President Trump is going to shield from deportation those young people who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, the so-called Dreamers. He is to be commended for doing so.

In the decision announced recently, the president made good on his pledge, made several months ago, that he is “not after the Dreamers.” Indeed, he said in April, “The dreamers should rest easy.” Pointedly, he drew a bright line between those young people who did not willfully break the law, and others. He made it clear that “we are after the criminals.”

President Trump was in office for just over a month when he rethought the position he took as a presidential candidate. “To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have,” he said, “because you have these incredible kids.”

The ruling, which was announced by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, means that 750,000 young people will not be deported, though they are not being granted residency status. If one of the Dreamers commits a crime, he could have his status revoked.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will cheer this decision. On December 22, 2016, Bishop Joe Vásquez, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Migration, supported legislation to protect the Dreamers.

But not everyone will be happy—anti-Catholics such as Ann Coulter will be livid. Every time anyone in the Catholic Church speaks about immigration, she goes off the bat.

In September 2015, after Pope Francis said that immigrants helped build the United States, Coulter said, “This is why the Founders distrusted Catholics.” She added that the Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” In April 2016, she accused the pope of running “a huge multinational that protects subordinates when they rape little boys.”

This is who Ann Coulter is: she is a raging anti-Catholic bigot. It’s about time conservatives stopped defending her. She has more in common with the likes of Kathy Griffin than she does rank-and-file conservatives.

Kudos to President Trump. Now he has the moral capital to do what most Americans want him to do—go after the thugs who are here illegally.

 A homosexual music director lost in a U.S. District Court on June 7 in his bid to be reinstated in a Chicago parish.

Colin Collette knew what the house rules of the Catholic Church were before he announced his “engagement” to his boyfriend in 2014, so he should not have been surprised when the parish he worked for fired him.

Francis Cardinal George, then the Archbishop of Chicago, stated at the time that Collette was dismissed for his “participation in a form of union that cannot be recognized as a sacrament by the Church.”

Collette said that the district court ruling “flies in such contradiction to the wonderful things that are coming out of Rome. The pope is speaking about unity and love, and here we are creating a church of fear and division.”

This is a common error made by homosexual Catholics. Yes, Pope Francis is speaking about unity and love, but he is also opposed to gay marriage. Indeed, he once called it an attempt by “the father of lies” to “confuse and deceive the children of God.” In other words, this is the work of the Devil.

After the U.S. Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the nation, Pope Francis noted that “unprecedented changes” were taking place in society. Specifically, he cited the “social, cultural—and now sadly juridical—effects on family bonds.”

Similarly, when Pope Francis spoke at the White House in 2015, he said “American Catholics are committed to building a society which is truly tolerant and inclusive, to safeguarding the rights of individuals and communities, and to rejecting every form of unjust discrimination.”

After he made those comments, the Internet was alive with headlines such as, “LGBT Catholics Alarmed With Pope’s Remarks About ‘Unjust Discrimination.'”

The Catholic Catechism commands us to respect homosexuals and to avoid “unjust discrimination” against them. To put it differently, it is one thing to maintain that all children of God are entitled to be loved and accepted, quite another to say that no distinctions should be made in policy and law regarding sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, this is seen as controversial, but it should not be: civil society discriminates all the time. For example, an ad placed in the subway by the City of New York recently informed “women and minorities” that assistance was available to them if they want to start a small business. In other words, white guys were told that it was deemed just to discriminate against them (in this initiative as well as many others).

Other examples of just discrimination include denying the right of minors to vote and drink alcohol. We deny small people the right to ride the rollercoaster and men are denied discount drinks on “Ladies Night.” Only veterans are entitled to veteran’s benefits and 60 year-olds are denied Social Security.

The Catholic Church, unlike civil society, sees marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. So has the rest of the world—throughout all of history—until recently. Accordingly, the Church has every right not to acknowledge gay marriage any more than it is required to accept polygamy.

Those who believe in diversity should welcome the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage, homosexuals, and “unjust discrimination.” It is what makes the U.S. such a diverse society—we really do stand out.

The American people are against Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

In a Gallup poll released June 9, a clear majority—54 percent—say abortion should be illegal or legal in only a few circumstances. That is a stark rebuke to Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion through term, and for any reason whatsoever.

By a margin of 49 percent to 43 percent, Americans believe that abortion is “morally wrong.” That is also testament to the support for the pro-life position.

While slightly more Americans identify as pro-choice (49 percent) than pro-life (46 percent), it is more telling that almost half consider abortion to be “morally wrong” (self-identification is largely a function of social pressure, an outcome shaped by cultural elites).

Lawmakers in the states are tapping into this pro-life sentiment. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed legislation that bans D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortions, and Missouri Governor Eric Greitens called back lawmakers to work on new pro-life measures.

This is an example of the Trump Effect, a welcome change from the pro-abortion policies of President Obama. It also shows how technology is working against the pro-abortion community: pictures don’t lie, and the more people view a sonogram—showing life in the womb—the more supportive of our side they become.

This battle in the culture war must continue, and pleas to become passive must be resisted. The kids need our support.

Netflix recently aired a series that imputes the integrity of the Archdiocese of Baltimore for its handling of a miscreant priest from the 1960s. It relies heavily on conjecture and voodoo psychology. It must: it lacks the evidence to make its case. But it will surely feed the appetite of those ready to believe the worst about the Church.

The series focuses on the unresolved murder of Sister Cathy Cesnik. It invites the audience to consider whether she was killed to cover-up sexual abuse at the high school where she worked, Archbishop Keough in Baltimore.

Was the Archdiocese of Baltimore involved in the cover-up? The film dances around the issue, but the implication is clear. Importantly, there is no evidence to support its thesis, but who cares? The goal is to indict by innuendo.

No one disputes that Father Joseph Maskell sexually molested students at the high school in the 1960s. The question is whether he had anything to do with the murder of the nun. No one knows.

The docu-series relies heavily on the testimony of one woman. She says she was sexually abused by Father Maskell in the late 1960s. She also alleges that he passed her around to cops, businessmen, and local officials, all of whom abused her. She says she told this to Sister Cathy shortly before she disappeared. She also claims that Father Maskell took her to see the nun’s body, warning her about her fate should she squeal.

Here are some inconvenient facts that the series fails to acknowledge.

• The alleged victim never said a word to the officials in the Baltimore archdiocese after she was allegedly molested and after the priest allegedly threatened her. She never called the cops, either. Indeed, she never came forward until 1992.
• Sister Cathy’s body was found by two hunters at a Baltimore dump on January 3, 1970, almost two months after her last sighting. The Baltimore County Police began its investigation at this time.
• The case remained open and was extremely active through 1977. The police never got a single phone call from witnesses or victims alleging abuse from anyone associated with the Catholic Church.
• Neither the archdiocese nor the cops were made aware of Father Maskell’s abusive behavior until 1992. He was immediately removed from ministry for evaluation and treatment.
• The archdiocese reported the allegation to the civil authorities. That is when Father Maskell was investigated by the police.
• In 1994, after two other students subsequently make accusations against the priest, the archdiocese called the cops. Father Maskell was removed from public ministry.
• Detectives are asked to evaluate the charge that Father Maskell took the initial complainant to see Sister Cathy’s body, threatening her. They find inconsistencies in her story.
• After a lengthy police interview, Father Maskell is not considered a suspect and is let go. He dies in 2001.

This is obviously a sad story. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Baltimore did anything wrong. Indeed, it did everything right.
Why did the accusing woman who is at the center of this story wait until the 1990s to report what allegedly happened in the 1960s? “Repressed memory,” we are told.

• The American Psychology Association studied this issue and concluded that “Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them.”
•The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Bible of the American Psychiatric Association, does not recognize the scientific validity of “repressed memories.”
• Researchers at Harvard Medical School concluded that “repressed memory” is a cultural creation having no basis in science.
• In 2012, clinical psychologists and authors from the University of Nevada, Reno, studied the literature on this subject and concluded that “there is a large amount of scientific evidence that clearly shows that repressed memories simply do not exist. Furthermore research studies involving traumatic events that have been verified indicate that people do not forget their trauma. Indeed, traumatic events are actually quite memorable.”

So what would the top brass at Netflix do if they learned of a similar accusation made by a former employee against one of its officials? Would they call the cops? Hopefully, they would. We don’t know. Would they immediately remove the accused from his job—the way the archdiocese did—or would they allow him to continue until the case was resolved? How would they react if we decided to do a movie about them?

Had those behind this Netflix documentary spent more time discussing the script with the Archdiocese of Baltimore before moving forward, they may have dropped it altogether. But they didn’t—they sought very little input. That is why “The Keepers” is so scurrilous: it indicts without evidence.

On June 1, the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Public Health hosted Linda Sarsour as its commencement speaker. Bill Donohue, along with other New York leaders, spoke out against the invitation. Below is an excerpt of his letter to Chancellor James Milliken.

May 22, 2017

Dear Chancellor Milliken:

On June 1, Linda Sarsour is scheduled to be the commencement speaker at the CUNY School of Public Health graduation. I stand with my Jewish brothers and sisters by respectfully urging you to withdraw the invitation.

Sarsour is a proponent of totalitarianism. Her preference is not fascism or communism—it is Sharia law. For example, on February 18, 2015, she went on TV to complain about state bans of Sharia law. It is no wonder that Muslim civil rights advocate Hirsi Ali says, “She is a defender of Sharia law.” Ali adds that there is “no principle that demeans, degrades, and dehumanizes women more than the principle of Sharia law.”

In real life, what Ali said underestimates the horror of Sharia law. Just a few weeks ago, on May 1, a news story reported on the fate of a Muslim turned atheist. “A Saudi Arabian man who renounced Islam and made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad has been sentenced to death.” The nation that did the sentencing is Saudi Arabia, a showcase of Sharia law.

On May 17, AP reported that “An Islamic Shariah court in Indonesia…has sentenced two gay men to public caning for the first time.” The men, 20 and 23, “would each be subjected to 85 lashes for having sexual relations.”

This is what Sarsour defends, and she does so with passion. She cannot logically object to killing atheists and beating gays and at the same time defend Sharia law: Sharia authorized the violence.

One of Sarsour’s heroes is Rasmea Yousef Odeh; they recently appeared together at a public event. Odeh is a convicted terrorist. She spent ten years in an Israeli prison for her role in two terrorist bombings; two students were killed in one of the bombings while shopping for groceries.

Sarsour has no mercy on her critics, especially if they are women. For example, two of her most vocal critics are Brigitte Gabriel and Hirsi Ali. Sarsour said she would like to cut out their vaginas.

On March 8, 2011, Sarsour tweeted the following: “Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women.”

Sarsour calls herself a feminist though she vigorously defends Sharia law which treats women like dirt. Moreover, her idea of women’s rights does not extend to Jewish women who defend Israel or Catholic women who are pro-life.

In January, Sarsour was one of four women who coordinated the Women’s March on Washington. When asked if there was room for women who support Israel, she said, “There can’t be in feminism.” When asked if pro-life women could march—many of whom are Catholic—she said, “If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose.” She made good on her pledge: all pro-life units were banned.

Higher education is about the pursuit of truth; it is not about advancing a “diversity of viewpoints.” One of the “self-evident truths” that Americans agree on is the pursuit of liberty. Those who promote totalitarianism obviously think this basic tenet of the American Creed is wrong. They are entitled to voice their position, but this is not the issue. The issue is honoring someone who defends modern-day slavery and gives succor to terrorists.

Please reconsider the invitation of Linda Sarsour.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

Below is a copy of Bill Donohue’s letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, countering Trudeau’s call for an apology from Pope Francis by calling on the prime minister to apologize to all victims of Canadian oppression.

May 30, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON KIA 0A2

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau:

Your interest in having Pope Francis apologize for the Catholic Church’s mistreatment of indigenous peoples is commendable, but it would take on greater meaning if you were to offer a sincere apology for the Canadian government’s oppression of Indians, Africans, Asians, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics. The victimization of Catholics continues to this day in Canada, making my plea all the more urgent.

In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a formal apology for the damage done to former students of residential schools, many of them run by the Canadian government. If he could do that, without asking the pope to apologize, surely a man of your compassion could do the same. You might begin by addressing the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It released 440 recommendations in 1996. Have they all been implemented? Now is the time to act.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, Asians were excluded from public schools, and many were beaten up in riots across Canada. Alberta, Québec, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan passed laws barring white women from working in restaurants, laundries, and all other businesses owned by Chinese or Japanese Canadians. You need to apologize for these racist laws immediately.

Black Canadians were victimized by the Canadian government in every facet of life. Schools, hotels, restaurants, theaters, and swimming pools were segregated from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century. You cannot allow this oppression to go unanswered. Please apologize now.

While Hitler was busy getting Jews ready for the ovens in the 1930s, your government, sir, employed quotas in the universities, elite social clubs, beaches, and resorts in Montréal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. And when Jews sought to emigrate to Canada, your government slammed the door in their face. A big time apology is needed without delay.

The Ku Klux Klan, with the backing of the Canadian government, targeted Catholics in the first half of the 20th century, working overtime to stop them from coming to Canada. The Klan organized in Montréal, Ontario, BC, and Manitoba in the early 1920s. It was most successful in Saskatchewan, drawing 20,000 members. Catholics were denied jobs and new parochial schools could not be built. You cannot allow Catholics to go without an apology. Please act now.

Catholics need more than an apology: They need you to intervene now by ordering all government officials to stop harassing priests for exercising fidelity to Catholic teachings on marriage and the family; Protestant ministers have similarly been affected. Moreover, Catholics are being denied government jobs simply because they profess a belief in Catholic sexual ethics. This oppression is unconscionable and must end.

Please issue the requested apologies, and please support the conscience rights of Catholics and Protestants in Canada. To do less would be to invite skepticism—if not cynicism—about your concern for the victims of oppression.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President