Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a GQ magazine interview with Kanye West:

Rapper Kanye West announced last October that he is a convert to Christianity. His album, “Jesus Is King,” made it to the top of the charts and he is currently working on a follow-up. Now on the cover of the May edition of GQ, he sat for a four-part interview with the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Will Welch.

West startled Welch, and will no doubt startle many readers. His penchant for busting stereotypes is on full display, hitting on race, religion, Hollywood, the media, and politics. Indeed, he has become quite the iconoclast.

Christians had every right to be skeptical of West when he said he had turned the corner and discovered Jesus. After all, this is a man who lived on the wild side. He was also disrespectful. In 2006 he appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone wearing a crown of thorns with “blood” streaming down his face; I criticized him for this stunt.

In 2013, I criticized him again when he kicked off his “Yeezus” tour in Seattle. “His performance also included a Virgin Mary, incense, a crucifix, etc. all trotted out to make a Catholic statement. That it was not exactly reverential is obvious.”

Now, however, there is reason to believe that West has turned the corner. He came across reflective and sincere in the GQ interview.

“I definitely think there’s an alter ego. And definitely Christ altered my ego (original italic).” He says he has given his life to Christ, crediting Jesus as his “anchor.” “I’m definitely born again.” He recognizes that there are those who have done things “with the word of Christ that were bad,” but, he hastens to add, “That’s not going to stop my love for Christ. I’m going to keep on expressing what God has done for my life.”

Jesus, West says, has been a source of “healing,” noting that his succumbing to alcohol—he wound up drinking Grey Goose in the morning—was the work of the devil. He began rebounding the day he said, “Devil, you’re not going to beat me today.” He hasn’t had a drink since.

West has a keen understanding of the importance of religion. Perhaps reflecting on the Hollywood milieu, he said, “when you’re not in service to God, you can end up being in service to everything else.” That is certainly true of many in the entertainment world. Tinseltown is known for alcoholism, drugs, promiscuity, and high rates of depression and suicide.

West takes umbrage at those who claim Christianity is “judgmental.” “They think that all of a sudden you believe in Christ, so we’re not even supposed to speak up. And if we speak up, people will say, ‘Oh, you’re being judgmental.'”

His interviewer is clearly in the secular camp. For example, Welch opines that he sees religious institutions as “systems of control,” and asks his subject to respond. West floored him. “You know, I see opportunity for creativity inside our faith.”

To a secularist, this is unintelligible, but to the faithful it makes perfect sense. Truly creative people are always disciplined, otherwise what they produce is random and hollow. Christianity may be restrictive, but it is a healthy tonic. It is not restraint that levels people—it is the abandonment of it.

West, ever countercultural, says the penchant for control in society is extant, but its source is not Christianity. “Black people are controlled by emotions through the media. The media puts musicians, artists, celebrities, actors in a position to be the face of the race….” West, who has warmed to Trump, also resents the kind of control that dictates how blacks should vote, saying, “I will not be told who I’m gonna vote on because of my color.”

Perhaps the most surprisingly astute observation West made—it is shared by many devout Catholics and evangelicals—is his comment on surrender. “Now all the energy and that creativity that I have channeled and put on track comes from me surrendering to God and saying that everything is in God’s will.” That is the voice of a mature Christian.

Kanye West is his own man. He is also a man at home with the Creator. He should be welcomed, not disparaged, for going against the grain of the dominant culture.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a survey of LGBT rights and religious exemptions:

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PPRI) on LGBT rights finds encouraging news for allowing religious exemptions. 

Most Americans, 72%, are opposed to discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender persons in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. More interesting is the finding that “a majority (56%) of Americans said they oppose allowing a small business owner in their state to refuse products or services to gay or lesbian people if providing them would violate their religious beliefs.” That figure in 2016 was 61%. 

The CEO of PPRI, Robert P. Jones, wasn’t happy with the change. “Among conservatives and Republicans, there has been a steady drumbeat around religious liberty,” he said, “and I think it has started to have some traction in the bigger national debate.” 

Similarly, NBC News reported that “Several of the legal test cases around this issue—for instance, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—revolved around the issue of same-sex marriage, and Jones said public opinion is more supportive of religious beliefs in the context of marriage.”

Jones is right that there has been “a steady drumbeat around religious liberty.” That’s because of attacks on it. In fact, had PPRI asked a more accurate question the results would have been more supportive of religious-liberty exemptions. 

Respondents were asked if they strongly favored, favored, opposed, or strongly opposed the following: “Allowing a small business owner in your state to refuse to provide products or services to gay or lesbian people, if doing so violates their religious beliefs.” That question is too broad and does not get to the issue that drove the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling. The wording is also tendentious: most Americans instinctively oppose someone refusing to acknowledge someone else’s rights.

In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker, was the victim of religious hostility by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. PPRI CEO Jones would have us believe that LGBT people were victimized when, in fact, it was the baker.

Phillips never said he would reject servicing a gay or lesbian person. That was not the issue. The issue was the request of two homosexual men who claimed to be married and who asked Phillips to custom make a wedding cake for them. That meant he had to personally affirm their marriage, something which, on religious grounds, he could not in good conscience do. 

The PPRI survey question did not tap into the issue that was extant in the Masterpiece Cakeshop matter, and therefore misrepresented the support for religious exemptions. What if the survey had asked the following: “Should a small business owner be required by law to affirm the marriage of two people of the same sex if doing so violates his religious convictions?” Surely such a question would elicit more support for religious exemptions. 

LGBT people enjoy wide civil liberties and are rarely discriminated against in public accommodations, housing, and on the job. To be sure, there are some instances when their rights conflict with the religious rights of those who cannot in good conscience affirm their status. We need to remember that religious rights are encoded in the First Amendment and cannot be violated without a compelling reason.

To resolve this matter, we must first admit that sexual orientation and sex identity are not rationally analogous to race. The former two status groupings refer to behavior and volition; the latter is fixed by nature and has nothing to do with either behavior or choice. It is therefore removed from rational moral judgments, whereas sexual orientation and sex identity are not.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by Trevor Noah on his Comedy Central show:

There is a picture of Trevor Noah on the homepage of “The Daily Show” which shows him with a photo of the Easter Bunny on one side and the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the other. He looks like an unshaven filthy pig.

Noah is not just a dirty looking man, he has a thing about homosexual priests. No, he doesn’t come right out and attack these priests by name—he’s a liberal—so he prefers innuendo as his weapon.

On the April 13 edition of “The Daily Show,” Noah commented that on Easter Sunday it was hard on many church-goers who are used to attending services, “but for the Catholic Church, this is a good thing—keeping the priest separate from the congregation might not be the worst idea.”

Now we know he was not talking about heterosexual priests: the John Jay studies on clergy offenses report that almost all the sexual misconduct committed by priests were male-on-male sex. Moreover, almost none of it involved kids—over 95 percent involved adolescents. In other words, homosexual priests are responsible for most of the sexual abuse, and almost all of those cases are from the last century.

Noah wallows in the dirt. As a black man, he would take offense if someone portrayed black men as thugs. Yet he has no problem portraying homosexual priests as abusers, even though most homosexual priests are not molesters. The man is a bigot. He also needs to take a bath.

Contact: Robert M. Bakish, president and CEO of ViacomCBS (of which Comedy Central is a part): Robert.Bakish@viacom.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent threats to religious liberty:

On March 27, I addressed the conflict between public health restrictions and religious liberty protections. “Whenever religious liberty collides with public health, the government is obliged to put the least restrictive measures on religion.”

On April 11, U.S. District Judge Justin Walker invoked a temporary restraining order blocking Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer’s ban on drive-in church services. The Kentucky governor, Andy Beshear, did not support the ban but he still warned against drive-in church services.

The Catholic League stands with Judge Walker. The Louisville mayor’s directive is a classic case of government overreach: his ban was clearly not “the least restrictive measure.” Judge Walker called his decision “stunning” and “unconstitutional.” Moreover, the mayor’s reasoning is deeply flawed.

Once the coronavirus pandemic hit, and social distancing was recommended, the clergy from many religions acted prudently by discontinuing services in church. But some sought to be creative by allowing drive-in services in church parking lots. Instead of applauding these efforts where they made sense (they are impractical when the weather is cold), Louisville Mayor Fischer banned them.

What infuriated Christians in Louisville was the decision to allow drive-through restaurants and liquor stores. Judge Walker seized on this disparity, noting that parking lots of liquor stores were not prohibited. “When Louisville prohibits religious activity while permitting non-religious activities,” he said, “its choice ‘must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.’ That scrutiny requires Louisville to prove its interest is ‘compelling’ and its regulation is ‘narrowly tailored to advance that interest.'”

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs and Rep. Jody Hice have sent a letter to President Trump, Vice President Pence and Attorney General Bill Barr asking them to address restrictions placed on religious liberty. Barr said he is “monitoring” this issue and may take action this week.

The clergy have, for the most part, been reasonable in balancing public health and religious liberty interests, and so have most mayors and governors. But the exceptions are egregious, and none more than the decision by Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer to ban drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. The Department of Justice should weigh in without delay.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Easter meaning of coronavirus:

“It is in the sense of deaths a bad week,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci. “At the same time, as we’re seeing an increase in deaths, we’re seeing a rather dramatic decrease in the need for hospitalizations.”

It is more than apropos that the number of deaths from coronavirus should peak during Holy Week, and especially on Easter weekend: It is an expression of the meaning of Easter. Similarly, the news that more are leaving hospitals than entering is also a sign of Easter.

Christianity is an optimistic religion. The Middle English (English as spoken during the late Middle Ages) origin of Good Friday means “Holy” Friday. It is, of course, marked by the sorrow of Christ’s crucifixion. This bad news was followed by the good news of His resurrection on Easter Sunday.

This, then, is the Easter meaning of coronavirus: the bad news of thousands of deaths is being followed by the good news of its abatement.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan understands the meaning of Easter better than anyone. After Christ was crucified, he says, it “seemed we could never smile again….But, then came the Sunday called Easter! The sun—S-U-N—came up, and the Son—S-O-N—came out as He rose from the dead. Guess who had the last word? God!”

The coronavirus will be defeated. There is a reason why hope is a theological virtue—it is the right tonic for times like this.

Happy Easter!

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on opposition to federal funding of religious groups affected by the coronavirus pandemic:

The apostles of inclusion always draw the line when it comes to houses of worship and religious non-profits. They have done so again now that religious non-profits qualify for financial assistance from the Small Business Administration. This bothers them: they want to discriminate against these entities.

The Trump administration does not believe it is proper to discriminate against any organization in the distribution of funds attendant to the coronavirus pandemic. American Atheists calls this an “unconstitutional giveaway” and Freedom From Religion Foundation says it is “alarmed” by the policy. Neither can match the bigotry of Charles Pierce, the veteran religion hater (he has a special hatred of all things Catholic) who writes for Esquire.

Pierce objects to the funding of religious groups, saying it is unconstitutional “even if the Supreme Court’s Papist majority” may think otherwise. He has much in common with nativists and the Ku Klux Klan—they routinely called Catholics “papists.” 

Pierce is angry that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court. Yet proportionately there are more Jews: Jews are two percent of the population but make up a third of the high court, while Catholics are a quarter of the population and make up a little over half. No one but an anti-Semite objects to having three Jews on the Supreme Court, and no one but an anti-Catholic bigot is livid over having five Catholics.

It does not help the bigot’s case for him to invoke James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance as support for his position. If he were better read, he would know that Madison’s statement was nothing more than an argument against the government’s granting tax support for only one religion. Hence, Madison is on the side of the Trump administration.

Indeed, if the bigot knew something about the Founding he would know that the same Congress that passed the First Amendment accepted the third article of the Northwest Ordinance without emendation: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.” 

As Walter Berns said, “It is not easy to see how Congress…could promote religious and moral education under a Constitution that promoted ‘the absolute separation of church and state’ and forbade all forms of assistance to religion.” 

Kudos to the Trump administration for its policy of inclusion and its rejection of intolerance and discrimination.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on critics of Cardinal George Pell:

Most people are normal and desire justice. Abnormal people prize revenge. A case in point is the reaction to the release of Cardinal George Pell from an Australian prison. Normal people are happy with the news, but there are always the abnormal ones.

Neither the Boston Globe, New York Times nor the Washington Post—the three most critical newspapers of the Catholic Church—put the Pell story on the front page (the latter two buried it on p. 19), but it is a sure bet they would have had his conviction been upheld.

The first reaction to the acquittal of Cardinal Pell from the New York Times was to hammer the justice system in Australia. There is too much secrecy in their system, the two reporters said. They are right. The Australian courts are not nearly as transparent as the American courts. But if this were a problem, why did the newspaper not sound the alarms when the vector of change was moving against Pell? Why did they wait to register a complaint only when he won?

The reporters cited as an example the court’s decision to pull from bookstores a work by Louise Milligan, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell. The judge wanted to avoid a contempt of court charge.

Who is she? Milligan is a hero in anti-Catholic circles in Australia, which are quite big. Speaking of Pell, she once said, “He’s a man for years was telling the rest of us how to live our lives—not the least how to live our sex lives.” There it is again: It’s always sex that drives Church haters over the edge. For them, the three most dreaded words in the English language are “Thou Shalt Not.”

The first article Milligan ever wrote about Pell appeared in the April 16, 2001 edition of the Australian. It was about gay fascists who tried to storm St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne. They were screaming, “George Pell, Go to Hell.” Like Milligan, the gays objected to his defense of Catholic moral theology. [NOTE: Australian media are now reporting that “Rot in Hell Pell” and “No Justice” were scribbled on the doors of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne following Pell’s acquittal.]

BishopAccountability is the favorite source of left-wing journalists who don’t like the Catholic Church. It’s idea of priestly justice is to leave the names of exonerated priests on its website, suggesting to readers they may be guilty. One of its officials, Anne Barrett Doyle, said in relation to Pell’s release that “it is distressing to many survivors, the decision doesn’t change the fact the trial of the powerful cardinal was a watershed.”

One can almost hear her groan. Not a word about putting an innocent man in solitary confinement for crimes he never committed. It was a watershed, alright—it was one of the most egregious cases of injustice ever endured by a high-ranking member of the Catholic hierarchy.

SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), which the Catholic League played a major role in crippling in the United States, spoke for its Australian members saying, “We are dismayed and heartbroken that Cardinal George Pell has successfully challenged his conviction for sexually abusing two choirboys and will be freed from prison.” In other words, justice doesn’t matter. Punishing the Catholic Church is what matters. They are abnormal.

Voice of the Faithful, another mostly moribund American letterhead, said, “The court’s ruling leaves clergy abuse survivors and supporters wondering where justice lies.” This proves once again that this pitiful band of elderly Catholic dissidents was never interested in Church reform. Justice, according to them, is when the person they hate gets punished, independent of his innocence. They are abnormal.

We stand with what Pope Francis tweeted right after Cardinal Pell was freed.

“In these days of #Lent, we’ve been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the release of Cardinal George Pell from prison:

Cardinal George Pell’s conviction on five counts of sexual abuse has been unanimously overturned by Australia’s High Court. He was never guilty of these charges in the first place and is now a free man. The decision by the High Court cannot be challenged.

Pell has suffered greatly and has been the victim of outrageous lies. He has been smeared, spat upon, and forced to endure solitary confinement for crimes he never committed.

This was a sham from the get-go and should never have made its way through the Australian courts.

Pell was charged with abusing two boys in 1996. One of the boys overdosed on drugs but not before telling his mother—on two occasions—that Pell never abused him. The other boy’s accusation was undercut by the dead boy’s account: they were allegedly abused at the same time and place. There were no witnesses to an offense that supposedly took place after Mass in the sacristy of a church.

Here is what the High Court said about this matter. “The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed ‘in his full regalia’ advancing through the procession and pinning a 13 year old boy to the wall, is a large one.” That is putting it mildly. It is preposterous.

We at the Catholic League have been defending Cardinal Pell for many years. Here’s a chronological list of my public statements in defense of him, all of which are available on our website.

• “Cardinal Pell Should Sue For Libel,” March 12, 2013
• “Unsubstantiated Accusations,” April 10, 2013
• “Yanked!” February 9, 2016
• “CNN Op-Ed On Sexual Abuse Is Flawed,” June 30, 2017
• “The Washington Post Is At It Again,” July 5, 2017
• “The New York Times Piles On,” July 7, 2017
• “Cardinal Pell Acquires Top Lawyer,” July 11, 2017
• “The War on Cardinal Pell,” July 20, 2017
• “Foes of Cardinal Pell In High Gear,” July 25, 2017
• “Media Cast Wide Net In Pell Case,” July 26, 2017
• “Australia’s War On Christian Kids,” July 31, 2017
• “Australian Abuse Report Deeply Flawed,” October 2, 2017
• “Media Bias Against Cardinal Pell,” January 8, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell’s Ordeal Continues,” April 17, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell’s Hearings Were An Eye-Opener,” April 24, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell Pleads ‘Not Guilty,'” May 1, 2018
• “Can Cardinal Pell Ever Get A Fair Trial?” May 16, 2018
• “Washington Post Columnist Gets It Wrong,” December 14, 2018
• “Cardinal Pell’s Appeal Is Justified,” February 26, 2019
• “Rolling Stone’s Dishonest Hit On Cardinal Pell,” March 19, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell Victimized,” August 21, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell And Brett Kavanaugh; Two Defamed Catholics,” September 30, 2019
• “Measure Of Justice For Cardinal Pell,” November 13, 2019
• “Cardinal Pell Targeted Again,” April 2, 2020

This has been a terrible Lenten period with the coronavirus pandemic, but Lent 2020 will also be remembered by Catholics as one of great joy: Cardinal Pell has finally been exonerated. Those who tried to destroy him—and there were many all over the world—will have to answer one day for what they have done.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the issue of prisons and coronavirus:

On April 6, Pope Francis weighed in on how to handle crowded prisons during coronavirus. “Where there is overcrowding—many people there—there is a danger, in this pandemic, that it will end in a serious disaster. We pray for those responsible, for those who have to make decisions in this, to find a right and creative way to solve the problem.”

The Holy Father’s remarks are very much in the Catholic tradition. He identified a problem and called for us to pray for those charged with handling it. He did not get into the weeds instructing public officials how to proceed. He understands how tricky this issue is: We have to balance public health with public safety. This demands prudence, the most cardinal of the cardinal virtues. 

On April 3, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr asked the director of the Bureau of Prisons to expand efforts to release prisoners because of “emergency conditions.” He asked Michael Carvajal to “move vulnerable inmates out of these institutions.” But he did not say to just open the doors and let them free. He prudentially called for these select prisoners to be moved to home confinement. Barr, who is Catholic, is acting very much in accordance with the pope’s expectations.

Now contrast the Catholic approach with that of left-wing politicians and activists.

On March 31, it was reported that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had already released 900 inmates from the city’s jails, with plans to release hundreds more. They are not going to home confinement—they are free to go wherever they want. Subsequently, the mayor pushed for radical bail reform: it has allowed hardened criminals to take to the streets, many of whom have committed violent crimes.

On March 18, the ACLU wrote a letter to Attorney General Barr pleading with him to release a large group of prisoners, including those who are pregnant (it would no doubt assist these women to abort their child—another civil liberties right). Several state chapters have since called for inmates to be released. As we might expect, the ACLU’s credibility on this issue is shot.

On February 2, two days after President Trump banned travel from China to the U.S., the ACLU said his decision would “do more harm than good.” It now looks foolish. Indeed, if it had gotten its way, many more innocent persons would now be dead.

We know what the ACLU really wants: it wants to abolish prisons. In 1972 the ACLU launched its National Prison Project, an operation established to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners. Philip Hirschkop was one of its most active officials, and three years earlier he set the tone for this effort when he co-wrote a piece in the Virginia Law Review titled, “The Unconstitutionality of Prison Life.” Yes, he wanted to abolish all prisons. That ACLU mentality hasn’t changed.

Not to be outdone, we have “Squad” congressional members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley writing a letter on March 9 to the director of the Bureau of Prisons outlining their concerns for prisoners. Pressley actually called for the “compassionate release” of federal inmates. She did not say whether releasing serial murderers and rapists without a trace of compassion would suffice.

Thank God we have a pope who exercises more prudence and common sense than these left-wing activists and politicians.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the growing tide of criticism directed at Rev. Franklin Graham’s assistance to New Yorkers:

Rev. Franklin Graham could have chosen to simply ask his people to pray for New Yorkers hit hard with coronavirus. But instead he recruited 72 doctors, nurses and other medical personnel from Samaritan’s Purse, an evangelical group, to set up a 68-bed facility in Central Park; it is operated in partnership with the Mount Sinai Health System and is equipped with ten ventilators.

How was he received? Many New Yorkers welcomed Graham’s efforts, but some have reviled him. Militant secularists have bombarded him with vitriol, including such notables as New York State Senator Brad Hoylman and playwright Paul Rudnick. Hoylman called Graham a “notorious anti-gay bigot” and Rudnick branded him a “vicious homophobe.”

Hoylman should not throw stones. In 2018, he wrote an insulting anti-Catholic tweet. I slammed him for it and he quickly called me to apologize. I accepted it. But he should know better. As for Rudnick, he is known for his filthy anti-Christian play, “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told.” So he has no leg to stand on—he knows a thing or two about bigotry.

All of this attack on Graham stems from his belief that the institution of marriage was designed for the only two people who can naturally make a family, namely a man and a woman. Up until about a week ago yesterday, figuratively speaking, every normal person believed the same, all over the world.

Anyone is free to disagree with Graham, but to portray him as a hater is malicious. Graham explained who his medical staff serves. “We do not make distinctions about an individual’s religion, race, sexual orientation, or economic status.” More important, there is zero evidence that any of his ministries discriminates against anyone.

No one is to blame for these attacks on Graham more than New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. When he first learned of the relief efforts of Samaritan’s Purse he acted as if New York had been invaded by a hostile force.

“I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening. Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values and the laws in New York City, that everyone would be served and served equally?” He wasn’t done. “We’re going to send over people from the Mayor’s Office to monitor” the park facility. That is the mindset of an authoritarian.

What makes de Blasio’s attack on Graham most despicable is his failure to take coronavirus seriously. His record is an utter disgrace. Consider the following.

• “While de Blasio said he will announce new restrictions on large gatherings in the coming days, leaders in other cities and states across the U.S. have already enacted measures to slow the spread of the infectious disease.” [foxnews, 3-12]
• “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Saturday he plans to keep schools in the country’s largest school system open as long as possible, standing in stark contrast to the majority of the country’s largest city school districts and governors in more than a dozen states who have shuttered their entire K-12 education systems to stem the spread of the coronavirus.” [usnews, 3-14]
• “De Blasio’s decision to keep New York City’s schools open goes against guidance released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recommended that all schools close for a period of six to eight weeks, especially in states with high numbers of cases.” [usnews, 3-14]
• “New York City is one of the few large school districts left in the country that has yet to cancel classes due to the coronavirus outbreak and the teachers that run the classroom say they’re ‘furious,’ according to Facebook posts and statements from the teachers themselves.” [nbcnews, 3-15]
• “New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio started rebuffing any effort to close schools last week saying, ‘we are going to do our damnedest to keep the schools open.’ By the end of last week, the second and third largest education systems, Los Angeles and Chicago, had announced the suspension of classes. Several large states such as Florida and Ohio have announced the cancellation of classes, too. On Sunday, it was announced that Nassau and Suffolk county schools will be closed for two weeks.” [nbcnews, 3-15]
• “‘Because of his irresponsible decision to keep the public schools open, Mayor Bill de Blasio can no longer assure the health and safety of our students and school communities,’ wrote Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, in an email to its members. ‘The mayor is recklessly putting the health of our students, their families and school staff in jeopardy by refusing to close public schools.'” [nypost, 3-15]

This same delinquent mayor is now worried that someone who is sick with coronavirus may catch the “Christian virus,” simply because he was attended to by one of Franklin Graham’s volunteer corps of medical professionals. Is he paranoid? Or just a bigot?

De Blasio is an embarrassment. No wonder his presidential bid fell flat. Who in his right mind would want him to run anything?

Contact the mayor’s communications director, Wiley Norvell: wnorvell@cityhall.nyc.gov