Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the attack on traditional Catholics:

We live in a time when crackpots on the left and the right are surging, conjuring up conspiratorial theories about everything from the January 6 riot to the design of “racist” highways. The nice thing about devil’s theories is that they appear to provide conclusive answers to complex problems. The drawback is that they’re the work of madmen.

We now have a writer for The Atlantic telling us that “the rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or ‘rad trad’) Catholics.” For the “rad trads,” the rosary “can be a weapon in the fight against evil.”

Who are these “rad trads”? The author, Daniel Panneton, never really says. Not one person or organization is mentioned. So where does he get his information? Social media. “Their (‘rad trads’) social media pages are saturated with images of rosaries draped over firearms, warriors in prayer, Deus Vult (‘God wills it’) crusader memes, and exhortations for men to rise up and become Church Militants.”

Ironically, the one person he names as inspiring this crusade is Pope Francis. Then why is the pope wary of those who like the Latin Mass? Never mind, Panneton has uncovered a remark that exposes the pope as a threat to peace. “There is no path to holiness…  without spiritual combat” (his ellipsis). That settles it—the pope is a warmonger.

Alex Thomas, who writes for the Daily Beast, prefers to call the “rad trads” the “trad-Caths.” Who are they? He says “they love the Latin Mass,” a clear indication that they are a threat to humanity. “There is no doubt that the trad-Cath movement is metastasizing and often dovetailing with Christian nationalism through the shared notion that ‘Western civilization’ is at risk.”

Notice that Thomas doesn’t believe there really is such a thing as Western civilization. He thinks it is a fiction entertained by the likes of “trad-Caths.”

John Blake writes for CNN. His biggest concern is “White Christian nationalists,” not just any Christian nationalists. They are the guys who participated in the January 6 rally which turned into a riot. According to this sage, “there are plenty of other Americans who have adopted teachings of the White Christian nationalists,” however—and this is the key—”often without knowing it.”

That’s right. Delusional Americans (probably white people) are buying into Christian nationalism without knowing it. So how does Blake know they don’t know it? He must be very smart. After all, he works for CNN.

Traditional Catholics—be they “rad trads” or “trad Caths”—are mostly good Catholics who enjoy the solemnity of the Latin Mass. There may be some crackpots among them, but it’s a sure bet that they are far fewer in number than those who write for The Atlantic, the Daily Beast or CNN.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Beto O’Rourke’s attack on a heckler and CNN’s response:

Those who heckle a candidate for public office deserve to be removed from the venue where the incident takes place. When they are, it is to be expected that the candidate’s fans respond with applause. What is not expected is for the candidate to call the heckler a “mother******.”

That’s what Beto O’Rourke did. The fans of the candidate for Texas governor—there weren’t too many in attendance—cheered him on. No one was more supportive than John Avlon, a CNN commentator.

“It speaks to a need,” Avlon said, “a desire right now for a fiery liberalism that fights back.” Indeed, it goes beyond that. “It speaks to an unmet need in the Democratic base.”

What is that need? Avlon didn’t say. And why did it have to be filled by calling the heckler a “mother******”? If O’Rourke had called the guy a jerk, why wouldn’t that have met the “unmet need in the Democratic base”? Is there something perverse about the base of the Democratic Party that only a vulgar man like O’Rourke can fulfill?

Reporters who have covered O’Rourke have long noted what a filthy mouth he has. He likes hurling F-bombs so much that every time he loses a race for office—which is every other year—he drops it again.

In 2020, Politico said O’Rourke is “apparently hoping that vulgarity will be an engine of his political revival in the Democratic presidential contest.” It obviously didn’t work.

No matter, Avlon thinks it may work this time around. When CNN panelist Errol Lewis questioned whether O’Rourke’s obscene attack on the heckler will help him politically, Avlon shot back, “I can make a counter case.” That’s when he spoke about the “unmet need in the Democratic base” for politicians who use obscenities in public.

Is that what the public wants, or just the base of the Democratic Party? In 2016, a survey of Americans found that 70 percent said incivility in politics was at a “crisis” level.

In his Inaugural Address, Joe Biden spoke of the need for civility in politics. When he appeared on “The Tonight Show” with Jimmy Fallon in December last year, he lamented the lack of civility in politics. In 2011, PBS ran a headline, “President Obama’s Call for Civility,” and in 2016 The Hill featured a story, “Obama Calls for Increased Civility in Politics.”

But did they mean it? Speaking about O’Rourke’s penchant for vulgarities, Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s 2012 deputy campaign manager, said in 2019 that “It’s good for him to show a little emotion and get angry so that people can see exactly where he stands and that he will fight for what he believes in.”

Somehow Ronald Reagan managed to tell the American people “exactly where he stands” and “what he believes in” without getting crude. Perhaps that’s because there was no “unmet need” to speak like a tramp to the base of his party.

When O’Rourke loses again, it remains to be seen how long it will take before he meets the “unmet need in the Democratic base.”

Contact O’Rourke: info@betoorourke.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way the Biden administration is treating different demographic groups:

On August 4, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra declared monkeypox a national public health emergency. This decision was not based on medical conditions; rather, it was purely political.

On August 10, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported there were 9,492 cases of monkeypox in the United States. On August 6, a news story on CDC data reported that “fewer than 1 in 10 (8%) needed hospitalization due to monkeypox.” That means there were 759 hospitalizations.

A study published July 21 by the New England Journal of Medicine found that 98 percent of those infected with monkeypox were homosexual or bisexual men and that 75 percent where white.

Now contrast these numbers with what we know about respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), an infection that primarily affects young children during the fall and winter; there has been an uptick this summer.

“Each year in the United States,” the CDC reports, “RSV leads to an average approximately 58,000 hospitalizations with 100-500 deaths among children younger than 5 years old and 177,000 hospitalizations with 14,000 deaths among adults aged 65 years or older.”

No one has died of monkeypox in the United States.

Why has the Biden administration declared a national public health emergency for monkeypox, when only 759 have been hospitalized, while failing to do the same for RSV when 58,000 children are hospitalized each year for the virus?

In the New England Journal of Medicine study of men with monkeypox, it found that “the median number of sex partners in the previous 3 months was 5 partners” and that 20 percent had attended large gatherings, such as Pride events. The researchers also learned that 32 percent “were known to have visited sex-on-site venues within the previous month,” and that 20 percent had engaged in “chemsex,” meaning “sex associated with drugs such as mephedrone and crystal methamphetamine in the same period.”

Monkeypox is preventable—all it takes is for homosexual men to act responsibly and slam on the brakes, but for some unexplained reason,  many refuse to do so.

Biden is privileging monkeypox because it is a mostly white gay man’s disease. In other words, those who won’t alter their behavior get the benefits of an emergency declaration, but innocent children suffering from RSV do not. It’s a national disgrace. Whatever happened to health equity?

Contact HHS Office of Civil Rights: OCRMedia@hhs.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an increase in anti-Catholicism:

The recent flurry of anti-Catholic incidents at home and abroad is a disturbing reminder of how deeply entrenched this genre of bigotry is. The incidents are not in any way a coordinated attack, though some commonalities are evident, the most obvious being that they are all driven by left-wing players.

It was reported in Canada last week that there has been a huge increase in anti-Catholic hate crimes: between 2020 and 2021, they shot up by 260 percent. Churches have been burned to the ground, stained-glass windows have been smashed and acts of desecration have taken place.

Some of this is a reaction to news reports alleging the discovery of “mass graves” of Indigenous children on Catholic grounds. Those stories have been proven to be totally false—not a single corpse has been found in these “mass graves.” But the damage that these lies have caused is considerable.

Communist countries have a long history of plundering the Catholic Church, which is why recent anti-Catholic incidents in China and Nicaragua come as no surprise. In both cases, the offenses were launched as a payback against those who challenged the authorities.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, over the objections of the Chinese Communist Party, she became the object of scorn. The Chinese Embassy in France tweeted a political cartoon that showed a witchlike picture of Pelosi crowned with a ring of stars, resembling Our Blessed Mother. She was shown trying to steal a baby from its crib, an apparent reference to her wanting to steal Taiwan from China.

The Communist regime in Nicaragua has taken aim at Bishop Rolando Álvarez of the diocese of Matagalpa. According to Thomas D. Williams, he is a vocal opponent of Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, and for that he has been subjected to harassment. He has been denied entrance to his church. The riot police have closed off the road outside his house, forcing him to say Mass at his residence.

In the United States, pro-abortion protesters crashed a big Catholic event in California. The Napa Institute held a conference that attracted demonstrators who interrupted the proceedings screaming, “Get your rosaries off our ovaries.” When those in attendance drowned them out by singing “Salve Regina,” they left.

On August 6, pro-abortion protesters showed up at the Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral in downtown New York City. At least five were arrested for harassing church-goers.

Many are responsible for fueling these incidents, and this includes those who affect the pop culture. Bill Maher showcased his anti-Catholic bigotry on Friday when he once again smeared homosexual priests for molesting minors.

Worse are those in a position to do something about these offenses. In June I wrote to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland asking for his intervention in dealing with domestic terrorists who have attacked Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers. He has done absolutely nothing to combat these incidents.

Bigotry against any demographic group, religious or secular, should be condemned by everyone. Regrettably, members of the ruling class appear to be selectively interested in doing so.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an op-ed in the Daily News:

No one I know reads the Daily News. Indeed, I never see anyone reading the New York newspaper anymore, either on the train or in pubs. In fact, most places that carry newspapers don’t even stock it. This explains why I didn’t read an article by J.T. Barbarese attacking Catholics, until a friend of mine brought it to my attention.

The New York Times has published many essays that are highly critical of the Catholic Church, but it doesn’t allow writers to simply vent, spouting the kind of vitriol we would expect from an angry adolescent. That’s why Barbarese found a home in the Daily News.

What is it that Barbarese doesn’t like about the Catholic Church? Its teachings on contraception, natural family planning, abortion, priestly celibacy, women priests, etc. He opposes the tax-exempt status of the Church and says we have too many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

It’s hard to take someone serious when he knows nothing of what he says. Who is Barbarese? A poet who works at Rutgers, a tax-exempt institution.

My guess is that as many people read his screed, which was dead on arrival, as read his poems. Praise the Lord.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remedies for monkeypox:

Imagine if those who drink too much alcohol and wind up damaging their liver were to band together demanding a cure for their malady, without first pledging to change their behavior. What would we say? What would we say to heavy smokers if they demanded a cure for lung cancer without first pledging to change their behavior?

Yet when it comes to homosexuals and monkeypox, or AIDS before that, gay leaders demand that we find a cure for their disease without first pledging to change their behavior.

When Covid hit, we locked down the economy, closed schools, and banned church services. So why didn’t health officials cancel the “Pride” events in New York City at the end of June? A predictable surge in monkeypox followed.

Why didn’t health officials ban the Dore Alley gay festival at the end of July in San Francisco? Those who attended this event said there were no warnings posted anywhere.

The Washington Post interviewed people at the Dore Alley event and noted that some were quite worried. “Many revelers kept their clothes on or donned full latex outfits inside crowded bars.” In other words, had they not been afraid of catching monkeypox, they may have not have kept their pants on. This is not normal. What kind of people act this way?

Scott Wiener is a California state senator and a gay activist. He says the monkeypox vaccine “can’t come fast enough.” What about gays changing their behavior? “If people want to have sex, they are going to have sex.” He just doesn’t get it. Vaccines are no panacea for behaviorally induced diseases.

The August 5 edition of the New York Times has an op-ed by Kai Kupferschmidt advising gays what to do before the vaccine is widely available. “That includes talking about reducing the number of sexual partners, creating ‘pods’ of sex partners (where people can keep sexual activity within a group) and other strategies to reduce the risk.”

Why the compulsion on the part of so many homosexual men to have multiple sex partners with anonymous men? This is not normal. And why is it that the best Kupferschmidt can do is recommend that gays have sex with multiple partners whom they know?

One voice of sanity in the medical profession is Don Weiss, the top epidemiologist at the New York City Department of Health. His advice is seminal.

In an email he sent to other health officials, he said, “We cannot vaccinate our way out of this, nor can we isolate our way out of this. The only way out is to abstain. I know I sound like a bible thumping preacher, but this is the exposure we need to PREVENT.”

Weiss added that “This disease is entirely preventable had we the courage to send out prevention messages. We seem paralyzed by the fear of stigmatizing this disease while we totally ignore the epidemiology. If we had an outbreak associated with bowling, would we not warn people to stop bowling.”

We need to send Catholic moral theologians and doctors into the gay community to advise them of the merits of Catholic sexual ethics. Agreeing to temporarily keep one’s pants on in public is not a strategy that works.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest threat to religious liberty:

The Biden administration has already proven to be a radical advocate of abortion-on-demand and transgender rights. Worse, these policies almost always come at the expense of religious liberty. Its latest iteration is a proposed rule change from the Trump years that would threaten the rights of Catholic doctors and the autonomy of Catholic hospitals.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wants to amend Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The public has until October 3rd to comment on the proposed rule change.

The effect of this change would be dramatic. To begin with, there is a profound difference between discriminating against a biological female and a man who claims to be female, and vice versa. No one supports discrimination against real women, but to force Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform genital mutilation surgery on men who want to “transition” to a woman is a violation of their First Amendment right to religious liberty.

Roger Severino, who ran the HHS Office of Civil Rights under Trump, and who now works at The Heritage Foundation, tells us what to expect.

“This rule will mandate that insurance companies cover the full menu of gender identity interventions such as mastectomies, hysterectomies, breast augmentation, hair removal, and a lifetime of cross-sex hormones, including for minor children. It would also force doctors to perform cross-sex surgeries and to administer puberty blockers to children if they believe such intervention ‘can never be beneficial.'”

In other words, this rule would prevent Catholic doctors and hospitals from abiding by the tenets of their faith, in essence forcing them to violate their conscience rights or go out of business.

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York chair important committees of the bishops’ conference, and they released a statement denouncing the proposed rule change as being inimical to religious liberty.

They did not buy the idea, floated by the Biden administration, that claims the new rule would not impact on religious liberty. “Assurances that HHS will honor religious freedom laws offer little comfort when HHS is actively fighting court rulings that declared HHS violated religious freedom laws the last time they tried to impose such a mandate.”

The proposed rule change not only infringes on the First Amendment rights of Catholics, it threatens the well-being of children. The Biden administration’s support for puberty blockers is dangerous. The Food and Drug Administration recently said these hormones and drugs can cause brain swelling and vision loss. This is child abuse.

The Biden administration is intentionally making it difficult for the public to sound off about its proposal. We have written a step-by-step guide to facilitate the process. Click here to access it. Please hone in on the threat to religious liberty as the responses will be grouped by subject matter.

While it will not count as part of the commentary on the proposed rule change, you can at least let the Biden team know what you think about it. Contact: 1557@hhs.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by an MSNBC writer:

It is possible to make bigoted remarks without being a bigot: no one seriously thinks Mel Brooks is a bigot because he dabbles in stereotypes—he treats all demographic groups the same and he never hits below the belt. We’ve all heard ethnic jokes, and most who tell them are well-meaning people who cannot realistically be called bigots. Then there are those who mean what they say. However, even there degrees of culpability are evident.

I never heard of Zeeshan Aleem until now. Is he an anti-Catholic bigot? No doubt about it. Is he someone Catholics need to worry about? Not at all. He is a lost soul, an addlepated bigot if there ever was one.

Aleem is a left-wing atheist who writes for MSNBC. He wrote a piece this week for his employer complaining about the specter of a “Christian theocracy” that is “not far-off.” As evidence, he notes that we have “a radically reactionary Supreme Court that is two-thirds Catholic,” and it is these Justices—the ones who overturned Roe v. Wade—who are holding women “hostage” to a “Christian conception of life.”

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were on the high court, they were later joined by Elena Kagan. Jews are approximately two percent of the population, yet at that time they made up one-third of the Supreme Court. Was that a problem? For bigots it was. Ditto for those like Aleem who think it is a problem when we have too many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Do we have too many blacks playing basketball? Do we have too many whites playing hockey? If no one is being denied the opportunity to play—or to compete as a candidate for the Supreme Court—then those who get the job can hardly be called bigots. The bigots are those who complain about the composition of the teams or the high court.

In my 2009 book, Secular Sabotage, I detailed all the recent accusations emanating from left-wing circles about the nefarious “Christian theocracy” that was allegedly taking hold. Perhaps Aleem is too young to have noticed but it is not accurate to say that the specter of Christian theocracy is not “far-off”—according to those of his ilk, it’s been here for some time. So how bad could it be?

The Justices who overturned Roe v. Wade did not usher in a “Christian conception of life.” No, they made a jurisprudential decision that invalidated a ruling that was never grounded in the Constitution. Besides,  Biology 101 agrees with Catholic teaching: the DNA that makes us unique individuals occurs at conception, when life begins, and not a moment after.

What makes Aleem an “addlepated bigot”? His biography.

He was raised a Muslim but became an atheist after his grandfather asked him why Islam was different from other religions. He could not answer. “I froze.” He said, “I could not know or prove which god was the right one—I quickly confessed that my religiosity was a mere accident of birth.” He also said that his grandfather “delighted in trashing me in chess and asking me vexing questions,” though he did not say if he became an atheist immediately after being trashed in chess. It could have been a week later.

Aleem likes Quakerism. Indeed he enjoys going to their meetings where everyone sits “in silence for around an hour, lost in thought about what a more fulfilling society would look like.” Much to ponder there.

He also likes Buddhism. “I found that when I was going through rough patches (there seems to have been many), there was nothing like the practice of mindful meditation, derived from Buddhist practices, that helped me find my footing and feel connected to the world.” Even more to ponder.

Aleem also likes Judaism. He notes that “I found myself chanting Hebrew and joining hands with septuagenarians after group meditation sessions in my local Jewish community center.” The opportunities to ponder appear to be limitless.

After he pondered with elderly Jews, he returned to Quakerism. “I started Googling ‘Quaker meeting houses near me.'” But why? “This was not a search for god—my atheism was not wavering—but a desire to commune toward the end of something greater.” The pondering never ends.

Too bad Aleem never took the time to ponder with Catholics. We do our pondering at events like “Theology on Tap” where Catholics like me speak to young people in bars. To be honest, we don’t ponder as much as we pound—the beers that is. And when it’s over we feel a whole lot better. Ponder that, Mr. Aleem.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Canadian Report on the residential schools for Indigenous people:

There has been much recent discussion about the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. It found that 150,000 Indigenous children were taken from their homes and forced to attend schools that would assimilate them into the dominant culture.

It was the Canadian government that made the decision to suppress the culture of Indigenous persons, sending children to residential schools operated by the government, Catholic religious orders, and Protestant denominations. The majority of the schools were not run by Catholics.

The central criticism of these arrangements holds that Canada’s policy of forced assimilation resulted in “cultural genocide.” In essence, government leaders destroyed the culture of Indigenous persons, imposing on them Western norms and values.

When Pope Francis was in Canada, he was highly critical of the residential schools, but he never used the term “cultural genocide.” When returning to Rome, he was asked about this on the papal plane.

Brittany Hobson of the Canadian Press mentioned that the Report “described the residential school system as ‘cultural genocide,'” and asked him why he didn’t call it that. Before he could answer, she made an important qualification. “This has since been amended to just ‘genocide.'”

The pope replied that “it didn’t come to mind, but I described it. It is true; yes, it’s genocide.”

Who did the amending? How did “cultural genocide” become  “genocide”? Those who wrote the Report? The government? The media? Activists? Are we now to believe—she succeeded in entrapping the pope—that the residential schools were genocidal?

The truth is Canada never witnessed “cultural genocide,” never mind “genocide.” Don’t take my word for it—read p. 6 of the Report.

“Despite the coercive measures that the government adopted, it failed to achieve its policy goals. Although Aboriginal peoples and cultures have been badly damaged, they continue to exist.” That is a true statement and it undercuts what was said on p. 1 about residential schools being an example of “cultural genocide.” True genocides allow for few, if any, survivors.

The Report accurately notes that “The residential school system was based on an assumption that European civilization and Christian religions were superior to Aboriginal culture, which was seen as being savage and brutal.” Without justifying anything the schools did, there were very good reasons for thinking this way.

Charles Murray tallied approximately four thousand first-time accomplishments in history. He found that nearly 100 percent of the scientific and technological breakthroughs in history originated in Europe or North America. He came to the conclusion, which he did not anticipate, that the key to understanding this phenomenon is Christianity.

What Murray said is incontestable, making absurd the statement in the Report that “there is no hierarchy of societies.” This is morally and historically indefensible. Are we to believe there is no difference between a society run by Norwegians and one run by Nazis?

In his book, Genocide, historian William D. Rubenstein writes that “Genocide is normally carried out against an ethnic or religious minority, and entails the deliberate killing of most or all members of a collective group for the mere fact of being a member of that group.”

The Report cites not a single person who was killed in the residential schools. So where was the genocide? There are two testimonials about killing in the 535-page Report. One was made by an Indigenous woman who said she witnessed her older brother kill one of her other brothers when she was nine.

The other cites a 2014 document that claims that “1,017 Aboriginal women and girls were killed and 164 were missing.” If this is genocide, then it has nothing to do with the residential schools. These killings took place between 1980 and 2012. The residential schools were closed in 1969.

If the residential schools were guilty of genocide, surely the Report would find instances of torture, if not whipping. But no incidents of torture were cited. One instance of whipping was mentioned and it was committed by a government teacher in 1895.

Did the children suffer from hunger or starvation? Two incidents of hunger are noted, one in an Anglican school and the other in a government school. There is one mention of starvation, and it was attributed to the federal government. The one testimonial on molestation cites a girl who was molested by older girls in a hostel.

Rubenstein notes that between 1910 and 1970, the Australian government acted in a similar fashion toward Aboriginal children. It may have been unethical, but it does not qualify as genocide.

He argues that “the use of the term ‘genocide’ to describe a policy, however wrong-headed, in which no one is killed and whose aim is to enhance the life-chances of those affected…seems to fly in the face of common sense. So, indeed, there should be profound dissatisfaction with the use of the term ‘genocide’ in this way.”

If we don’t distinguish between cultural imperialism and cultural genocide—never mind “genocide”—we are belittling what happened to Jews in Hitler’s Germany. We need to stop with the drama and the hyperbole—there was no genocide, cultural or otherwise, in the Canadian residential schools.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the spread of monkeypox:

If we are going to stop the spread of monkeypox, we need to first admit that nature is not a social construct. It is a stubborn fact of life. It has never changed and never will. Nature’s God has seen to that.

One of nature’s most stubborn facts is the body’s limited capacity for abuse. If we eat too much, drink too much, have too many cigarettes, drugs or sex partners, the body rebels. Promiscuity does bodily harm.

There are two segments of society most responsible for the spread of monkeypox: promiscuous homosexuals and elites in medicine.

If homosexuals acted more responsibly and stopped engaging in lethal sex practices, stopped having multiple partners, and stopped having sex with anonymous men, monkeypox would not be the problem that it is today.

If the elites in medicine—including those at the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO)—were straight shooters and told it like it is, monkeypox would not be the problem that it is today. It does not help when the best that the head of WHO can say to homosexuals is that they need to reduce the number of their sexual partners “for the moment.”

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is not a medical doctor, sounded a lot tougher discussing social distancing to combat Covid-19. In April, amid a drastic decrease in Covid hospitalizations and deaths, he warned that if social distancing norms were relaxed “too quickly, we risk a resurgence that could be even worse than our present situation.”

Ever since we learned about monkeypox in mid-May, it has been painfully evident that too many leaders have pretended that “anyone can get monkeypox.” While technically this is true, we’ve known from the beginning that in Europe and the United States that almost all those who have the disease are gay men.

What seems to be bothering gay activists and medical elites more than anything is the stigma attached to monkeypox. By contrast, we hear little about the extent to which it is behaviorally induced.

There are signs that a reality check is taking place. More stories are being published arguing that the government has not done enough to make vaccines available, thus raising questions whether the passivity is driven by an anti-gay animus. But how could this be if the “anyone can get monkeypox” refrain is true? There’s the rub. For there to be victim status, there must be a clear admission that monkeypox is a gay-driven disease.

On July 26, the New York Times reported that it was not until June 23 that New York City decided to offer the vaccine “to all men who had recently had sex with multiple or anonymous male sexual partners”; the federal government did so five days later. By singling out this group, the elites finally acknowledged the truth: everyone does not have an equal chance of contracting monkeypox. It discriminates on the basis of behavior.

The Times story quoted a “transgender queer man” who tried unsuccessfully to get vaccinated a week before Pride Weekend. Did that affect his behavior? Not at all. “He hooked up with a few people, and about a week later, began to feel abdominal pain, swollen lymph nodes and body aches. Lesions spread across his body, and some made it excruciating to urinate.”

A man who works for George Soros also opened up about his behavior during New York’s Pride events. He said he “had sex with several guys over the weekend.” He got monkeypox.

Another gay man, who admitted that several of his friends came down with monkeypox after a weekend of partying in Fire Island in early June, was worried that more gays would contract it during the New York Pride festivities. He rightly assumed that after Pride weekend, “monkeypox cases would skyrocket to thousands.”

Too bad these people didn’t listen to reason. On June 22, in an article titled, “Gay Role in Monkeypox is Serious,” I said, “With ‘Pride’ festivities about to be launched over the last weekend in June, it is incumbent on government officials to warn the homosexuals of the necessity of practicing restraint.”

They didn’t. We now know what happened.