordham Prep who was allegedly abused by a lay teacher 32 years ago.

Yet neither newspaper has any interest in reporting on millions of dollars being paid out in a settlement—in 2016—in a case involving a pedophile rabbi. And they expect us to believe that there is no anti-Catholic animus at the Daily News and the New York Times! They prove us right all the time.

Contact the top news editors:
Arthur Browne: abrowne@nydailynews.com
Dean Baquet: Dean.Baquet@nytimes.com

Bill Donohue comments on last night’s Comedy Central show, “The Meltdown with Jonah and Kumail”:

Guy Branum began his appearance by asking, “Who here was raised Catholic?” That tipped his hand; he was about to skewer Catholics for laughs. How unusual on Comedy Central.

To make it worse, he began by assuring the audience that he himself is “not Catholic; I was raised Jewish.”

“It is very hard for me to talk about the Catholic Church,” he said, “because on one hand, super homophobic, super misogynistic, doesn’t believe in gay marriage. But on the other hand, I must understand that if I had been born in the year 1400, I would run that s***.”

Then, telling the audience “to ask yourself what a Renaissance Pope needs to do on a day-to-day basis,” he began his list with, “Have sex with teenage boys. Done.”

If a Catholic comedian took a cheap shot at Judaism we would condemn it. We hope others join us in condemning this unnecessary assault on Catholic sensibilities.

Contact Jeremy Zweig, Vice President, Corporate Communications: jeremy@viacom.com

Bill Donohue comments on the death of Jack Chick:

Jack Chick, the anti-Catholic cartoonist and publisher, died on October 23 at the age of 92.

Chick’s goal was to convince Protestants that Roman Catholicism was a false religion. He published scores of books and magazines, and released many videos, but he was most famous for his small tracts and comic books. His 3×5 inch cartoon-like booklets were released all over the world, and in dozens of languages. His titles were provocative: “Are Roman Catholics Christians?”; “Why is Mary Crying?”; and “The Death Cookie” (meaning the Host). These were among his bestsellers.

Some of the assaults on Catholicism were quite specific. For example, Confession was the work of Satan. The Jesuits constitute a “truly secret army” all over the world. The Catholic Church was responsible for the Nazi death camps. Pope Pius XI and John Paul I were drugged. Protestants must beware of the “Catholicization of America.” The Vatican is bent on creating the “New World Order.”

The person most to blame for these recent conditions is none other than Our Blessed Mother. Here is how Chick author Dave Hunt put it: “Uncompromising Christians will be put to death for standing in the way of unity and peace. From current trends, it seems inevitable that a woman [his emphasis] must ride the beast. And of all the women in history, none rivals Roman Catholicism’s omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ‘Mary.'”

Chick built an empire, not just a company. Headquartered in California, he had operations in Scotland, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. He published over 800 million tracts. He was the Amazon of Anti-Catholicism.

In 1996, I wrote that “the most invidious form of anti-Catholicism is that which emanates from elite circles. When men and women of power and influence engage in Catholic bashing, the effects can be devastating, which is why the Catholic League responds so quickly and decisively. But there is also a brand of anti-Catholicism that comes from less urbane quarters, from places that target the undereducated. And no one is better at doing this than Chick publications.”

Twenty years later, nothing has changed. The anti-Catholic bigots who work for Hillary Clinton are the ones that command our attention, not Chick publications. The ever-tolerant professors who hate Catholicism, along with their allies in the media, the entertainment industry, and the arts—they are the real threat.

It is so fitting that the AP story today on Jack Chick is not only the most quoted, it is also the least accurate. In the first sentence of the story by Robert Jablon we learn that Chick vilified “the beliefs of Catholics and Muslims.” Later, we read that his hate-filled tracts were aimed at “blacks, homosexuals, Arabs and others.”

The fact is that Jack Chick concentrated most of his time and resources attacking Catholics, not Muslims and homosexuals. Indeed, on the website of Chick Publications there are 680 stories on Muslims, 260 on homosexuals, and 2,460 on Catholics.

However, in today’s politically correct world, any “microaggression” against homosexuals is bound to be treated on a par with John Podesta’s quest for a “revolution” in the Catholic Church. This is what the left calls parity.

Catholics may finally be rid of Jack Chick’s legacy. Now if they could only free themselves from his more educated comrades, that would be real progress.

Bill Donohue comments on Samantha Bee’s diatribe against Catholic hospitals:

Samantha Bee’s hatred for the Catholic Church is palpable. And it was on full display in her tirade last night on her TBS show.

The Catholic Church’s healthcare system is the largest non-government provider of healthcare services in the United States, with over 600 hospitals spread across the country. It provides loving, life-affirming care and treatment to millions. But it is that “life-affirming” part that enrages Samantha Bee.

She objects to the ethical and religious directives that guide Catholic healthcare—specifically those parts that affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every human life, from conception to natural death. That offends Bee’s rabid enthusiasm for abortion.

And of course, she cannot discuss such serious matters without descending into her trademark juvenile raunch:

• Showing an elderly man in a hospital bed depicted with an erection, she cracks, “you can bet they’ll put an end to all that filthy death bed masturbating.”
• On the U.S. Bishops authorizing the ethical and religious directives for Catholic healthcare: “decisions affecting millions of American vaginas are being made by people who have never owned one or touched one.”
• On a nun and the Church reconciling after a disagreement on healthcare: “I’m sure the makeup sex was great.”
• After showing a robed Catholic priest explaining the healthcare directives: “Thanks, Friar Suck. When I need reproductive advice from a virgin in a bathrobe, I’ll let you know.”

And when we need advice on Catholic healthcare from a foul-mouthed anti-Catholic bigot, we’ll be sure to let Samantha Bee know.

Contact Lauren Hurvitz, Executive Vice President and Chief Communications Officer for TBS: Lauren.hurvitz@turner.com

Bill Donohue comments on the latest Wikileaks email exchanges between John Podesta and one of his “Catholic” groups:

Previous Wikileaks emails show that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good as a Catholic front group to push for a “revolution” within the Catholic Church.

The latest batch of Wikileaks emails show how Podesta colluded with Catholics in Alliance in August 2015 to reach out to Catholics working for the Archdioceses of Baltimore and Washington in an attempt to persuade them to support the Iran Treaty.

What was in it for Catholics in Alliance is unclear. Was it done at the request of its donor, George Soros, who hates Israel? Perhaps Soros was calling in his chips. Surely the White House needed all the help it could get, so it made sense to get the Clinton team on board.

No matter, the email by Christopher Hale, executive director of Catholics in Alliance, shows how little respect he has for separation of church and state. “I have phone calls early next week with senior advocacy staffers for the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Archdiocese of Washington (which includes territory in Maryland), and the Maryland Catholic Conference,” Hale wrote.

Hale was working with the Obama administration to do its bidding. “I spoke to the White House yesterday and they assure us the media’s moniker calling us ‘God Squad’ isn’t just sweet nothings, but actually a fair assessment of the substantial difference we’re making in this conversation.”

In 2013, the IRS revoked the tax exempt status of Catholics in Alliance for failing to file a 990 form for three consecutive years. This is hardly surprising: Catholics in Alliance is a dummy Catholic letterhead established to do the work of left-wing operatives in the Democratic Party. In short, it was founded in deceit and operates in deceit.

Hillary Clinton refuses to apologize for, or distance herself from, Podesta’s manipulation of public opinion and his anti-Catholic tactics. She is the problem, not these “sweet nothings” lackeys.

Bill Donohue comments on reaction to Donald Trump’s criticisms of partial-birth abortion:

Lying about abortion is a cottage industry, so it was hardly surprising to learn that pro-abortion advocates would label Donald Trump a liar for telling the truth about partial-birth abortion. “You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day,” he said.

Trump was right: he offered an accurate account of what partial-birth abortion entails.

This did not sit well with the champions of abortion. Dr. Aaron B. Caughey, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, branded Trump’s comment “absurd.” He said, “I’m unaware of anyone that’s terminating a pregnancy a few days prior to delivery of a normal pregnancy.” Similarly, Erin Gloria Ryan, writing for The Daily Beast, said Trump was peddling a “myth.”

Too bad these apologists didn’t explain why the U.S. Supreme Court felt obliged to ban this barbaric procedure (in most instances) in 2007. If it were a fiction, what were the judges banning?

Their lame denials—have they ever heard of Dr. George Tiller or Dr. Kermit Gosnell—won’t wash. Tiller performed over 60,000 abortions, many of them—he bragged about it—involving babies who were 80 percent born. Gosnell’s “house of horrors” included the remains of babies he cut up just prior to, or after, birth. No wonder Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ed Koch, both of whom defended Roe v. Wade, labeled partial-birth abortion “infanticide.”

We’ve been down this road before. In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, went on national television saying he “lied through [his] teeth” when he “just went out there and spouted the party line” about how rare partial-birth abortion is.

Apologists also contest what partial-birth abortion really is. Dr. Jen Gunter, for instance, protests Trump’s comment about “ripping” the baby out of the mother’s womb. She says “we don’t ‘rip’ anything in OB/GYN.” So what do they do? “We use sharp dissection and blunt dissection, but we don’t rip.” How reassuring to know that when a scissors is jammed into the skull of a baby about to be born that nothing is “ripped.”

In 2004, Dr. Carolyn Westhoff testified before a federal panel on this subject. Here is an excerpt from the exchange during cross-examination.

Q: And at that point the fetus’ body is below the cervix and the neck is in the cervix with the head still in the uterus, right?

Westhoff: Yes.

Q: And it’s at that point that you take a scissors and insert it into the woman and place an incision in the base of the fetus’ skull, right?

Westhoff: Yes.

Q: Now the contents of the fetus’ skull, just like the contents of my skull, and your skull, is liquid, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: And sometimes after you’ve made the incision the fetus’ brain will drain out on its own, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: Other times you must insert a suction tube to drain the skull, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: And then the skull will collapse immediately after its liquid contents have been removed and the head will pass easily through the dilated cervix, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Another tactic used by the apologists for partial-birth abortion is to take issue with the nomenclature. Dr. Caughey says that doctors like him “wouldn’t use” language like partial-birth abortion. He prefers a more sanitized expression. He calls aborting an unhealthy baby at the end of term an “induction of labor for a nonviable pregnancy.”

No doubt he calls “throwing up” by its medical term, “emesis.” In all honesty, this is enough to make me puke.

Bill Donohue comments on the “Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2015” report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Never before have more young people been subjected to “progressive” sex education than today; never before have more Americans been given free condoms than today; never before have more colleges and universities incorporated “safe sex” classes into their freshmen orientation programs than today; never before have there been more public service advertisements imploring gays to take preventive measures than today; never before have more celebrities been hired to promote “sexual awareness” than today; and never before has the rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) been higher.

In the 1950s, abortion was illegal, sex education hardly existed, and the pill was not on the market. The rates of abortion, illegitimacy, and STDs were so small that these subjects were rarely discussed. So why is it that today, with all the advances in education and technology, we are going backwards?

Never before have the rates of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis been worse. Chlamydia mostly affects females, and it is young women, disproportionately black, who score the worst. Homosexual men, who are roughly one percent of the population, account for the majority of cases of gonorrhea and syphilis.

So who is suffering the least from STDs? We know from a study published in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology that girls who are religious are far less likely to be burdened with STDs than those who are not. Religious beliefs and practices, the researchers found, functioned as “an independent predictor of multiple sexual behaviors directly linked to important clinical outcomes such as pregnancy and STD risk.”

Religious beliefs and practices have proven to be a better deterrent to STDs than education and technology. Yet we are doing nothing to husband the resources of faith communities to combat STDs. Instead, we distribute condoms and lecture on the wonders of “safe sex.” And then we scratch our heads every year when the STD rates get worse. We never learn.

Religion is not the enemy—it’s the answer. But religion scares the free spirits: they don’t want to be told to practice restraint, so they throw it to the wind, living a libertine lifestyle. Then they get sick.

We don’t need to spend a dime more on research. In fact, funding research on STD prevention only increases the likelihood that we will keep our heads in the sand. Money won’t cure a problem rooted in reckless behavior—only virtue will.