This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The all-out assault on Rep. Mike Johnson, the newly elected Speaker of the House, is about much more than his evangelical roots: the unrelenting attacks are meant to discourage younger Christian conservatives from running for office; they are also meant to discredit the Founders and our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Michael Tomasky at the New Republic labels Johnson a “hard-core theocrat.” Jennifer Bendery at Huffington Post says he is “one of the most extreme members of the House MAGA majority.” Bill Maher compared him to a mass shooter.

Those bigots who call him a “Christofascist” include Faithful America (funded by George Soros), Amanda Marcotte at Salon, Noah Berlatsky at Public Notice, and David Rothkopf at the Daily Beast.

Branding him a “Christian Nationalist” are the Washington Post’s Kate Cohen, MSNBC writer Sarah Posner, Thomas B. Edsall (in a New York Times op-ed), Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, sociologist Andrew Whitehead, and Mother Jones author David Corn.

Even more incendiary—saying he is a danger to the nation—are Rothkopf, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), and MSNBC host Joy Reid. Brian Karem at Salon even titled his piece on Johnson, “Bigger Threat to America than Hamas Could Ever Be.”

Some of these people have a long record of anti-Catholic bigotry (Maher, Marcotte and Posner); others are known for trying to normalize pedophilia (Berlatsky); Corn and Reid are left-wing extremists; Huffman says Democrats should consider taking away the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church; and Jones and Whitehead are known for smearing Christian conservatives.

Why the hysteria over Johnson? He is opposed to the LGBT agenda and is proud of our nation’s Christian legacy.

The Advocate, a gay publication, is upset that Johnson has drawn attention to the “dangerous lifestyle” of gays. Anyone in the post-AIDS era who isn’t aware of the lethal sex practices and rampant promiscuity that libertine homosexuals are known for is positively clueless.

When Corn objects to Christians who say there is but one truth, and it is Jesus, he is expressing a deep hatred of Christians. When Whitehead and Jones are angry at Christians who are proud of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the problem is theirs, and theirs alone.

Catholics need to know that the same people behind these vicious assaults against the Speaker not only hate the religious principles upon which this nation was founded, they hate those evangelicals, practicing Catholics and observant Jews who love them.

The model Catholic that these haters admire is our “devout Catholic” president, a man who publicly opposes the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion, marriage, the family, homosexuality, gender ideology, religious liberty and school choice.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The anti-Christmas censors started early this year, both at home and abroad. Fortunately, they are off to a lousy start.

City employees in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin were told not to put up Christmas decorations. They even banned the colors of red and green. But after a huge outcry and a threatened lawsuit, they backed down.

Placerville, California officials wanted to change the name of their Christmas holiday celebration from Festival of Lights to Hometown Holidays—from lame to worse—and take down the [Christmas] tree two weeks before Christmas. After the public protested, it was renamed Hometown Christmas and the tree will stay through Christmas.

K-mart in Australia was selling a bag to put a ham in for Christmas with the inscription, “Merry HAM-MAS.” Because it looked like a shout-out for Hamas, they pulled it.
Santa’s village at Pacific Werribee, near Melbourne, had a huge sign behind Santa’s chair that read, “Merry Everything.” After a backlash, it was renamed, “Merry Christmas.”

The British retailer Marks & Spencer was forced to apologize after a Christmas ad showed red and green paper hats in a burning fireplace (some even compared it to a Palestinian flag).

Shoppers at the English supermarket, Sainsbury’s, were not happy with a Christmas card that featured two snow-covered pigs. It was shelved.

Some of these are minor infractions; others are not. No matter, there is no other holiday that is targeted for censorship like Christmas. That’s why victories are so sweet.

This is the article that appeared in the March 2024 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

William A. Donohue

Almost all Americans (9 in 10) celebrate Christmas, and the majority (7 in 10) are Christian. So it should not be controversial to celebrate a holiday that is central to our country’s history. But it is.

We’ve been involved in the Christmas wars for many years. From my perspective, it reached a crescendo about a decade or so ago. Both sides can claim victories and losses. We decided to up the ante this Christmas season by having two public Christmas displays in New York City.

We’ve erected a life-size nativity scene at the foot of Central Park since the mid-1990s, just outside the Plaza Hotel; we are doing so again. This year we are also displaying a huge digital billboard celebrating Christmas in Times Square as well.

We are doing this because we want to combat the idea that religion should be privatized. That is what the enemies of religion want. They want us to stick to saying the rosary in church and absenting ourselves from all public celebrations and events. We refuse to do so.

The foes of religion don’t even talk about freedom of religion anymore; they speak about “freedom to worship.” It started with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and has been trending ever since. But “freedom to worship” is not what the First Amendment is all about. It is about the free exercise of religion, and that means the public expression of it.

Imagine if we said that everyone is free to play music indoors, such as in concert halls and arenas. But there can be no sidewalk, street or park ensembles, the kind that made New Orleans famous. No one would believe it if the sponsors of this idea said they were not against music. To privatize it would be to squeeze the life out of it.

Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were strong advocates of the public expression of religion. No, we don’t have to wear our religion on our sleeve, but we have a right to make public our Christian convictions. Freedom of religion, then, is more than conscience rights—it is also about behavior.

The Christmas billboard (see the opposite page) is a digital display. It will be shown four to six times an hour, 30 seconds each, for the two weeks before Christmas. As you can see, we are playing off the theme of “diversity.”

We know that those in the ever-expanding diversity industry, which is indistinguishable from the grievance industry, are using “diversity” and “inclusion”—the twin propaganda tools—as a political club. They are invoked to discriminate against white Christians, especially male heterosexuals, and they are employed every Christmas season to diminish its essence.

For example, the anti-Christmas folks, who pretend to be faithful to separation of church and state, like to say that December should not be about Christmas because it excludes those who are not Christian. That’s pretty lame. Even though 87 percent of the country is not African American, we celebrate Black History Month each year. Should we do away with it because it is not inclusive of Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians and others?

By identifying Christmas as a celebration of diversity, we are taking a page out of the diversity playbook and using it to our advantage. This point will not be lost on those who want to censor Christmas.

While the nativity scene is integral to the billboard, its prominent display in Central Park makes for a purely religious statement. We are given a permit by the City of New York to have it on public property because parks are considered a public forum—open to musicians, artists, et al.—and therefore they must be open to religious speech.

The number of people who come to Times Square each Christmas season is astonishing. Our billboard is just above street level, between 44th and 45th Street on Broadway, facing west. It can’t be missed. The nativity scene is right at the start of Central Park, and it can’t be missed by tourists and those who take the 5th Avenue bus downtown.

We want a robust public expression of Christmas. The billboard and the nativity scene both carry an inscription of the Catholic League, with our logo. This way no one will wonder who is sponsoring these exhibitions. Moreover, since most will like them, it is good publicity for us.

The ACLU, of course, won’t be happy, but they can’t do a thing about it. They love to say that we have to guard against religious speech because children are “impressionable.” Yet this never seems to matter when they are pushing pornographic material on to children in the schools.

Similarly, when someone objects to pornography being sold or shown in public, the ACLU says we should simply “avert our eyes.” That’s what they should do when they object to seeing Christmas celebrations and nativity scenes in public—avert their eyes.

Believe me, we will not be driven from the public square.

Have a fun-filled and blessed Christmas.

Bill Donohue

Most Americans are conflicted about abortion: they don’t want it banned in all circumstances, but they also don’t support abortion for any reasons and at any time of pregnancy. In other words, most Americans want abortion legal but restricted. Most but not all. There are some who favor abortion unlimited—for any reason and at time of gestation. The media will tell you this isn’t true. They’re lying.

In September, Vice President Kamala Harris was interviewed on “Face the Nation” by Margaret Brennan. Brennan made the point that Republicans are saying they support abortions “up until, you know, birth.” Harris replied, “Which is ridiculous.” Brennan agreed, saying, “Which is statistically not accurate.”

Republican candidate for president, Chris Christie, told Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC that in his state of New Jersey abortion is legal “up to nine months.” She disagreed, saying, “It’s not an abortion at nine months. And there’s not a doctor that would do it. And it only happens in extremely severe circumstances.”

“The claim that Democrats support abortion up until the moment of birth is entirely misleading.” That’s what former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on her MSNBC show.

Jim Acosta of CNN took issue with a family leader on this subject, saying, “Democrats are not in favor of abortion right up until birth.”
On “Meet the Press,” former President Donald Trump said that some Democrats support abortion up to “nine months and even after birth you’re allowed to terminate the baby.” The NBC host, Kristen Welker, said, “Democrats are not saying that.”

Steve Benen, an MSNBC producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” also took issue with Trump’s claim that some Democrats support “after-birth” abortion. “There is no such thing. The claim is simply insane.”

All of these people who defend the Democrats on this issue are wrong. I will prove it.

Let’s first remember that the entire case for abortion was initially built on a string of lies. Don’t take my word for it—read what Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader said about this when they were plotting their strategy to legalize abortion. They were key players in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

They coined phrases such as “Freedom of choice” and “Women must have control over their bodies.” Nathanson said, “I remember laughing when we made up those slogans. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all these slogans today are very, very, cynical.”

(Nathanson, who performed thousands of abortions, finally came over to our side. He even converted to Catholicism.)

Nathanson and Lader, working with feminist Betty Friedan, knew that in the days before abortion was legalized public opinion polls would not support their cause. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortions. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.”

They also lied about the data. They did so by “fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 10,000, but the figure we gave to the media was 1 million. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”

Late-term abortions, contrary to what some say, are more common than are reported. Perhaps no one performed more of them than Dr. George Tiller. In 1995 he told his fans, “We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years.”

Ron Fitzsimmons used to tell the media that partial-birth abortions—where the baby is 80 percent born—were extremely rare. Then in 1995 he went on national TV and admitted that he “lied through [his] teeth,” saying he was just spouting “the party line.”

In 2019, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute admitted that at least 12,000 late-term abortions take place annually in the U.S. In 2023, a fact checker at the Washington Post conceded that at least 10,000 late-term abortions take place each year.

New York Mayor Ed Koch and New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan were both abortion-rights defenders, but they drew the line when it came to partial-birth abortions. Moynihan properly called it “infanticide.”

Today, there are Democrats such as Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman who believe in no restrictions on abortion. When asked during a debate, “Are there any limits on abortion you would find appropriate,” he answered, “I don’t believe so.”

In 2015, when Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was asked if she was okay “with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet,” she replied that she supports “letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved.” Senator Rand Paul rightly noted, “Well, it sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby.”

In 2020, when Vice President Mike Pence called out Democrats for supporting abortion without restrictions, he was challenged by Jane Timm of NBC News. “Elective abortions do not occur up until the moment of birth,” she said.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, rebutted her argument. “Believe it or not, 22 states—almost half—allow birth day abortion. And in seven of those, women don’t need a reason. A pregnant mom at 39 weeks can literally walk into a willing clinic and ask for an abortion, no questions asked.”

Perkins knows what he is talking about. Quite frankly, under Roe v. Wade, abortion-on-demand, while not a de jure right (it was not permitted after viability except in limited cases), was a de facto right. For proof, consider Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe; it opened the door to abortion-on-demand.

In Roe, the high court said the states may outlaw abortion “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The ruling in Doe defined what an “appropriate medical judgment” was. It entailed the “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the women’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”

Not surprisingly, every state law that attempted to limit post-viability abortions to those necessary for the physical health of the women failed in court when challenged. In effect, the joint decisions in Roe and Doe legalized abortion up until birth. So when Democrats say they simply want to codify Roe, what they are saying is they want to make all abortions legal, at any time during pregnancy.

In fact, in 2022, the Democrats sought to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would further ensure that abortions through term be honored, but it was narrowly defeated.

Some Democrat governors actually favor allowing a baby who is born alive from a botched abortion to die unattended.

On January 22, 2019, New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that allows premature babies who survive a chemical abortion to be denied treatment. Shortly thereafter, the Democrat Governor from Virginia, Ralph Northam, signaled he was not content to allow abortion up until birth.

If a baby survived an abortion, he said, “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

It was so thoughtful of Gov. Northam, who is a pediatrician, to assure us that the baby would be “kept comfortable” before they put him down or let him die.

In 2019, New York U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told a reporter, “Infanticide does not exist.” This was after Cuomo and Northam okayed it. In fact, when she said this, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, had just vetoed a bill that would have required children born alive who survived an abortion to be treated like any other person.

At the federal level in 2019, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was blocked by Senate Democrats. Presidential candidates Senators Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren voted to stop the bill from being considered. Filibuster tactics killed the bill.

On January 11, 2023, all but two congressional Democrats voted to kill this same bill. They said there was enough legislation on the books already to protect against infanticide. As we have seen, this is patently untrue. Even so, when it comes to laws against discrimination, Democrats can never get enough legislation on the books.

One Democrat who has been a longtime proponent of allowing kids who survive an abortion to die unattended is Barack Obama. When he was in the Illinois state senate, he opposed bills in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would secure medical care for these children.

Joe Biden entered the U.S. Senate in 1973, the same year as Roe. The next year he said this decision went “too far” and that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, he voted against public funding of abortion and even introduced the “Biden Amendment” in 1981 prohibiting foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving abortion. In the 1990s, Biden voted consistently to ban partial-birth abortions, and continued to do so in 2003.

Then he pivoted. In 2007, Biden criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, calling it “paternalistic.” The next year he said he opposed overturning Roe. In 2012, he opined that the government does not have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”

In 2019, Biden said that for the first time he opposed the “Hyde Amendment” that bans the federal funding of abortion. In 2020, he came clean, saying he supports abortion “under any circumstances (my italic).”

In 2021, President Biden said, “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I don’t agree, but I respect that.” He never indicated when he thought life begins or why he disagrees with science. This past June he said he’s “not big on abortion,” never saying why not. But he did say he supports Roe.

So there we have it. Contrary to what the media and the Democrats have been saying, there are plenty of Democrats who support legalized abortion through nine months of pregnancy and for any reason whatsoever. There are even some who have signed legislation allowing babies to die without medical treatment if they survive a botched abortion. Moreover, bills to secure treatment for these children are blocked by Democrats.

The defense of the indefensible is immoral enough, but when public officials lie about their support for abortion-on-demand, often including infanticide, they are beyond the pale. But as I said in the beginning, lying about abortion has been routine from the get-go of this movement.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Religious
Liberal Protestant denominations tried to draw comparisons between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Others went further. Bishop Patricia Davenport of the Lutheran Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod said, “What we are experiencing is in part because of years of abuse, including mortal killing, perpetrated by the Israeli governmental forces upon the Palestinians….We continue to stand firm with our Palestinian sisters and brothers.” Meanwhile, Churches for Middle East Peace, an affiliate of the United Church of Christ, “is concerned that Israel’s response is disproportionate….”

The United States Council of Muslim Organizations, the nation’s largest American Muslim civil society umbrella organization, reaffirmed its “unwavering support for the Palestinian people and their right to freedom from the Israeli occupation,” and called the IDF’s response “unprovoked.” Notably, the Council on American Islamic Relations joined this statement.

Several extremist Jewish groups also rallied around Hamas’ banner. On October 18, Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow stormed the Cannon House Office Building demanding lawmakers force Israel to accept a ceasefire with the jihadists. Both are George Soros funded. Additionally, Neturei Karta (Jews Against Zionism), an ultra-Orthodox Jewish organization opposed to Israel, said, “The only responsibility for the dead Jews and Muslims is the racist and usurper government of the Zionist state of Israel.”

Academia
As journalist Bari Weiss notes, colleges and universities across the country saw students and faculty demonstrate support for Hamas. At Harvard, over 30 student groups rallied to the side of the jihadists, and hundreds of students staged a “die-in” to demand an end to Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza. A Cornell University student threatened to “shoot up” locations on campus that catered to Jewish students and to “slit the throat[s]” of Jewish men, rape Jewish women, and behead Jewish babies. Jewish students were told to be on alert because the threat was deemed credible. The student was arrested before he could act.

Activists
Black Lives Matter Chicago shared a meme on Twitter depicting one of the Hamas Jihadists paragliding into Israel before their murderous attack and captioned it with “I stand with Palestine.”

On October 13, Hamas called for a day of rage, and many Western leftists readily joined the frenzy. The Philadelphia rally was particularly vile: one of the speakers told the crowd to “give an applause right now to Hamas for a job well done.” Also in New York, the Democratic Socialists of America held a rally to show “solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to resist,” claiming the Hamas attack was “not unprovoked.”

On October 30, the Southern Poverty Law Center put out a statement claiming that the tragedy of Hamas’ attack on Israel “has only continued as Palestinian civilians in Gaza—many of whom are children—have been targeted with airstrikes and cut off from food, clean water, medical care and lifesaving supplies.” The next day, it changed the word “targeted” to “killed” after public outrage.

Entertainment
A letter signed by more than 2,000 actors, artists, and musicians decried support for Israel saying, “Our governments are not only tolerating war crimes but aiding and abetting them….We demand that our governments end their military and political support for Israel’s actions. We call for an immediate ceasefire….”

Comedian Dave Chappelle criticized the IDF for “war crimes in Gaza.” While he initially condemned Hamas’ attack, when audience members complained about his characterization of the IDF’s military campaign against Hamas, Chappelle denounced Israel for cutting off supplies to Gaza. He further lamented that college students were facing consequences for their vocal support of the Islamic terrorist organization.

Media
By far the worst of the media was the New York Times. On October 10, the newspaper removed reference to “terrorists” in its headline on Hamas’ attack, preferring the word “gunmen.” Similarly, when Hamas falsely claimed that the IDF bombed a hospital in Gaza, the Times ran with the story. It was not until the following week that it noted it had failed to verify the story.

The Spanish edition of the Huffington Post ran an op-ed by Pepe Vera that compared Israel to Nazi Germany and likened the situation of Palestinians to Holocaust victims.

Unions
Workers United, the union which represents nearly 9,000 Starbucks baristas, showed its support for Hamas when it tweeted “Solidarity with Palestine!” in the immediate wake of Hamas’ murderous rampage through Israel.

Politicians
The Squad, long known for its support of leftist causes, was squarely on the side of Palestine. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI-D) was the most outspoken of them all. When Hamas falsely claimed that the IDF bombed a hospital in Gaza, Tlaib repeated the story. Even after American intelligence and photographic evidence confirmed that the hospital was hit by a stray rocket launched by a Palestinian group, Tlaib continued to push Hamas’ false narrative.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

In the late 1960s, while on leave from the Air Force, Bill Donohue came home to see his family in New York City. At that time, Donohue was following the political upheaval that had gripped Ireland. He learned that Bernadette Devlin, the Irish firebrand, was in town, so he went to hear her address before a large indoor crowd in midtown Manhattan. Donohue was not pleased by what he heard.

Devlin wasn’t the problem: the problem was that although this happening was billed as an Irish event, it was taken over by activists representing every left-wing cause imaginable. The war on Vietnam, the oppression of minorities, Indians, women, prisoners, students—you name it—that’s what carried the day. In short, the radicals had no interest in discussing conditions in Ireland. They simply hijacked the event to mouth their own litany of grievances.

Nothing has changed. The Left is capable of finding oppression in a box of cereal. Moreover, they are masters at linking together causes that appear to be unconnected. The same phenomenon is taking place today.

The pro-Hamas crazies have taken up the LGBT cause. Never mind that the former are known for hating and killing the latter, they have found a common enemy. That common enemy is Western civilization. And since Jews and Christians are the face of Western civilization, they are targeted, though for different reasons.

The Western haters loathe Jews because they are seen as European colonizers. But as even the New York Times recently acknowledged, “Jews have been indigenous to the Holy Land for millenniums,” and “more than half of Israel’s population are Mizrahi Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent who have often fled Arab persecution.”

The Western haters loathe Christians because their idea of sexual freedom is genital liberation. By contrast, Christian sexual ethics, as made explicit in Catholic social teachings, is based on restraint; promiscuity is taboo.

Therefore, what unites the haters are twisted notions of liberation, one political, the other sexual. Their hatred of Israel and the United States, in particular, is what animates them.

Proof of this mindset can be seen by considering the comments and voting choices made by the most left-wing segment of the Democratic Party. They are united against Israel, and they are rabid proponents of the Equality Act (it would force Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery).

H. Res. 771: “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists.”

Voting “Nay” were:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI)
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (NY)
Rep. Cori Bush (MO)
Rep. Summer Lee (PA)

Voting “Present” were:

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA) *
Rep. Greg Casar (TX)
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA) *

* They subsequently voted against a House resolution condemning Islamist terrorism against Jews on college campuses.

All nine of them co-sponsored the Equality Act.

The same phenomenon is happening outside of Congress.

• The leader of an LGBTQ group at Columbia University barred supporters of Israel from attending an upcoming black lesbian event.
• “Queers for Palestine” show up at rallies in New York City. The leader shouts “F*** Israel.”
• “Palestinian liberation is black liberation” is their mantra.
• “Reproductive justice means free Palestine” is a popular banner.

The conflation of political liberation and sexual liberation is traceable to the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School in the late 1920s and early 1930s in Germany. In the mid-1930s, the major figures moved to New York City, laying anchor at Columbia University. We hasten to add that Marx himself hated the family as much as he hated capitalism.

Wilhelm Reich was perhaps the most crazed member of the Frankfurt School. Reich hated Catholicism and was known as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution.” He said there could be no political revolution without first witnessing a sexual revolution. Feminists such as Shulamith Firestone in the 1960s took the same position. Transgender and lesbian professor Judith Butler is the most famous contemporary writer conflating these twin causes.

Marx abandoned his family, impregnated his maid (never supporting his son), and ripped off his parents. Reich was convicted of fraud and died in prison. Firestone was mentally ill. And Butler likes to be called “they.”

These are the kinds of dysfunctional and miserable persons who have given voice to the current state of madness.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

On October 14, President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden addressed their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends at the Washington Center in the nation’s capital. It was one of the most dishonest, pandering exercises imaginable. It was nothing short of a love fest.

Lady Jill bemoaned how “LGBTQ individuals” apparently can’t walk school halls “as their authentic self.” This was the first lie.
Any person who subjects himself to puberty blockers and chemical castration—in a vain attempt to deny his authentic self—is living an inauthentic life, strewn with psychological and physiological problems. They need our help, not our condolences.

Armed with her Ed.D.—it is a degree in administration, not research—”Dr. Jill” is opposed to conversion therapy, thus has this “pro-choice” activist decided to deny people who have made the wrong choice the opportunity to make the right choice. Her husband outdid her, calling conversion therapy a “cruel practice.”

The president celebrated “LGBTQ youth” for being “among the bravest people” he knows, not saying what the source of their bravery is. Rebelling against nature and nature’s God?

Similarly, he did not offer any examples of LGBT people valiantly defending the “equal rights and dignity of all people.” It would be helpful to know when and where they have come to the defense of Catholics.

“We’ve made human rights for LGBT around the world a top priority in our foreign policy.” This may explain the many foreign policy failures of this administration—if they spent as much time on military preparedness as they do on “pronoun workshops” for the Pentagon, we wouldn’t be in such a pickle.

Moreover, by what right do Americans have to tell Africans—Biden singles out the Ugandans as not cooperating with his LGBT agenda—how they should think about sexuality? This kind of cultural imperialism is what breeds contempt for America abroad.

Biden was right to say to transgender persons that they were “made in the image of God,” but he was negligent in not saying that attempts to butcher their sex is an affront to this verity.

The Biden administration recently said that foster parents who object to their adopted children “transitioning” to the opposite sex should not be allowed to do so, and that their children should be taken from them if they resist. Therefore, we know what he meant when he said he wants to “protect kids in foster care.”

There are hundreds of state and local laws on the books banning teachers, therapists and others from usurping the rights of parents by seeking to entice their children to “transition.” Biden should be hailing these laws; instead he sides with the child abusers, calling the laws “hateful.”

Biden said his LGBT policies respect many rights, including “the right to free expression.” False. By unleashing the “pronoun police” to ensure that the right words are used to describe the transitioners, he is denying free speech rights to employees.

He is even more off base when he complains, without offering one iota of evidence, that families are being “terrorized” and doctors and nurses are being “criminalized” by those who oppose his LGBT policies. No one is being terrorized, and the only doctors and nurses who are in danger of being “criminalized” are those who refuse to cooperate with his agenda.

Perversely, Biden’s support for the Equality Act, which he said needs to be passed, would force Catholic doctors to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery. In other words, he is the problem—not those who disagree with him.

Biden trotted out the old canard about the tragic death of Matthew Shepard, saying he was “brutally taken from us.” He was, but the homosexual was not killed by gay bashers.

A gay reporter, Stephen Jimenez, initially thought Shepard was killed by anti-gay bigots, but concluded otherwise after his investigation. He spent 13 years interviewing more than 100 people with a connection to the case. What he found was startling.

Shepard was killed by two drug-addicted homosexuals, one of whom was a sex partner of his. Shepard was a gay street-walking prostitute who tested positive for HIV at the time of his death. He was addicted to crystal meth and heroin, and was known to deal in meth. Indeed, his gay assailants were after his stash when they assaulted him. In other words, it wasn’t redneck homophobes who killed Shepard—it was drug-addicted homosexuals just like him.

It is one thing for Mr. “Devout Catholic” to laud the LGBT crowd; it is quite another to lie about his reasons for doing so.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

When Josh Shapiro was the Pennsylvania Attorney General he went after the Catholic Church with a vengeance for allegations of sexual abuse made against priests, most of whom were either kicked out of the Church or were dead. How ironic it is to note that now that he is governor, he is in hot water over his handling of sexual misconduct in his administration.

Shapiro has been governor since the beginning of the year, and he is already caught up in a shady deal that makes him look like a raging hypocrite. To wit: His office recently wrote a check for $295,000 to settle a sexual harassment complaint against one of his top advisors, and in doing so the public was intentionally kept in the dark. Looks like Mr. Transparency is caught in a web of deceit and hypocrisy.

The advisor in question is Mike Vereb, Shapiro’s longtime buddy and member of his cabinet. In September, he abruptly resigned. Known in Harrisburg as a womanizer, the woman who brought him down accused him of multiple offenses. In her formal complaint, she said that aides in the administration had joked about her having a sexual relationship with Vereb (her name has not been made public).

According to the accuser, who started working for Vereb in January, in February she told him about the rumors and he demanded to know what was being said. That’s when things got dicey.

In reference to the gossip about their alleged encounters, Vereb allegedly baited her, saying if that is what she wanted, he’d comply. “If you decided you wanted to do that,” he said, “and go close the door to this office, tell me to bend you over this conference table, hike your skirt up, and [expletive deleted] you from behind, that would be our decision to make.”

The woman accuser said Vereb advised her to “wear lower cut tops and shorten the slits in your skirts.” When she told him she was not interested in having a sexual relationship with him, he said, “well [expletive deleted] you then.”

Questions remain as to when Shapiro learned of his friend’s behavior. We know it took more than a week before he said a word about his departure. We also know that months went by between the time of the complaint and Vereb’s resignation.

One reason why we do not know more is because of the nondisclosure agreement (NDA): both the accuser and Vereb are barred from discussing this matter. Pennsylvania, unlike neighboring New Jersey, still has NDAs on the books. Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation four years ago barring NDAs in settlement agreements involving sexual misconduct.

Apparently, Shapiro likes keeping the public in the dark. On January 18, lancasteronline.com ran a piece, “The Shapiro Team Failed Transparency Test.” It was in reference to having more than 300 members of his transition team sign a NDA that barred them from publicly discussing their work. “And because the team is organized under the federal tax code as a so-called ‘dark money’ group, it does not have to publicly disclose the private interests that may be underwriting its work.”

Shapiro’s inauguration committee operated under the same cloak of secrecy. His donors are not known to the public. In the eleven months since he has been governor he has not shared his daily calendar, so the public hasn’t a clue who is coming and going. His predecessor, Tom Wolf, did not operate this way, so Shapiro can’t say he is following precedent.

Over the summer, Shapiro agreed to give the state’s 80,000 union workers a 22 percent raise. But we know nothing of what transpired, and that is because Shapiro is keeping that a secret as well. On top of that, the legislature never voted for the over $3 billion in new money.

All of this is in stark contrast to Shapiro’s image as the great defender of the rights of those victimized by the Catholic clergy. This has angered many, including Democratic activist and civil rights advocate Julie Roginsky. “He made it clear that those kinds of abuses should not be covered up.” But that is exactly what is happening in the Vereb case.

Shapiro’s 2018 grand jury report on the Catholic clergy in Pennsylvania resulted in the prosecution of only two priests. But he knew from the get-go most of the accused priests were untouchable, either because they were dismissed, deceased, or their case was beyond the statute of limitations. This was a grandstanding show designed to elevate Shapiro’s status as a brave fighter against sexual abuse. The Vereb matter shows what a joke this is.

None of the priests had a chance to defend themselves—there was no cross examination—and those who fought back won. The Catholic League filed an amicus brief on behalf of eleven priests who claimed that their reputational rights would be violated if their names were released to the public. We won 6-1 in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2019.

The Catholic Church did away with NDAs years ago. Shapiro still has them, and he uses them to avoid scrutiny. In short, Mr. Transparency is a monumental fraud.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Faithful America is a far left-wing entity (it is not a true organization) that pretends to be Christian while working hard to undermine Christianity. It has a particular hatred of Catholics. Its latest salvo is hurled at Bishop Joseph Strickland.

Newsweek, which acts like a PR outlet for Faithful America, said that “Thousands of Christians have signed a petition thanking Pope Francis for removing Joseph Strickland as the bishop of Tyler, Texas.”

They previously attacked the bishops’ conference.

Bishop Strickland is a “partisan false prophet who has absolutely no business continuing to hold a position of moral authority in the Body of Christ.” These are the words of Rev. Nathan Empsall, head honcho.

Empsall is not a Catholic. He is an Episcopalian priest. Thus he has no standing in evaluating the authenticity of the Catholic clergy. Moreover, we’re not even sure he is a man. Anyone who likes to be referred to as he/him makes us wonder.

Empsall boasts that Faithful America is “the largest online community of grassroots Christians” in the nation. Wrong.

To begin with, there is no such thing as an “online community.” It would be more honest to say that Faithful America has a website. Most important, there is nothing “grassroots” about this phony Christian entity—it is funded by George Soros and other left-wing organizations, such as the Arcus Foundation.

Further proof that Faithful America is a fraud can be seen by considering its contact information. Workers are allowed to work from home. That’s because there is no office. The address listed on their website is “206 Elm Street, Unit #202898” in New Haven, Connecticut. That is the street address of USPS Yale Station. Oh, yes, Amazon has a locker at that address as well.

Empsall and his little Soros-funded crew are frauds.

This is the article that appeared in the December 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Hating Jews is now the number-one sport in the world among left-wing activists. They may say they don’t hate Jews—it’s Israeli policies they find detestable. Don’t believe them: They hate Jews. Here’s the latest proof.

Thanks to a splendid piece by sociologist David Ayers in The American Spectator, Bill Donohue learned of an open letter titled, “Sociologists in Solidarity with Gaza and the Palestinian People”; it was signed by more than 1,900 sociologists (and students pursuing a doctorate). After reading it, he’s almost embarrassed to be a sociologist. Almost.

Donohue stopped being embarrassed years ago about his fellow sociologists—he simply gave up on most of them. But he never gave up on sociology. They did. They are nothing but left-wing ideologues disguised as sociologists. Indeed, they don’t even know what sociology is.

“Sociology as a discipline is rooted in a recognition of relationships of power and inequality.” That’s how the letter begins. They are wrong. That is not an accurate definition. What they are describing is social stratification and political sociology, two areas of study within sociology (which happen to be the focus of Donohue’s own sociological work).

Emile Durkheim, who did more to make sociology a legitimate social science than anyone else, was proud to call sociology the “queen of the social sciences.” In capable hands, it still is. He wrote that “the object of sociology as a whole is to determine the conditions for the conservation of societies.” That is clearly not what motivates these charlatans. As left-wing activists, they are more interested in destroying Western societies than they are in conserving them.

Now for the Jew-hating part of the letter. “As sociologists and human beings [are there sociologists who are not human?], we unreservedly condemn the latest violence against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank at the hands of the Israeli regime.”

Throughout the letter, the Israelis are called “murderers” who are committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. Never once does the letter comment on the unprovoked assault on innocent Jews.

Children have been beheaded, women have been raped, hospitals have been bombed and yet not a word of protest. It’s as if October 7 never happened. Instead, the deep thinkers lash out at Jewish leaders who said they are “fighting human animals.” The sociologists labeled such language “dehumanizing”—not the savagery of Hamas.

These savants are also illiterate, and not just in the sociological sense. Here is Donohue’s favorite sentence. “As of writing, over 6,500 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 2,360, and over 17,400 injured.”

Did they not notice that the word “this” belongs in between “of” and “writing”? More revealing is the bit about “over 6,500 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 2,360 (our italic).” Only an illiterate would write such gibberish and only a dunce would sign such a letter.

Here’s another great part of the letter. They say that as educators “it is our duty to stand by the principles of critical inquiry and learning.” But as the letter shows, it more accurately reflects a groupthink mindset, one anchored in hate.

If these sociologists read more of Durkheim’s works and less of Marx’s, they might mature intellectually. In the meantime, they should at least learn how to write a coherent sentence.