Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

Pope Benedict XVI was a towering intellectual, something he shared with his predecessor, St. John Paul II. His philosophical and theological writings will be studied for decades. But it was his courage that endeared him to so many Catholics.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he served St. John Paul II as enforcer of the Church’s doctrinal teachings. He did so with prudence and justice, setting an example for those who would come after him in this post.

In 2006, he sparked much controversy for his comments on Islam. In his address at Regensburg University, he said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Unfortunately, most of the media did not emphasize that he twice said, “I quote.” He was referring to a remark made by a 14th century Byzantine emperor. Cardinal Ratzinger’s point was that faith and reason must exist together, and just as the universities must be criticized for promoting radical skepticism—reason without faith—there are those who purport to be followers of religion who promote faith without reason. Both are unacceptable.

In 2005, the day before Ratzinger assumed his duties as pontiff, he addressed the cardinals in Rome. He spoke about the “doctrine of relativism,” the popular and pernicious notion that there are no moral absolutes, and no moral hierarchy of virtues. In the same historic Good Friday homily, he unloaded on abusive priests. “How much filth there is in the Church, even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!”

When historians look back at the Catholic Church’s handling of the clergy sexual abuse scandal, they will note that neither Benedict’s predecessor, St. John Paul II, nor his successor, Francis, did as much to stop it as he did. His actions were as pivotal as were his words. He made it clear that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not become priests. He was very aware of the “homosexual cliques” and the “homosexual subculture” within the Church.

It was his courageous comments on the scandal, caused largely by homosexual priests, that earned him the ire of secularists outside the Church and dissenters within.

Benedict may have been a theologian and philosopher by training, but he also had a keen sociological mind. He understood better than anyone in the Church that it was the lack of faith on the part of molesting priests that accounted for their offenses. Dissent in the Church fed their mentality. He also understood, as I recount in my book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, the macro sociological forces that affected the Church, namely the sexual revolution.

It was Benedict who sanctioned the two most prominent predator priests, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. He removed the Mexican serial abuser from ministry a year into his pontificate and he quickly accepted McCarrick’s resignation when the cardinal turned seventy-five.

Benedict’s critics were often as inaccurate as they were unfair. Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times wrote in 2013 that Benedict never removed predators from the priesthood. She was wrong. All total, from 2005 to 2013, he defrocked some eight hundred molesting priests.

Benedict’s critics called him “God’s Rottweiler” for being too draconian in his sanctions against dissidents. They were factually wrong. In his seven years as pope, he rarely called a dissenting priest on the carpet, though there were many candidates. Indeed, no one’s license to teach theology was pulled and no one was fired from teaching at a Catholic college or university because of Rome’s intervention. So if anything, dissidents got off easy. No matter, I am proud of the fact that the New York Times called me “Rottweiler’s Rottweiler,” a backhanded tribute to my strong defense of him.

Pope Benedict XVI was a selfless man, and his contributions to the Church, both in word and in deed, will be heralded for years to come. May he rest in peace.

The Catholic League’s 2022 Year in Review is now available. It contains an overview of some of our most important battles and victories over the last year. To read it, click here.

The following article was written by the Catholic League communications director Michael P. McDonald:

If we lived in sane times in a world where justice prevails, this would be the time of year where we would recount how the biggest Catholic bashers of the last year got their just deserts. One might expect that someone who had the responsibility of hiring new employees and openly bragged about not hiring Catholics would feature prominently in such a report. That is what Jeremy Boland, the assistant principal at Cos Cob elementary school in Greenwich, Connecticut, did; however, it seems he has received only the slightest of punishments for his infractions.

For those who do not remember, the saga of Jeremy Boland started at the beginning of this school year, when Project Veritas released a video of the disgraced assistant principal openly admitting his anti-Catholic bigotry. While discussing his preference of hiring “progressive” teachers because they are “more savvy about delivering the Democratic message without ever having to mention their politics,” he was asked about hiring teachers who are religious.

Boland: “I’m not a huge expert on religion, but Protestants in this area [of Connecticut] are probably the most liberal. But if they’re Catholic—conservative.”

Veritas Journalist: “Oh, so then what do you do with the Catholics? If you find someone is Catholic, then what?”

Boland: “You don’t hire them.”

Veritas Journalist: “So, would you never hire a Catholic then?”

Boland: “No, I don’t want to…Because if someone is raised hardcore Catholic, it’s like they’re brainwashed. You can never change their mindset.”

Obviously, this kind of religious discrimination is illegal, and one would hope that this sort of anti-Catholic thinking would have been relegated to the dustbin of history long ago. Alas, it seems to be alive and well.

At the time, we asked Catholic League members to inundate Dr. Toni Jones, Superintendent of Greenwich Schools, with demands for justice, and, as always, our members answered the call. They firmly expressed their outrage about Boland’s blatant bigotry, and subsequent to our news release, Jones announced that Boland was placed on administrative leave, pending the completion of an investigation.

While we were optimistic at the time, we certainly were not holding our breath. After all, the gears of justice grind particularly slow in a bloated bureaucracy, and a complete and thorough investigation takes time. However, it seems the length of this investigation is interminable.

Since the start of the school year, there have been no media reports on Boland’s fate. We have seen people quietly let go in the past to allow the organization to avoid further scandal so we have diligently monitored this hoping to give our members the good news that justice has finally prevailed. However, on Cos Cob elementary school’s webpage, it still lists Boland as the assistant principal. He has not been quietly dismissed, but rather the investigation appears to remain in a state of suspended animation.

That Boland has not been terminated tells us a great deal. If he had said he would not hire members of virtually any other group, he would have been shown the door long ago. But it would appear that anti-Catholicism is the last publicly acceptable form of bigotry.

They have had four months to decide this case. It is past time officials in the Greenwich Public Schools and the state of Connecticut do the right thing and fire Boland. Justice would demand nothing less.

Contact: Charlene.russell-tucker@ct.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the prevalence of victimhood:

They’re everywhere. Everywhere you go there is a victim. It’s more than a pastime—it’s an industry. Racism, in particular, is a big draw.

The Astros beat the Phillies this year in the World Series, but the big news, in some circles, was the absence of black baseball players on either team. To be sure, no one claimed that blacks were discriminated against in competing with whites playing professional baseball, probably due to the fact that there is no supporting evidence. Nonetheless, the lack of diversity, many commentators said, was indicative of a racial problem.

No one seemed to complain about the lack of Asians playing hockey or whites playing basketball. Nor is anyone complaining about the number of Hispanic jockeys. Perhaps these are oversights.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy recently said that those who are talking about the crime issue are “playing the [race] card.” Michael Moore once observed that gun owners are basically racists.

Some teachers and commentators like to use a whiteboard to make their points. Earlier this year, a community organizer and author from Seattle said, “Whiteboards can be racist.” She also declared that “the study of physics” has racist elements.

The wife of newly elected senator John Fetterman, Gisele, said in late October that “swimming in America is very racist.” She did not comment on her husband when, in 2013, he tracked down an unarmed black jogger with his car, stopping him at gunpoint, simply because he heard some gunshots nearby.

Last year in Portland, Oregon a newly renamed high school chose an evergreen tree to be its mascot, but the vote had to be delayed because some said that trees were used to lynch blacks and were therefore racist.

Some contend that blacks who partake in bird watching may become victims of racism, and that is because white racists do not appreciate black bird watchers. “Systemic racism doesn’t stop at the park gates,” said the author of a book on this subject.

Social Psychology Quarterly published a study this year showing that when people adopt dogs, it takes longer for dogs with black names to be adopted than dogs with white names. For example, pit bulls are “a breed that is stereotyped as dangerous and racialized as Black.”

Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, has often commented on the existence of racist highways, and says it is his job to fix it. No progress report has been made.

A human rights expert at the U.N. said this fall that unless we first tackle racial injustice, the global climate crisis cannot be solved. Similarly, a few months ago a Penn State meteorologist said that racism was “inexorably” linked to climate change. Also, Mother Jones cited data that “people of color are exposed to 46% more nitrogen dioxide pollution each year than white people.”

Blacks do far less homework than whites and Asians, but that apparently is not a factor in their poor test scores. Two years ago an academic journal concluded that higher temperatures account for their performance, citing the lack of air conditioning. The New York Times said this is “the latest evidence that the burdens of climate change fall disproportionately on people of color.”

Not all victims are black. In June, pop star Lizzo changed the lyrics of her new song, “Grrrls,” after making what her critics said was an “ableist slur” when she sang, “I’m a spaz.” She said she understands the power of words “as a fat black woman in America.”

A study was published at the end of last year showing that the temperature in offices was typically sexist: woman don’t like AC’s being too cold and because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Newsweek.com ran a piece titled, “Office Aircon Is Sexist to Women, Study Finds.”

When Taylor Swift steps on her special bathroom scale, it may read “fat.” Her fans said this was an example of “fatphobia.” This same phenomenon, “fatphobia,” made a big splash on TikTok a few weeks ago when a fat woman said, “I’m a fat woman traveling.” She said she has a hard time fitting into an airline seat. This has discouraged fat people from flying, which, she said, was classic “fatphobia.”

President Biden agrees. On October 26, he said it was unfair to charge more money for bigger seats because “they hit marginalized Americans the hardest, especially…people of color.”

Talking about “people of color,” Yi-Fen Chou learned that his poem was selected for inclusion in the Best American Poetry anthology for the year 2015. He was delighted. However, his real name is Michael Derrick Hudson. Why the name change? When he submitted his poem for publication under his real name, he was rejected by 40 publishers, but when he adopted an Asian name, he struck gold!

It seems victimhood has many faces.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on what recently happened to pro-life women here and abroad:

A woman nurse in Texas has been ordered by President Biden’s Department of Veteran Affairs to assist in performing abortions or she will lose her job. A woman in Birmingham, England has been arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic and may go to prison.

The Texan woman sued the VA in December and the English woman was arrested in December.

The Texan nurse, Stephanie Carter, is a Christian who has been working at the VA for 23 years. She sued after the VA issued its mandate on September 9. Her lawsuit says she “cannot perform,  prescribe, or counsel for abortion services because of her sincerely held religious beliefs that unborn babies are created in the image of God and should be protected.”

Even though the VA is supposed to honor requests for a religious exemption, it denied Carter her request. “Once again,” her lawyer said, “the Biden administration seems ignorant of the law, or just doesn’t care.”

The English woman, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is a Christian who was charged with four counts of breaking the Public Space Protection Order. It prevents people from “influencing,” “advising,” “persuading,” “informing,” “occupying space,” or “expressing opinion” near an abortion facility. She did none of these things. She did not carry signs or placards and she never spoke to anyone. Her crime was to silently pray.

Vaughan-Spruce has been barred from praying outside abortion clinics and could be sentenced to two years behind bars. “My faith is a central part of who I am, so sometimes I’ll stand or walk near an abortion facility and pray about this issue. This is something I’ve done pretty much every week for around the last 20 years of my life,” she said.

These two incidents prove that the pro-abortion forces in the West not only promote violence in the womb, they use the law as a weapon to destroy the free speech and religious liberty rights of pro-life persons. This is demonic.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest call for reparations:

Max Fennell says white people owe him money. Why? Because he is black and blacks were enslaved a long time ago by white people. Has that hurt him? Apparently not. He is an affluent 35-year old businessman, entrepreneur and former professional triathlete. But he wants the money. He also wants land.

Fennell testified last week before a California reparations task force. He said every black person in the state should get $350,000. He wants additional funding for businessmen like himself: black-owned businesses should receive grants of $250,000 and 15-20 acres of land.

Here is what he told the panel. “It’s a debt that’s owed, we worked for free…we’re not asking—we’re telling you.”

We worked for free? Fennell never worked for free a day in his life. Yet that doesn’t stop him from hustling whitey. And let’s face it—whitey is ridden with guilt, making him a ripe target for shakedown artists.

There are few things the task force should consider before it goes any further.

It is a matter of historical record that not all blacks were enslaved during slavery. In fact, some of the slavemasters were black. Journalist Philip Burnham wrote an enlightening article in the February/March 1993 edition of American Heritage on this subject.

He concluded that black slaveowners were not uncommon (and let’s not forget that African slavemasters sold their black slaves to the Europeans). “According to 1830 U.S. census records, 3,775 free blacks—living mostly in the South—owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Though the vast majority of these owned no more than a few slaves, some in Louisiana and South Carolina held as many as seventy or eighty.”

Burnham found that some black slaveowners had benign motives—they wanted to protect family members from being mistreated—while others shared the motivation of white slaveowners and were consumed with the pursuit of commercial profit.

John Hope Franklin, the distinguished African American historian, came to the same conclusion. “The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property. There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status.”

Another prominent African American historian, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., found evidence of free blacks in New Orleans who defended the Confederacy. On the eve of the Civil War, free blacks issued a statement making clear what their interests were.

“The free colored population [native] of Louisiana…own[ed] slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land…and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana….They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815” (my italics).

So how will they determine who needs to pony up? Surely some of the blacks who live in California today are descendants of black slavemasters. Do they get a check? Or should they have to fork up as well?

Here’s another problem. The reparations task force is apparently not considering a means test, which means LeBron James qualifies.

James earns $100 million a year shooting basketballs into a hoop. His net worth is $600 million. He also earns $60-90 million a year in endorsements and has a $1 billion lifetime contract with Nike. To top things off, the money James gets from Nike is taken, in part, from slaves who work for the company in communist China.

No matter, it looks like LeBron makes the cut. Indeed, it’s a slam dunk. But the Mexicans who clean his locker room have to pay.

This a sticky wicket best left alone. But white guys ridden with guilt—like Gov. Gavin Newsom—won’t drop it, and neither will professional hustlers like Max Fennell.

“California dreaming” never sounded so surreal.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a humane way to treat the mentally ill homeless:

In most of our big cities, we treat homeless cats and dogs better than we treat homeless men and women. That is about to change in New York City: Mayor Eric Adams has instituted a new policy that allows homeless humans to catch up with homeless animals.

It is estimated there are 3,400 homeless people living in streets, subways, trains, and train stations. Most of these people suffer from one mental illness or another, and up until now, they could not be removed to a shelter involuntarily unless they were a danger to themselves or others.

The new policy allows the police and emergency medical workers to have people removed to hospitals involuntarily if they are unable to care for themselves, even if they are not a public threat. The policy says that “unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings” or “delusional  misapprehension of physical condition or health” is now grounds for hospitalization.

One of the prime reasons for the change in policy is the surge in violent crime in New York, much of it attributed to mentally ill persons wandering the city.

Predictably, the New York Civil Liberties Union argues that the mentally ill who sleep on the sidewalk are exercising their civil liberties, and when they are involuntarily removed, their rights are being devastated. Thus do they make the case that humans should be treated inferior to cats and dogs.

According to Section 373 of New York State Law, any police officer or officials associated with organizations instituted to prevent cruelty to animals, “may lawfully take possession of any lost, strayed, homeless or abandoned animal found in any street, road or other public place” (my italics).

Regarding places other than these, such persons may remove any animal “which for more than twelve successive hours has been confined or kept in a crowded or unhealthy condition or in unhealthy or unsanitary surroundings or not properly cared for or without necessary sustenance, food or drink,” provided the complaint follows legal procedures.

Had we used this same common sense policy for homeless men and women all along, much hardship and crime could have been avoided.

Mayor Adams’ new directive is quintessentially Christian in nature. He is not rounding up the mentally ill homeless and throwing them into some kind of dungeon. On the contrary, he is treating them with the care and respect they deserve, but are incapable or providing for themselves.

Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, is correct to note that Adams’ policy “is replacing an immoral and scandalous indifference to severe chronic illness with a humane and moral approach.”

Rights must always be tailored to responsibilities. When those who are mentally challenged cannot exercise responsibility for themselves, it is cruel to pretend they are experiencing freedom by living in squalor. Freedom was meant to be enjoyed, not endured.

Kudos to Mayor Adams. Let him know you support this policy.

Contact: pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how New York officials are handling accusations of sexual harassment:

When Kathy Hochul succeeded Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York (she was his lieutenant governor), she was asked about the culture of sexual abuse that had arisen under her boss. “Anyone who crosses the line will be addressed by me.” Not true.

Hochul is giving a pass to an accused sexual abuser in her administration,  Ibrahim Khan, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Letitia James: he is accused of sexually harassing a former AG employee, Sofia Quintanar. Hochul said last week that she does not support an investigation of this matter. But when it came to probes of accused priests, she supported all of them.

Attorney General Letitia James was also tough on Cuomo. “Allegations of sexual harassment should always be taken seriously. There must be a truly independent investigation to thoroughly review these troubling allegations against the governor, and I stand ready to oversee that investigation and make any appointments necessary.” Not true.

Now that allegations are being made about her chief of staff, James  changed her tune. Indeed, she is accused of covering up for Khan for two months as she ran for reelection. Why didn’t she call the cops—the bishops are supposed to call the cops when they learn of accusations against one of their priests—and let them handle the matter?

Here’s the answer. James discovered the due process rights of Khan, rights that she never insisted on when priests were being charged. “We’re protecting the rights of individuals and it’s important to understand this was a private investigation….” She added that “it’s important we protect the privacy of individuals.” Are not priests individuals?

The next time an accusation is made against a priest in New York State, the bishops should refuse to cooperate with the authorities. They should publicly state that they are taking a page out of the Hochul-James book and conduct their own private investigation, asserting the due process rights of priests.

This is beyond hypocrisy—the governor and attorney general are playing us, making a mockery of justice. Elected officials in both parties need to demand equal justice and demand a probe of why Hochul and James are treating  the alleged victim of sexual misconduct—a woman in their employ—with such casualness.

Whatever happened to the #MeToo movement? And weren’t women supposed to be treated better when their boss was a woman?

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a queer White House event today:

President Biden will sign the Respect for Marriage Act today, codifying gay marriage. Among the guests will be Marti Gould Cummings. “To be a non binary drag queen artist invited to the White House is something I never imagined would happen.”

Cummings is not who he says he is. There is no such thing as a “non-binary” person—such creatures are a figment of his imagination. In 2019, he was more honest when he said, “I’m a gay man in dress.”

Why was a drag queen invited to a White House ceremony heralding same-sex marriage? It is telling that it did.

Drag queens have nothing to do with the lives of most homosexuals, but they are integral to the radical LGBT agenda. And what is that agenda? To normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. This is not  an exaggeration. Here’s the proof.

Cummings is known to partake in Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), seizing the opportunity provided by libraries to “entertain” little kids. But to what end? Clowns entertain kids, too, but there is nothing sexual about  their performance.

Michelle Tomasik, who goes by the name Michelle Tea, founded DQSH in San Francisco in 2015. She told a gay media outlet that the goal was to introduce kids to the “LGBTQ+ culture.” And what might that be?

The American Library Association (ALA) is responsible for the spread of DQSH across the country; local libraries pay homosexuals to run the events. A blog post to the ALA a few years ago encouraged librarians to promote the LGBT agenda by “sneakily fit[ting] stuff in current programs.” Sneaking it by parents, of course.

One of the most popular books stocked by libraries is The Gender Fairy. It is meant for infants. It tells them “only you know whether you are a boy to girl. No one can tell you.” Again, this is aimed at subverting parental rights. Similarly, a teacher was caught on video telling her class, “It’s OK to be different. There is no such thing as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ things.” The students were first graders.

It’s all about “gender fluidity,” the intentional warping of children’s minds, beckoning them to question whether they are really happy being a boy or a girl. This is called grooming. It is also child abuse.

So what has any of this to do with an event that purports to celebrate gay marriage? The White House knows the answer, otherwise Cummings would not have been invited. The purpose is to demonstrate that drag queens are integral to LGBT culture.

No one epitomizes the link between drag queens and the LGBT culture better than Ru Paul. Not only is he the most famous drag queen of all time, he boasts of his relationship with Georges LeBar, calling it an “open marriage.” It would be astonishing to learn that he was monogamous.

In other words, the link between “gender fluidity” and promiscuity is tight: both are an assault on the Judeo-Christian understanding of sex—God created male and female—and a sexual ethic that stresses the virtue of restraint. Libertinism—the absence of sexual strictures—is what defines the radical LGBT agenda.

Cummings says he began his role as a drag queen as a testimony to “genderf***ing.” What does this mean? According to its adherents, it is “a form of gender expression that seeks to subvert the traditional gender binary or gender roles by mixing traditionally masculine (such as a beard) and traditionally feminine (such as a dress) components.”

In short, the goal of drag queens is “to intentionally confuse the audience.” The target audience, remember, is children. Drag queens want to get to the kids because children are formative, and they resent the fact that they are denied by nature from having children of their own. Hence, the impulse to groom.

I mentioned how the LGBT agenda is to normalize homosexuality, beginning with two-year olds. According to Billboard, in 2019, Cummings posted a video on Twitter and Instagram of him singing “Baby Shark” to “a 2-year-old boy.”

There is something very sick going on in the White House. Even more perverse, it is being championed by our “devout Catholic” president.

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

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has a big announcement:

Early in the new year, the Catholic League will release a documentary on Disney that will expose the organization for what it has become. We are releasing the trailer today; it is available on our website.

Here’s why we decided to do the movie.

When I was in the 7th grade, I was asked by one of my nun teachers who was the person I most admired. I said Walt Disney. When asked why, I simply said it is because he makes so many people happy.

That was then. Over the years, beginning in large measure in the 1990s, Disney turned against its family-friendly image, making and distributing fare that sharply broke with its moorings. I know because one of the first big victories I had was in 1995 when I confronted Disney senior officials, ordering them out of the headquarters of the New York Archdiocese, where we were located at that time.

The occasion was the movie “Priest,” a diabolical film that featured totally dysfunctional priests, all of whose problems were a function of their priesthood. Miramax, owned by Harvey and Bob Weinstein (Harvey is in prison for his sexual escapades) was the distributor of the film, and it had just been bought by Disney.

I held a press conference denouncing the movie, and when I learned that some of the Disney top brass were in the audience, I told them to get out. They did, much to the delight of the TV crew who were looking for a good story. Disney/Miramax did one anti-Catholic movie after another,  leading to more confrontations.

Disney acquired Capital Cities/ABC in 1995, and in short order they produced several Catholic-bashing shows, the most prominent of which was “Nothing Sacred.” We killed that one, too.

Fast forward to this year. On March 28, Disney released a statement condemning a Florida bill that barred teaching students K-3 about sexuality and gender identity. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill, arguing that children that young should not be subject to such content.

I was taken aback by what the “family-friendly” giant did. Walt would never sanction this form of child abuse. I figured that evangelicals would be aghast at Disney’s stance as well, so I called my friend Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, asking if he would join me in requesting a meeting with Bob Chapek, the CEO of Walt Disney Company. If Chapek stiffed us, I said, we would respond with vigor.

When Chapek never responded, I decided something must be done to register our outrage. If the Catholic League were to produce a documentary on how Disney has changed from its beginnings—it has joined forces with the most radical elements of the gay and transgender movement—that could have a significant cultural impact.

So what’s going on at Disney these days? Disney Corporate President Karey Burke boasts that she has “one transgender child and one pansexual child,” and that Disney has “many, many, many LBGTQIA characters.” She said her goal is to have a minimum of 50% of characters being of an “LGBT” orientation and racial minority. Roy P. Disney, grand nephew of Walt, has a transgender child.

Former writers tell how Disney is sexualizing children. One of them said the company has “a history of exposing its young actors to convicted child molesters,” and is bent on grooming kids with gay and transgender messaging.

Disney is bent on normalizing aberrant sexual behavior, but not everywhere. It knows that the Communist Chinese don’t buy into this insanity, and neither do Muslim-run nations in the Middle East. So guess what? Disney, ever the unethical capitalist, has decided to respect their wishes and not send them their slimy fare.

There are signs that Disney is in over its head. Hundreds of Christians showed up at a rally in the spring pushing back against its morally debased presentations and activities. Similarly, it has been warned by investors not to push their sexual agenda too far. Not only that, but a “silent majority” of Disney employees have had it with the company’s radical politics.

Last year, noted transgender clinical psychologist Erica Anderson, who helped to promote this movement, stunned liberals when she said, “I think it’s gone too far.” She noted that they’ve gone beyond asking for tolerance. She is not alone. In a recent poll, nearly 75% of American voters said the targeting of underage minors in the transgender movement has gone too far.

The participants in the movie were chosen by Jason Meath, the film maker, and me. We have a star-studded cast. Jason has done a magnificent job with the documentary and has been a joy to work with.

“Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom: How Disney is Losing its Way” is a film I never envisioned producing. But if we lose Disney to the radical left that is at war with our Judeo-Christian heritage, that is a very bad sign. Our goal is to help turn things around.