This is the article that appeared in the November 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.

Who really speaks for American Indians?

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) claims to be “the unified voice of tribal nations.” This is demonstrably false.
NCAI led the fight against the Washington Redskins football team, claiming the term “Redskins” was a pejorative. They succeeded in getting the team to change its name to the Washington Commanders. But do they represent the voice of American Indians?

There is one American Indian group that thinks not. Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) says that 90 percent of Native Americans disagree with the notion that “Redskins” is racist. In fact, it claims that “Redskins” is an honorific name.

“The name ‘Redskins’ carries deep cultural, historical, and emotional significance, honoring the bravery, resilience, and warrior spirit associated with Native American culture.” It adds that the Washington Redskins were “the only team in the National Football League to honor an actual Native American.”

The polls back up NAGA.

In 2002, a study by Sports Illustrated found that “three out of four Native Americans” believe that “even a nickname such as Redskins, which many whites consider racist, isn’t objectionable.”

In 2004, a University of Pennsylvania survey showed that 90 percent of American Indians did not find “Redskins” objectionable.
Similarly, in 2016, a Washington Post survey found that 90 percent of American Indians are fine with the name Washington Redskins.

So why does the NCAI continue to lie about what American Indians want? Because they are funded by George Soros, that’s why.

This is the article that appeared in the November 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.

Clara Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, a far-left political tabloid. The nicest thing we can say about her is that she has a phobia about Christianity.

When the plane she was recently on was about to land, the Alaska Airlines attendant wished the passengers a “blessed” evening. Most on board probably thought that was a sweet thing to say. But not Jeffrey. She was so engaged that she issued an “alert” on X accusing the attendant of fostering “Creeping Christian nationalism.” She berated the employee for not using adjectives such as “great, awesome, fabulous, amazing, fantastic.”

What kind of person gets exercised over a flight attendant wishing everyone a “blessed” evening? A left-wing fanatic, that’s who. Here are a few other tweets that Jeffrey has penned.

“Admitting women into the priesthood and allowing priests to marry would be the obvious way to begin to fix the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse (and declining laity in US/Europe) problem.” But it is not straight priests who were responsible for most of the molestation—it was homosexual priests. So why would ending celibacy matter to them?

“Women will feel increasingly alienated from a church that doesn’t treat them as fully equal. Seen from that vantage point, the Catholic Church seems to be embracing ultimate extinction.” Sorry, Clara, women go to Mass more than men and they are overrepresented in parish and diocesan offices. Moreover, it is the trendy religions that are dying, not those that are true to their moorings.

“We live in a white Christian ethnostate, where a radical minority is deploying anti-democratic structural advantages to subject the rest of us to their rule.” Got us on that one. We have no idea what in the world she is talking about. But it doesn’t sound good.

Mother Jones is consumed with the idea—it is more fictional than real—that we are on the verge of Christian nationalism. The writers seem to think that patriotic Christians are going to take over, mandating that all of us go goose-stepping off to church. They invented this bogeyman to energize their base. It’s also good for fundraising—there’s big bucks in demonizing white Christian men.

Here’s a sample of the titles of articles posted on the internet by Mother Jones writers in the past few years.

• “We Need to Worry About Christian Nationalism.”
• “The Looming Threat of Christian Nationalism.”
• “A New Documentary Goes Behind the Scenes of Christian Nationalism.”
• “Mike Johnson’s Long Flirtation With Christian Nationalism”
• “RNC Delegates Sound Off on Whether America Should Be a Christian Nation”
• “It’s a Good Time to Start Worrying About Christian Nationalism”
• “Mike Johnson Conducted Seminars Promoting the US as a ‘Christian Nation'”
• “Is Florida’s SAT Replacement Exam A) Christian Nationalism or B) Woke Propaganda?”
• “Confessions of a (Former) Christian Nationalist”
• “RFK Jr. Fundraisers Tied to J6ers, QAnoners, Christian Nationalists, and Far-Right Extremists”
• “Christian Nationalists Are Closer Than You Think to Running America”
• “For Christian Nationalists, the Trump Shooting Proves He Was Anointed by God”
• “Christian Nationalists Are Opening Private Schools”
• “Mike Johnson Has Ties to a Christian Movement That Played a Key Role in Spreading Trump’s Big Lie”

Last year, David Corn, one of the more prominent Mother Jones writers, took issue with Bill Donohue for a piece he wrote, “Christian Bashers Aim Beyond Mike Johnson.” Corn raised the question, “Is It Anti-Christian to Criticize Speaker Mike Johnson?” The answer is obvious—of course not. But, of course, that was not what Donohue said.

Donohue took issue with “the unrelenting attacks” on Johnson’s religion, which, he contended, were designed “to discourage younger Christian conservatives from running for office; they are also meant to discredit the Founders and our Judeo-Christian heritage.”

It is not mere “criticism” to label Johnson a “hard-core theocrat.” Nor is it fair to brand him a “Christofascist.” Writing that he is a “Bigger Threat to America than Hamas Could Ever Be” is simply mad. One nutjob even compared Johnson to a “mass shooter.”

The same mentality that objects to a flight attendant wishing passengers to enjoy a “blessed” evening is quick to cast proud Christians as a menace to democracy. Those hurling these invectives are the ones we need to fear, not the so-called Christian Nationalists.

This is the article that appeared in the November 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.

Parental rights v. transgender rights. Which should prevail? In a specific case involving a public school in a Pittsburgh suburb, a federal judge ruled on September 30 that parental rights should triumph.

A U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a summary judgment to three mothers who objected to Mount Lebanon School District defending a teacher who was instructing her students on gender ideology; this is not part of the school curricula. These were first-grade students and no attempt was made to notify the parents, seeking their permission in advance.

The lawsuit was filed after a first-grade teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, Megan Williams (who has a transgender child), allegedly told her six and seven-year-old students that sometimes “parents are wrong” and doctors “make mistakes” about whether a newborn baby is a boy or a girl.

The suit maintains that the teacher told a boy that he can dress like a girl. The boy then told his mother, saying his teacher told him, “I can wear a dress and have hair like my mom.” When objections were raised, the administration and school board reflexively took the side of the teacher.

After the mother removed her child from Williams’ class, the teacher had the audacity to call her, wanting to know what her problem was. The mother invoked her parental rights. Williams responded, “As long as I am on this Earth, I am going to teach children what I feel they need to know” and hung up.

After the lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2022, LGBTQ advocates rushed to the side of the teacher. They were indignant over the idea that parents should be given the right to have their children “opt out” of these classes. The judge, Joy Flowers Conti, saw things differently.

“The case is about the extent of constitutional rights of parents of young children in a public elementary school to notice and the ability to opt their young children out of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics. A first-grade teacher, without providing notice or opt outs, decided to observe Transgender Awareness Day by reading noncurricular books and presenting noncurricular gender identity topics to her students. During the classroom presentation, the teacher told her students ‘parents make a guess about their children’s—when children are born, parents make a guess whether they’re a boy or a girl. Sometimes parents are wrong.'”

Judge Conti wrote that it was “constitutionally impermissible” for schools to “provide teachers with unbridled discretion to teach about a noncurricular topic—transgender identity—and not to provide notice and opt out rights based on parents’ moral and religious beliefs about transgender instruction, while providing notice and opt out rights for other sensitive secular and religious topics (our italics).”

This case shows, once again, that the public school industry has nothing but contempt for parental rights and religious liberty. Wedded to the extreme LGBTQ agenda, it has become a force for intolerance and indoctrination of the sickest kind, even to the point of exploiting little kids.

If the school district wants to appeal this decision, the Catholic League will file an amicus brief on the side of the plaintiffs.

This is the article that appeared in the November 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.

At every level, non-Catholics are flocking to Catholic schools. The reasons vary, but no one argues with the numbers.

The rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses, many of them at elite institutions, has driven Jewish students to seek a more welcoming environment at Catholic colleges and universities.

Franciscan University of Steubenville is going out of its way to welcome Jewish students. It has joined a coalition of 100 organizations, lead by Yeshiva University, to expedite the transfer of Jewish students to Catholic colleges. The coalition has condemned Hamas, pledging a receptive milieu for these students.

For different reasons, non-Catholics have long expressed an interest in elementary and secondary Catholic schools. Nationally, more than one in five students (22 percent) in Catholic schools are not Catholic.

For several reasons, many African Americans choose a Catholic school over their competitors. One factor is the academic performance of these students: they do better than their public school cohorts. The Catholic graduation rate for high school students, overall, is typically close to 100 percent, and 85 percent attend a four-year college.

Another reason for choosing a Catholic school is that they teach virtue.

A teacher whom Bill Donohue knows who used to teach at St. Dominic High School in Oyster Bay, Long Island, recalls not only having a fair number of Jewish students, she had quite a few gay students who transferred from a local public school.

She learned that “these children had been bullied at their various public schools and labeled ‘queer’ and that St. Dom’s offered them a safe, loving home where respect, love and dignity was afforded every student.” As she pointed out, this is not what the media report.

Most Catholic schools do remarkable work, and it is too often underappreciated. They should be available to all parents, not simply those who can afford to pay tuition.