Bill Donohue wrote the following letter today to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding the controversy over Harrison Butker. Please contact his communications chief: Brian.McCarthy@nfl.com

May 17, 2024

Mr. Roger Goodell, Commissioner
National Football League
345 Park Avenue
NY NY 10154

Dear Mr. Goodell:

NFL senior vice president Jonathan Beane addressed the commencement speech by Kansas City Chiefs’ player Harrison Butker as follows: “Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.”

So by stigmatizing Butker—in effect excluding him—for defending Catholic moral theology, you are flexing your inclusion muscles? Nice to know what you think about Catholicism—that is the real issue. Too bad you couldn’t cite a single sentence that was objectionable.

Your credibility has long been shot. I will do what you cannot do—I will be specific in my criticisms of the NFL.

I wrote to you on October 11, 2011 about your decision to invite Madonna to perform at the 2012 Super Bowl. A week earlier I spelled out my concerns (which I repeated in December). Here is what I said.

In 2004, the NFL disinvited ‘N Sync’s JC Chasez from performing during the halftime of the Pro Bowl game. It objected to the sexist lyrics of his songs. This led me to draw a comparison with the NFL’s handling of Madonna, citing her frequent “offensive lyrics, lewd behavior and misappropriation of sacred symbols.” I also mentioned her repeated mocking of “the heart and soul of Christianity: Jesus, Our Blessed Mother, the Eucharist and the Crucifixion.” But none of that bothered the NFL one bit. So revealing.

In 2013, when asked about the propriety of the Washington NFL team using the name “Redskins,” you said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” But you didn’t listen when Catholics flooded your office with complaints following my statement on Madonna.

A lot more than one person was offended in 2018 when you announced a long-term extension of your partnership with Nike. Nike uses slave labor in China, exploiting the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority. Yet in 2019 you lauded your relationship with Communist China.

Anti-Catholicism doesn’t bother you, but racism does. In 2022 you authorized a host of anti-racism slogans to appear on the players’ apparel. If you were consistent you would condemn both expressions of bigotry, but you are not. And you certainly wouldn’t approve slogans like “End Abortion” to appear on players’ jerseys.

Earlier this year the NFL paired with an anti-Catholic organization, GLAAD, during the Super Bowl. You celebrated “A Night of Pride with GLAAD.” This is the same organization that heralded the decision of the Los Angeles Dodgers to honor a viciously anti-Catholic group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, at its June 16, 2023 game.

There is no question that you would veto any decision to give a platform to a group that celebrates gay bashing. But when it comes to allowing a group that bashes Catholics, you are okay with it.

Harrison Butker speaks for millions of Americans, not all of whom are Catholic. The contempt you have shown for him, Benedictine College and Catholicism is repugnant. You are also a classic phony.

Sincerely,

William Donohue, Ph.D.
President

Bill Donohue

A heralded Catholic football player defends traditional moral values at a Catholic college—how novel—and within no time he’s being bashed all over the place. Had he endorsed transgenderism, or Hamas, he would now be praised to high heaven.

The man is Harrison Butker, the phenomenal kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Butker is not in the news for his athletic heroics but because he gave a commencement address at Benedictine College in Kansas on May 11 that espoused traditional Catholic values. He has been criticized by the NFL, slammed on social media and is the subject of a change.org petition (it claims to have 100,000 signatures).

The attack has three targets: Butker, Benedictine College and Catholicism. Make no mistake, the war on Butker is driven by anti-Catholicism.

Butker has been condemned for his remarks about women, abortion, President Biden, Gay Pride Month, gender ideology, and the emasculation of men. Those who signed the petition don’t want to debate his remarks—they want him fired. “We call upon the Kansas City Chiefs management to dismiss Harrison Butker immediately for his inappropriate conduct.”

Spoken like true fascists. Moreover, they are plain dumb: they don’t know the difference between speech and conduct.

Butker spoke positively about moms who elect to work at home taking care of their children.

“I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you…Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

“I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and a mother. I’m on this stage, and able to be the man I am, because I have a wife who leans into her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

He ended this part of his speech noting how blessed he is to have a wife who embraces “one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

For this, Butker has been accused of wanting to put women back in “the kitchen.” Mike Freeman at USA Today was apoplectic, saying, “Her vocation? Really? Did I slip and fall into a time machine and travel back to the 1950s?”

In fact, Butker actually speaks for most moms.

In a Gallup poll released in 2019, 50 percent of women with children under age 18 said they would prefer to stay at home; 45 percent disagreed. To those on the left, this is bad news. The French feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, spoke for many when she said, “Women should not have that choice [of staying at home to raise their children], precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” So much for being “pro-choice.”

“Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values and media all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.” Well said. But to those who like abortion, this is grounds to fire him.

Butker referenced Biden when he took him to task for making the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally. Good for Butker. He was also right to call attention to the “deadly sins” associated with Pride month. His reference to “dangerous gender ideologies” was understated—we are dealing with a child abuse crisis.

To say that we need to fight against “the emasculation of men” is good advice. The feminization of society is not a good omen. For this we can thank the schools, the media and the entertainment industry.

“These are the sorts of things we are told in polite society to not bring up.” Butker nailed it again. His courage and his commitment to Catholicism is laudatory.

Regarding the latter, it is risible to read Toriano Porter’s column in the Kansas City Star ripping Butker’s sincerely held beliefs and then conclude that although he doesn’t “know much about Catholicism,” his stinging remarks are “not an attack on religion—not even close.” The reason he felt obliged to make this defensive quip is precisely because he knows how guilty he is.

The Associated Press (AP) let the cat out of the bag altogether.

It unleashed a string of red flags about Benedictine College being “part of a constellation of conservative Catholic colleges that tout their adherence to church teachings and practice—part of a larger conservative movement in parts of the U.S. Catholic Church.” This comes on the heels of an AP story sounding the alarms about the growth of orthodox Catholicism.

AP’s idea of a good Catholic college is Georgetown—it has two pro-abortion clubs on campus and has a segregated graduation ceremony for transgender students.

Please show your support for Butker by commending the president of Benedictine College, Stephen D. Minnis.

Contact: sminnis@benedictine.edu

Bill Donohue

Just over a week before the 2020 election, vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was interviewed by Harper’s Bazaar. “My message to the many women who will continue to break barriers and be ‘firsts’ in their fields is don’t give up, believe in yourself, and let your talent lead you.”

Yesterday, she spoke before an Asian American organization, saying, “We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes they won’t, and then you need to kick that f**king door down.” She then descended into her proverbial cackle.

What changed? The Kamala of 2020 spoke eloquently to women, encouraging them to “break barriers.” Now she’s using an obscenity to make the same point. Why the need to be low class?

Kamala’s learned a lot from her boss. In 2020, Joe Biden, who, like Trump, is known to be crude, told a Detroit steel worker, “You’re full of s**t.” The presidential candidate then put his hand in the face of a woman aide who tried to end the confrontation, telling her, “Hush! Hush!”

In his inaugural address, Biden said, “We can treat each other with dignity and respect.” He implored Americans to “Show respect to one another.” He also spoke about what defines us as Americans, listing “Dignity” and “Respect.”

When athletes get into a brawl, or when things get crazy in a pub, obscenities are often let loose. But we don’t expect the sitting vice president to intentionally drop the “F-word.”

When Kamala assumed office there were no end to the stories about her being a role model, especially for women and girls. She is aware of her status. She knows that what she says has an effect on them. But apparently she doesn’t care—she’s now contributing to the coarseness of our culture.

Perhaps this assessment is too harsh. There is reason to believe that Kamala doesn’t know what the word “culture” is.

Last year, she spoke at the Essence Festival of Culture. She described what culture means to her.

“Culture is—it is a reflection of our moment and our time. Right? And present culture is the way we express how we’re feeling about the moment and we should always find times to express how we feel about the moment. That is a reflection of joy. Because, you know…it comes in the morning. We have to find ways to also express the way we feel about the moment in terms of just having language and a connection to how people are experiencing life. And I think about it in that way, too.”

Midway through her statement she broke into uncontrollable laughter.

Kamala may be the only person on earth who believes that culture “comes in the morning.” We thought it was the sun. And if it “comes in the morning,” where does it go at night?

Kamala may not know how to define culture, but that is no excuse for corrupting it. She has won the race to the bottom.

Contact the VP’s director of communications, Kirsten Allen: kirsten@whitehouse.gov

Bill Donohue

Few would regard New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to be a racist, yet her recent remark about how clueless black kids are smacks of racism. What she said was not intended to be racist, but her Freudian slip revealed the way she really thinks about blacks. And she is not alone: her patronizing attitude is shared by millions of white liberals.

On May 6, Hochul was interviewed while attending the Milken Institute Global Conference in California. The subject was making economic opportunities more available to low-income communities. “Right now,” she said, “we have young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word computer is. They don’t know, they don’t know these things.”

After being publicly lambasted, she said, “I misspoke and I regret it.”

It would be instructive to learn why Hochul made her remark. How does she know that black kids in the Bronx “don’t even know what the word computer is”? Is it a result of her first-hand experience? Did she read this somewhere? Did some of her friends and associates tell her this?

It is not likely that any of these answers is correct. It is much more likely that she assumed this was true. But why? Many of those who think like her are convinced that blacks have been so beaten down and oppressed that they can’t make it on their own. Enter the white liberal. They are always there ready to rescue the unfortunates.

To put Hochul’s comment in perspective, let me recount a story I told in The War on Virtue.

When I was teaching in a Catholic elementary school in the 1970s, one of the remedial teachers sent there from the public schools criticized me for rejecting a homework assignment from a student because it was ripped sloppily from a spiral notebook. She told me that I should understand that the student came from a bad neighborhood and could not be expected to do otherwise. She was aghast when I told her that she was the problem. “You would never allow white middle-class students to get away with turning in such trash,” I told her.

Like so many white liberals, Hochul’s low expectations for poor blacks allows her to think that without her assistance, these kids can never make it. That makes her feel good. It gives her a sense of moral superiority. It also explains her policy choices. Consider the issue of crime.

Roving bands of mostly black young men have been looting retail stores in New York and in other cities for the past few years. About a year ago, an editorial in the New York Post asked, “When will Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York lawmakers realize they need to make attacks on retail workers an automatic felony—and see that the perps suffer real consequences—in order to stem the tide?”

Guess what? Now that the public, including blacks, are outraged about this situation, Hochul has changed her mind and is now taking a law and order stand. Similarly, when she assumed office after Andrew Cuomo crashed in 2021, she picked as her Lt. Gov. a man who supports “Defund the Police.” Now she distances herself from that stand.

Hochul still defends the no-bail law that allows thugs to be processed and immediately set free, but she does not wear it on her sleeve anymore. She alone has the power to fire New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who pioneered this “catch and release” madness, but she refuses to do so.

White liberals like Hochul are convinced that when young black males engage in violent crimes, it is a reflection of their oppressed conditions. Therefore, to crack down on crime is to further punish the victim (never mind that the typical victim of black crimes is a poor black). In fact, the black crime rate is high because the majority of blacks are raised in homes without a father, a condition largely driven by the welfare state created by white liberals!

Hochul doesn’t have a clue about poor blacks. Last year she and her husband posted an income of $2 million, up 100 percent from the previous year. She lives in a bubble, and her perception of reality is badly skewed by her limited experience with those outside her privileged circle.

Bill Donohue

Millions of Americans will celebrate Mother’s Day this weekend, extending their congratulations to mothers, both past and present, who have played such an important role shaping their children.

There will be some, like the ACLU, who believe men can get pregnant and are therefore deserving of being recognized on this day as well. But  sane people know this a lie. Similarly, there are those in the Biden administration who prefer to use the term “pregnant persons,” as if men may qualify. They, too, are mad.

What about feminist organizations?

We looked at five of the most prominent: Center for Reproductive Rights, Feminist Majority, National Organization for Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood and Reproductive Freedom for All (it will be referred to by its former name, NARAL). We examined their position on six issues: abortion, children, gender ideology, LGBT, mothers and parental rights. To read the complete report, click here. Here are the highlights.

When it comes to abortion, it’s a close call which of them is the most enthusiastic. To show how inclusive NOW is about this subject, it supports abortion for “all women and LGBTQIA+ people.” This is silly: those who engage in sex with someone of the same sex have been disqualified by nature from getting pregnant, and therefore (much to their chagrin) cannot have an abortion.

The Feminist Majority wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment and make the public pay for abortions. It also condemns crisis pregnancy centers.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s monster abortion clinic. Reasons why some women want an abortion that the organization finds persuasive include, “It’s not a good time in their life to have a baby” and “They just don’t want to be a parent.”

On the subject of gender identity, NOW says it is “hateful” to insist that only women should be permitted to participate in women’s sports. The Feminist Majority can’t figure out why trans and non-binary people are left out of conversations about abortion. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood can’t help them—they deny that sex is binary.

Planned Parenthood says that because some young people don’t want their parents involved in making decisions for them that that’s enough to be opposed to parental rights. Similarly, the Center for Reproductive Rights decries the harm done to “young women by forcing parental involvement” in their lives.

The Feminist Majority has practically nothing to say about mothers. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Center for Reproductive Rights boil the interests of mothers down to one thing: discrimination. They are obsessed with “structural inequities,” “mothers of color,” and “structural racism.”

On LGBT rights, NOW is worried about homophobia. NARAL wants Congress to pass the Equality Act (which would force Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery).

Perhaps most revealing of all, not one of these five feminist organizations has any meaningful statement on children. That’s because their real interest is sex: they want abortion available for straight women and homosexual-friendly rights for lesbians.

Feminists have never had much interest in children. In 2009, Gail Collins, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote a nearly five hundred page book on women’s achievements yet managed to say practically nothing about children. One of her only references was to call mothers “breeders.”

Happy Mother’s Day. (To those who are made uncomfortable about this special day, may they seek the help they need.)

Bill Donohue

In 2021, Disney stock was trading at close to $200. This week it announced it is trading at $105. It was the worst trading day in 18 months; shares were down almost 10 percent.

Last year, the Catholic League released a documentary, “Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom,” that detailed the spike in LGBT-friendly movies aimed at young people. Available on Amazon, YouTube, Rumble  and our website, it has been seen by millions. We are glad to play a role in alerting the public to Disney’s morally debased agenda.

While Disney CEO Bob Iger claims to have gotten the message, the company has a long way to go to get back on track.

GLAAD is a gay organization that monitors the entertainment industry for gay-friendly fare. In its last report, it noted that of the 59 films released by Disney in 2022, 24 of them were “LGBT inclusive.” Walt Disney Studios was responsible for 7 of them; Disney+ did 5; and Hulu rolled out 12.

GLAAD listed its six favorites. Here is a quick look at why GLAAD is so happy with them.

Lightyear features a female commanding officer who gets engaged to her girlfriend. The lesbians marry and manage to raise a family (not of their own doing, of course).

Strange World casts two boys who have a crush on each other, something which is portrayed as perfectly acceptable by family members. GLAAD was ecstatic. “Featuring a queer co-lead in an animated Disney film marketed to children and families is a commendable first step toward ever-increasing inclusion, and a young gay man of color leading Strange World makes it all the more ground-breaking.”

Fire Island offers a “unique queer” perspective about Asian homosexuals. It revolves around two Asian men who “crave different kinds of love.” Everyone knows what that means. One poor soul, Luke, is “nonconsensually filmed during sex,” meaning the chap was raped. GLAAD accurately describes the flick as “a movie by queer people for queer people.” Why queers enjoy male rape scenes was not explained.

Crush is about a gal who joins the track team—not because she wants to compete—because she wants to hit on one of the girls. As luck would have it, she subsequently falls for the gal’s sister, a self-professed bisexual. GLAAD says, “We hope to see more queer teen romantic comedies follow Crush’s lead.”

Zombies 3, the third in a series, introduces aliens to a high school. One of the students is “nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns.” That alone is worth the price of admission.

Better Nate Than Ever features a girl who is attracted to a guy, only to learn that the guy admits that he’s “not like that.” GLAAD shows its true colors when it objects to the scene where the gal says her would-be boy friend is cool “no matter who he chooses to love.” GLAAD fumes that “the word ‘chooses’ is the wrong verbiage for talking about sexuality, as it is not a choice.” Their anger is revealing.

If Disney is to recoup, Iger will have to listen to what the people want. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 71 percent of American adults agree with the statement, “Disney should return to wholesome programming and allow parents to decide when their children are taught about sexuality.”

Disney is still reeling because is still wants to manipulate children, selling the pernicious idea that it is normal for young people to want to switch to the other sex. It is not. It cannot be done. And it is nothing less than child abuse.

Contact Disney’s communication’s chief: Kristina.Schake@disney.com

Bill Donohue

Anti-Catholics are famous for saying the Catholic Church is anti-science. Yet it is well acknowledged that the role played by the Catholic Church in the making of the scientific revolution was central. Today, those who are profoundly anti-science are militant secularists, many of whom, ironically, work in higher education and in the medical profession.

It was scientists like Copernicus, Boyle, Linnaeus, Faraday, Kelvin, Rutherford and Kepler who were responsible for the origins of modern science. As David Klinghoffer notes, they were “overwhelmingly religious.” To be specific, they sought to understand God through his creation.

This doesn’t stop Catholic critics from pointing to Galileo as the classic example of the anti-science legacy of the Catholic Church.

But Galileo did not get into trouble because of his ideas; after all, his ideas were taken from a priest, Copernicus, who was never punished. Indeed, Father Roger Boscovich continued to explore Copernican ideas at the same time that Galileo was charged with heresy, without attracting a bit of opposition. Had Galileo not presented his hypothesis as fact—that was the heresy—he would have escaped trouble.

Contrary to the mythology, Galileo never spent a single day in prison. Nor was he tortured. In fact, he spent his time under “house arrest” in an apartment in a Vatican palace, with a servant. More important, his work was initially praised by the Catholic Church: Pope Urban VIII bestowed on him many gifts and medals. A century later all of Galileo’s works were published, and in 1741 Pope Benedict XIV granted him an imprimatur.

Today many of those who follow science are being punished for doing so. Just consider what is happening to students and professors who insist that sex is binary.

When a 67-year-old woman found someone “with a penis” grooming himself next to a young girl in a Planet Fitness ladies’ locker room in Fairbanks, Alaska, she took a photo of him to prove her experience. Those who run the gym said he had every right to be there: he identified as a woman, so that was that. She was banned from ever entering again.

When a man walked around totally naked in a Planet Fitness ladies’ locker room in North Carolina, he was arrested for indecent exposure. But not because the gym is unalterably opposed to such behavior—they were upset because he didn’t tell them in advance that he believes he is a woman. In other words, indecent exposure is not indecent if the pervert with male genitalia says he is a woman.

“Brittney Griner and Her Wife Are Expecting Their First Child.” That is the headline published by “Today” on the famous woman basketball player and her girlfriend.

In the Planet Fitness examples, and in the “Today” instance, it is painfully obvious that we are living in a surreal world, one where politics has thrown science overboard.

A man can say that he is a woman—or a worm for that matter—but when self-identification contradicts reality, such declarations are palpably false. To be explicit, there is no such thing as a transgender person. It is a fiction. We are either male or female (intersex persons are not a third sex). Planet Fitness can rely on politics, e.g., the ideology of transgenderism, but in doing so it is contradicting science.

Similarly, it is a legal fiction to say that two people of the same sex can marry. Marriage is a universal institution designed to channel the sex drive of men and women in a socially responsible way. An important  function of marriage is the possibility of the procreation of children; they need a stable and patterned environment in which to grow.

In other words, the most important cell in society, the family, is integrally tied to the institution of marriage. They are both the reserve of one man and  one woman, and no amount of ideological protestation matters.

Brittany and her lover are denied by nature from having a family. They can rent a womb, acquire someone else’s baby, or adopt the children of some other couple, but they cannot create their own offspring. That’s the way nature, and nature’s God, work.

Science is not based on whim or fancy. It is based on laws that reflect the empirical reality of nature.

In a sane society, those who teach that the sexes are interchangeable, and that two people of the same sex can realistically marry and have a baby, should be fired for misrepresenting science. They are more akin to the devotees of the Flat Earth Society than they are to serious scholars.

To those who say such a position is lacking in compassion for those who disagree with this analysis, it needs to be said that when compassion conflicts with truth, it needs to take a back seat.

It is regrettable, yet understandable, that those who work in higher education and in the medical profession have witnessed an attrition in the prestige they once enjoyed. They alone are to blame and they alone can fix it. Rediscovering the verities of science is a good place to start.

The following letter by Bill Donohue to the president of Northwestern University explains why Catholics, as well as Jews, are concerned about concessions granted by the school to pro-Hamas students.

May 6, 2024

President Michael H. Schill
Office of the President
Northwestern University
633 Clark Street
Evanston, IL 60208-1100

Dear President Schill:

I am writing to you in my role as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. I am also a veteran, a former college professor, and former member of the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars.

It is one thing to learn that protesting students are insisting that Northwestern hire at least two Palestinian visiting professors, and offer scholarships for five Palestinian undergraduates; it is quite another to learn that their demands have been accepted.

The reason this matters to Catholics, as well as to Jews, is that it raises the specter of bringing hate-mongers to the campus. This is hardly a stretch given the open embrace of Hamas on the part of some of the protesters.

Let’s face it—the protesters are looking for their ideological next of kin to fill these spots. They are not interested in bringing Middle Eastern scholars to the campus, especially those who might differ with their understanding of events. Their vision of history is the Hamas vision.

It is not a matter of debate what Hamas wants. The 1988 Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the Hamas Covenant, is quite explicit. What it says about Christians explains why this is of particular interest to the Catholic League.

Here is a selection from the Hamas Covenant that details its overall objective.

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”  It is very specific. “The Day of Judgement will not come until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees.”

The Hamas Covenant also targets Christians. In a passage taken from the  Koran, Muslims are advised how to deal with appeals for peace made by “the infidels.” The message is unambiguous. “But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion.”

Accordingly, Muslims are told the only answer is to have Jews and Christians live under Sharia law. “Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.”

More recently, in 2022, Mahmoud al Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas, said, “We are not liberating our land alone. The entire 510 million square kilometers of planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity (my italics).”

No one who endorses this rhetoric should be teaching on any college campus. Not for a moment would someone be permitted to promote the  agenda of the Klan. And not for a moment should anyone have a place in academia who seeks to promote the agenda of the Hamas Covenant.

Complicating matters for Northwestern is its record on free speech.

The 2024 survey of free speech on campus conducted by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) gave Northwestern a “Poor” rating.

Indeed, it was listed near the bottom of colleges and universities on free speech measures: of the 254 that were studied, Northwestern ranked 242. Given this reality, how can we expect Christian and Jewish students to disagree with professors who adopt the Hamas worldview?

Giving into the demands of protesters has already created legal problems for Northwestern. It is being sued for violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act: offering almost $2 million in scholarship funds, faculty positions, and student-organization space to Palestinian students and staff is not likely to pass muster in the courts. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

I implore you, and the Board of Trustees, to reconsider your stance. It is  wrong morally and legally to capitulate to highly objectionable student demands. It also sends a message to current and future students that if they engage in civil discord they will be rewarded for doing so. At that point, the purpose of the university—the pursuit of truth—collapses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc:  Peter M. Barris, Chair, Board of Trustees
Adam R. Karr, Vice Chair
Virginia M. Rometty, Vice Chair
Michael S. Shannon, Vice  Chair

Bill Donohue

No one knows exactly how many queers (the preferred word by the Associated Press for homosexuals) are pro-Hamas, but it is indisputable that some have joined the side of the terrorists. “Queers for Palestine” is only one such group.

Valley Families for Palestine recently held a Queer Storytime for Palestine event at the Northampton Center for the Arts in Massachusetts. It was intended for preschool through upper elementary students. Lil Miss Hot Mess read stories to the children, shouting, “Free Palestine.”

The ironies abound. Lil Miss Hot Mess is a Jew who hates Jews. People like that are routinely murdered by Hamas. And they even kill their own. Mahmoud Ishtiwi, a Hamas commander, was tortured and killed by his fellow terrorists in 2016 after he allegedly had sex with another guy. In 2022, Ahmad Abu Marhia, a 25-year-old Palestinian, had his head chopped off because he was a queer.

It would be a mistake to think that Lil Miss Hot Mess is a total freak, though one can be forgiven for thinking that way. No, there is a link between political and sexual revolution that has deep intellectual roots. I discuss this in my upcoming book Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis; it will be published June 18.

Wilhelm Reich, the 20th century Austrian intellectual, was the most sexually crazed member of the Frankfurt School, and that was quite a feat. This was a school of thought that took hold in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and later moved to New York City, laying anchor at Columbia University. It is a blend of Marx and Freud.

Reich is known as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution.” He worked hard to convince Catholic children to abandon their religion and put their faith in Communism. He insisted that there could be no political revolution without first witnessing a sexual revolution.

In the 1960s, radical feminist Shulamith Firestone was also influenced by Freud—they both vigorously opposed the incest taboo. Like Reich, she posited a direct link between a sexual revolution and a political revolution. In fact, she blamed the failure of the Russian Revolution on the failure to “eliminate the family and sexual repression.”

More recently, another radical feminist, Judith Butler, has argued that we need to get rid of the incest taboo because incest is not necessarily a traumatic act; what is traumatic is the stigmatization itself. She is another intellectual—she likes to be called “they”—who ties sexual revolution to political revolution. She actively promotes transgenderism and anarchy.

The urban terrorist group, Antifa, puts into action what the intellectuals are promoting. Mostly known for destroying Portland and Seattle during the “Summer of Love” in 2020, the masked thugs want to overthrow the government, but that is not enough: they have taken up the cause of transgenderism and abortion.

There is now a subset of Antifa called Trantifa, militant activists who confront parents who object to drag queen shows. They have a particular hatred of girls and women who resist their agenda.

What they want is what Reich, Firestone and Butler want—the destruction of the family and the overthrow of the political order. And they are prepared to use violence to further their cause.

This explains why some queers have joined the Hamas crusade. In their mind, there can be no true liberation until they are free from sexual and political norms. And for that, they blame our Judeo-Christian heritage. This explains why queers for Hamas has chimed in, irrational though they are on many fronts.

Bill Donohue

As encyclopedia.com explains, “Willingness to die for a religious or political cause has long been recognized as a key measure of an activist’s commitment.” Accordingly, the Pro-Hamas protesters should be prepared to die. Instead, they object to being arrested.

Student protesters and outside agitators like to hold signs that read, “Final Solution.” They display swastikas. They shout, “We Are Hamas.” They proclaim, “Intifada Revolution.”

But real men and women don’t engage in revolutionary protests and then  demand amnesty. They don’t demand that their arrest record be expunged. They don’t hide under blankets when speaking to the press. They don’t object if their picture is taken. They don’t mind it if they are outed on social media. They don’t insist on being given “chicken nuggets and applesauce” when they barricade themselves inside school buildings. And they sure don’t wear masks and keffiyehs hiding their face.

The pro-Hamas protesters have much in common with the Ku Klux Klan. Both hate Jews and both wear masks while demonstrating. While some Klansmen wore masks in the 19th century, it wasn’t until the turn of the century that they became commonplace. In response, states like New York passed laws banning protesters like the KKK from wearing them. This law is still on the books, but the cops are not allowed to enforce it, much to the applause of the Jew haters.

Masks have nothing to do with protecting against Covid (they don’t even do that well). In 2011, well before Covid, Occupy Wall Street thugs wore them and less than a decade later Antifa terrorists did the same. Now it has gotten so crazy that at a tent site at the University of Michigan, the pro-Hamas crazies are being given masks upon entry. So brave.

Marx wanted a revolution and advocated violence—he said it was necessary to overthrow capitalism. But since the working class today is uniformly anti-Marxist (they love Trump), the cause of totalitarianism falls to Black Lives Matter, Antifa and Pro-Hamas crusaders. Unlike what Marx envisioned, they want to promote violence without being subjected to it. This is not manly.

One reason why this is not a manly exercise has to do with the overwhelming number of women who have joined these causes. What we are witnessing is the feminization of revolutionaries; the men have been castrated by their cowardly female counterparts. That’s why they love masks.

Real revolutionaries know they have to have some skin in the game. Indeed, they have to commit to dying for their cause. But today’s brand of revolutionaries can’t be taken seriously: they are more worried about having an arrest record and how it may hurt their career than in making the ultimate sacrifice. And they sure don’t want to give up their Apple phones and computers, even though Israel has been making them since 1985.

They want “revolution lite.” Only brats think that way.