US Supreme Court protects free speech for all

High court affirms that First Amendment protects Americans from government-mandated speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis

WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
free speech for all Americans in 303 Creative v. Elenis, stating, “as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Denver-area graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith and her studio, 303 Creative, whom Colorado has censored for nearly seven years.

Lorie Smith, 303 Creative

“The U.S. Supreme Court rightly reaffirmed that the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe. The court reiterated that it’s unconstitutional for the state to eliminate from the public square ideas it dislikes, including the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife,” said ADF CEO, President, and General Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Lorie and 303 Creative. “Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it. Lorie works with everyone, including clients who identify as LGBT. As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it. The ruling makes clear that nondiscrimination laws remain firmly in place, and that the government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.”

“This is a win for all Americans,” Waggoner added. “The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage. If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.”

ADF attorneys sued Colorado in 2016 on Smith’s behalf for misusing state law to violate the U.S. Constitution. They argued that a Supreme Court decision for Smith would benefit all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, and help end nearly two decades of unconstitutional government coercion against artists. In New Mexico, photographer Elaine Huguenin is out of business; in Washington, floral artist Barronelle Stutzman was forced to retire; in New York, photographer and blogger Emilee Carpenter faces six figure fines and even jail; and in Colorado, the state has used the very law at issue in this case to punish cake artist Jack Phillips, who is enduring his third lawsuit after more than a decade of litigation.

This week on Faith On Trial: Biden vs. religious liberty; trans surgery on 12 year old girl

 Listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Here are the active links to the sites above:

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2023/05/biden-vs-religious-freedom-on-campus/. 

https://libertycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/1.-Complaint-1.pdf

 

Faithful Carrier Gerald Groff just won his case at the U.S. Supreme Court

Today, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gerald in his case against the U.S. Postal Service after Groff lost his job for observing the Lord’s Day.  

The decision strengthens legal protections for employees seeking religious accommodations, such as schedule changes to observe holy days. The far-reaching decision affects employment rights at every workplace with at least 15 employees in every state in the country. 

The Court held that federal law requires workplaces to accommodate their religious employees unless doing so would cause substantial increased cost on the business. Previously, employers could avoid granting religious accommodations to employees of faith simply by pointing to trifling, minimal, or “de minimis” effects.

This decision means that more employers will be legally required to respect their religious employees by granting them accommodations. Employees of faith often seek religious accommodations to honor their holy days, to take prayer breaks during the day, to dress according to their religious beliefs, or to otherwise not be forced to violate their religious beliefs on the job.

The Lying Pro-Abortion Catholic Democrats

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

More than 30 congressional Democrats who call themselves Catholic issued a robust defense of abortion-on-demand on June 24 claiming their position is entirely in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They know this is not true. 

“The Statement of Principles,” led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade. The statement contains at least four egregious falsehoods. 

First, the Democrats claim that in the Dobbs decision “the Justices stripped women of their right to abortion and escalated an ongoing reproductive healthcare crisis in this country.” That is a lie. The Supreme Court declared there was no federal right to abortion. It did not outlaw abortion in the United States; it left that decision up to the states. 

Second, the Democrats are playing the typical pro-abortion game of interpreting survey data that validates their position. They claim that 68 percent of Catholics support “the legal protections for abortion access enshrined in Roe” and 63 percent “think abortion should be legal in most cases.” 

A survey of Catholic voters taken a year ago by RealClear Opinion Research found that 82 percent support some restrictions on abortion. Roe effectively permitted abortion through term, and thus did not reflect the thinking of most Catholics, or, for that matter, most non-Catholics. In a Tarrance Group poll released a few weeks ago, 77 percent of all voters support at least some prohibitions on abortion. 

Third, the Democrats falsely argue that their pro-abortion stance is consistent with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on conscience rights. It is not. The statement quotes the Catechism as saying, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” 

That is a selective reading of paragraph 1790. The statement never mentions the next sentence: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Shortly thereafter (1792), it explains that among the expressions of ignorance is an “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy” and a “rejection of the Church’s authority.” 

And, of course, the pro-abortion Democrats did not quote what the Catechism says about abortion (2271). “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” 

Fourth, the Democrats invoke “separation of church and state” by claiming that Catholics cannot “impose our religious beliefs and customs on others who may not share them.” That’s true, but it has nothing to do with abortion. Opposition to abortion is grounded in science, as well as in the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

It is science that tells us that human life begins at conception—at the very moment when the DNA that makes us unique individuals is present. Therefore, it is preposterous to assert that the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are identical to the scientific evidence, somehow violate the First Amendment. 

It cannot go without saying that abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as “intrinsically evil.” Now if self-described Catholics want to defend it, they should cease claiming that their position is authentically Catholic. It manifestly is not.

Who is this bishop investigating Bishop Strickland on behalf of Pope Francis?

 In order to understand the gravity of this situation, you need to know about former Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona, and the controversy that's surrounded him for many years.

Bishop Joseph Strickland

By John-Henry Westen 

(LifeSiteNews) — By now you’ve all heard the news of the Vatican’s investigation into Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler Texas, a bishop who has – at least for orthodox Catholics in America – taken on the mantle of Bishop Fulton Sheen as “America’s Bishop.”

For those who have been aware of Pope Francis’ reign of terror in the Vatican and seen, for example, the cancellation of Cardinal Raymond Burke, the shunning of Cardinal Joseph Zen, and the shocking rebuke of Cardinal Robert Sarah, the news of this investigation into Bishop Strickland is not surprising and certainly full of foreboding.

The latest news we have at this time about visitation phase, where the Vatican had Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden, New Jersey, and former Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona, is that the interview portion is complete.

In order to understand the gravity of this situation, you need to know about Bishop Kicanas, a former auxiliary Bishop of Chicago.

Kicanas was the head of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 2012 when they were funding pro-abortion groups. When LifeSite and American Life League pointed out that CRS was funding major pro-abortion groups, like Population Services International, which markets abortion drugs in the developing world.

He defended the $2.7 million grant to the abortion giant, saying it was for malaria prevention, bashed LifeSite for “misinformation,” and even cut a major CRS printing contract with the husband of the head of the American Life League in retaliation.

At the U.S. bishops’ conference in 2018, Bishop Kicanas was among a rat pack of bishops and cardinals wanting to change the bishops’ voter guide to downplay abortion as a primary concern. Joining Kicanas was a who’s who of the most unfaithful bishops in America, including Bishop (now Cardinal) Robert McElroy of San Diego, Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, and of course Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich.

But Kicanas was bad news long before that. Already in 2006, pro-lifers in his diocese of Tucson were concerned about him supporting pro-abortion politicians.

And remember, back in 2010 he was all set to become the president of the USCCB. The homosexual-pushing Rainbow Sash Movement endorsed him. Kicanas was vice president, and it was customary to go from vice president to president. But he was so controversial that Cardinal Timothy Dolan was appointed instead.

However, Kicanas’s history on priestly sexual abuse was likely the final nail in the coffin of his failure to be approved to take the top spot in the USCCB. Before becoming Bishop of Tucson, Kicanas served as the rector of the Mundelein Seminary in Chicago. During his time there he allowed future child molester Father Daniel McCormick to be ordained despite allegations of sexual misconduct.

Bishop Kicanas recently defended himself against allegations of wrongdoing by saying, “I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.”

The National Catholic Register has pointed out that Kicanas was at least aware of McCormick engaging in consensual homosexual acts while intoxicated, if not actual illegal abuse. According to the NCR article, Kicanas commented on these early “experiences” by saying, “Evaluation indicated that the nature of the experiences he had related was experimental and developmental, although it indicated that drinking might be a concern.”

That is who Pope Francis sent in to investigate Bishop Strickland!

Like most good men, good bishops are very trusting people. And therefore, they do not suspect ill intent in those they meet. However, among those who are living corrupt lives, suspicion is the name of the game. They tend to distrust everyone because they themselves are not worthy of trust. So when you have a man like Bishop Kicanas doing the investigation on Bishop Strickland, it is very concerning.

While Bishop Strickland might believe it is going to be fair, I find that hard to believe. Rather, I think that, from my experience of watching these things play out over the last 25 years, bad bishops conspire against good ones to have them removed.

That Pope Francis is going after Bishop Strickland is not new news. A month ago, Terry Barber of Virgin Most Powerful Radio revealed that the papal representative in America, Christophe Pierre, had waved his finger at Bishop Strickland during the bishops’ conference years ago.

Bishop Strickland is a hero. He not only stands for life and family, faith and freedom with dignity and a deep love for Christ, he is courageous even when he knows it may cost him. That is what saw him come to Los Angeles to defend the dignity of nuns and pray for deliverance from anti-Christian spirit invading America. His great love for the faithful and for Pope Francis is what led him to publicly correct the Pope, saying that “it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith. Follow Jesus.”

So we must pray for Bishop Strickland now. Please join in praying for him, fasting for him, and if you’d care to do so with us, we will be delivering to Bishop Strickland a prayer pledge soon. Please click here or on the link below to add your name to the prayer pledge and share that with all those you think might like to join.

The Woke Game Of Baseball?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – I don’t know about you, but if you are like me you probably have had your fill of all this woke nonsense that is perverting our culture these days.

Each day’s news roundup reports just how far this ideology has gone and while there does seem to be a bit of a backlash, corporation after corporation continues to pile-on the woke bandwagon with their rules about what you can and cannot speak unless it is pure unadulterated woke-speak, or an unconditional acceptance of that message.

Perhaps Bud Light, Target, Kohl’s, and a few others are being caught up in this undertow — at least for now — but the question remains: How far will this go? We see, even scientists and medical professionals, censoring colleagues because nothing is settled in science or medicine unless it is politically correct.

And this wokeism is pervasive; it is creeping into every area of life — the professions, entertainment, leisure, academics, and even religion. But what troubles me, and not just a little bit, is woke’s entry into sports.

Only a few years ago you couldn’t go to an NBA game without seeing the words “Black Lives Matter” painted on either side of the court. Ditto with the NFL, perhaps not as blatantly as the NBA, except for the singing of the Black National Anthem. In any event, this was all woven into the game by forcing our attention on a Progressive Leftist political argument.

But the sport that has disturbed me the most is baseball. Now I have to admit that ever since I was a kid watching baseball on the old black & white, I’ve been hooked. I remember those Saturday afternoons sitting with my dad and listening to Dizzy Dean explain how the runner “slud” under the tag to reach base safely. Those were the days when baseball was truly the National Pastime.

But unfortunately it seems that MLB has plugged into some of the same woke ideas that have our culture dangling between beauty and rot. I don’t know when the historians will place the marker, that is if our future will even allow such a discussion, but I know when it hit me.

It was in 2021 when MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred, bowing to pressure from a pair of race hustling politicians, Stacey Abrams and Al Sharpton, moved the All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver. The reason given was that the Georgia legislature had passed a new voting law that curbed the rights of minority groups. To be fair, that was not true, like much of what the Progressive Left tells us.

What the bill did do was to tighten voter laws and require verified identification to cast a ballot. But the claim was it would disenfranchise minority voters, which turned out not to be true, the following year’s general election saw the largest participation in history especially among minorities, who — by the way — soundly sunk Ms. Abrams’ gubernatorial candidacy.

But it did more than that. Estimates were that the move cost the state $100 million, much of which would have been spent in and around Atlanta, feeding many minority businesses, in a minority city, who would have celebrated a mid-season Christmas. Instead the cash infusion went to a predominantly white city in Colorado.

Yet now I see a worse scandal than the decision that robbed Georgia. It is a blatant attack on the Catholic Church by what was the National Pastime: The Dodgers “honoring” drag-queen performers, who dress as nuns to mock the Church and blaspheme its symbols and rituals, who call themselves the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

This episode tells me that wokeness has swallowed the MLB since no MLB official with any standing even commented on the Dodgers’ actions. I searched to see if Commissioner Manfred issued a statement in defense of the Church or the beliefs of millions of baseball fans. I could find nothing.

Of course a few players did speak up. One of them was Toronto Blue Jays’ pitcher Anthony Bass, who was later forced into an awkward apology, then sent to the minors. See, even if you take the bait and apologize, you must still be punished.

Baseball historians will tell you of one of the biggest scandals in baseball history was the 1919 Chicago White Sox…or as they have been known: the Black Sox. They actually accepted money from gamblers to throw the World Series that year to the heavily underdog Cincinnati Reds.

Although rumors were circulated even during the Series, the story of the Black Sox scandal finally hit the public in 1920, causing a panic among team owners. The integrity of the game was at stake, and even a sham trial acquitting the players involved did little to calm the public.

At the time baseball was overseen by a three-member commission, one from each league and a neutral third commissioner. That had been cobbled together by baseball owners who always seemed to be at each other’s throats. So the league presidents sought a real independent third member of the baseball troika.

They found the man they wanted in a no-nonsense federal judge from Chicago, Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Landis’ main contact with baseball was as an avid fan, often leaving the federal courthouse to attend Sox and Cub games. Ironically, he also presided over an anti-trust lawsuit between the up-start Federal League and the established American and National Leagues. Landis allowed the case to languish long enough for the parties to settle, which ended the Federal League.

When offered the third commissioner’s position Landis refused. He would, however, accept the role as single commissioner, a lifetime appointment, and with full dictatorial powers. The owners relented, gave Landis what he wanted, and he went about cleaning up the mess from the Black Sox, banning all the players involved and establishing baseball’s inflexible rule: If you bet on your game, you are out of the game for life.

Landis served as commissioner until his death in 1944.

Manfred is the tenth commissioner in major league baseball. Again, ironically, he is the only one not to have been the unanimous choice of the team owners. It may be time to re-look at that choice — the owners hire and can fire.

The Black Sox scandal produced a strong commissioner. We have one now with a weak backbone and sense of honor. Maybe it’s time for the owners to rethink Manfred and find a new Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Bishop Joseph Strickland gets apostolic visitation from the Vatican

 The subject of the visit is unknown, but it’s speculated to concern various public statements that some Vatican officials consider 'imprudent.'

Bishop Joseph Strickland

TYLER, Texas (LifeSiteNews) – “America’s Bishop” Joseph Strickland has received an “apostolic visitation” from the Vatican which is speculated to be a response to his outspoken criticism of Church leadership’s more controversial stances and actions, according to a new report.

Strickland, the bishop of Tyler, Texas, who is well known among LifeSite readers for his outspoken defense of Catholic teaching, is currently receiving an “apostolic visitation” from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops conducted by two retired bishops, possibly Bp. Gerald Frederick Kicanus and auxiliary Bp. Dennis Joseph Sullivan, according to a report from Church Militant. Sources say they have been questioning diocese employees for a week.

The subject of the visit is unknown, as is the subsequent fallout, but it’s speculated to concern various public statements that some Vatican officials consider “imprudent.”

“It is unclear whether the visitation is a warning to the 63-year-old bishop or a prelude to his removal,” Church Militant adds. “What appears to be clear is that, whatever the official reason, it is most likely a pretext to silence Strickland’s comments, according to Church Militant sources.”

Among the bishop’s stances have been urging Pope Francis to deny Holy Communion to former U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over her support of legal abortion, accusing the Pope of a “program of undermining the Deposit of Faith,” and condemning pro-homosexuality “blasphemy” from Jesuit Father James Martin.

He has also been forcefully outspoken on moral controversies in U.S. politics and culture, including the Biden administration spying on Catholics, public displays by self-described “Satanic” groups, and most recently speaking at a protest of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team for hosting an anti-Catholic drag queen troupe called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which styles themselves as grotesque nuns.

“I often say, we need to be first century Christians in the twenty-first century,” Strickland declared at that event. “Probably most of us will not be called on to shed our blood, but if we are, we need to be ready, like the martyrs. But more importantly, we need to live our martyrdom. We need to live as those ready to die and ready to live for the blood that was shed for us all.”

Bp. Strickland “ran to LA right from the bishops’ conference. He’s the bishop from Tyler, who went to LA; the bishop from LA would not do a procession,” says LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen. “Other bishops probably didn’t want him to go. You can imagine what they might have said to him at the bishops’ conference yet he went anyway. He went to defend the faith from utter, utter sacrilege, from the most disgusting anti-Catholic hate group in America.”

“We need to pray tonight for Bishop Strickland,” Westen continues. “And for sanity in the church because they are attacking the number-one bishop in America. In fact, there’s few bishops in the entire world that are more courageous, more faithful, and more in love with Jesus Christ than Bishop Strickland.”

This week on FOT: Church cannot rent school facilities over beliefs; Biology professor fired for teaching ... biology

 Listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

 

Kinky LGBT Antics Are The Norm

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

When men with fake female breasts appeared half naked on the White House South Lawn on June 10, President Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said the crude stunt—in full view of children—“was not a normal thing that has happened under this administration.” It took her three days to say this.

While it may not be normal for this to happen at the White House, it is not unusual for gay and trans persons to engage in obscene activities, even to the point of going fully naked in public at LGBT celebrations. It’s been going on for decades. In short, why was the White House surprised that some would act up, even at a presidential event?

At the largest White House Pride event in history, Biden was not only there, he had a video prepared for the outing. “Happy Pride Month! Happy Pride Year! Happy Pride Life!” It doesn’t get more effusive than this.

Biden told the LGBT attendees that they were some of the “bravest and most inspiring people” he has ever known. One of those “brave and inspiring” persons was a man who calls himself Rose Montoya. After posing for a picture with the president, he exposed his large fake female breasts. He could be heard saying, “Are we topless at the White House?”

The Sunday before the White House Pride party, West Hollywood featured the California Pride parade. It was advertised as a “family-friendly” event. Brad Polumbo, a gay writer, said onlookers “were treated to a public sex display during the event’s parade.” To be specific, “a man clad in ‘dominatrix’ gear choked and whipped another man, scantily clad, to a cheering audience.”

The venerable Washington Post loves stuff like this. “Yes, Kink Belongs at Pride,” the headline said. The author added, “And I want my kids to see it.” Not to be outdone, she celebrated “the fact that her elementary school teacher saw a man in a ‘leather thong’ get ‘spanked playfully by a partner with a flog.’”

Meanwhile, the august New York Times, which is now a quasi-gay newspaper, was touting to its readers the best gay and trans books for summertime reading. But they weren’t just books that had gay and trans characters. No, the headline boasted, “Six L.G.B.T.Q. Graphic Novels for Your Pride Month Reading List (my italic).” Was it really necessary to say the books contained “graphic” material? Everyone knows that’s  what the target audience demands.

Every year San Francisco hosts the Folsom Street Fair, usually at the end of September. The big gay event typically features fully naked men in the street beating each other with chains and other metal devices. This goes on every year.

In 2012, San Francisco got so upset with naked men sitting next to children in public places that they banned nudity in public. But they made one exception: homosexuals were permitted to go naked at the Folsom Street Fair and other events. So even their elite friends admit there is something weird and impulsive about these people.

It’s what they do. It’s who they are.

These gay and trans persons prove every year that they are not like the rest of us. In fairness, they are also not like most members of their so-called community, but I hasten to add that they are not a tiny minority, either. Not a gay pride parade goes by without some men wearing underwear or jock straps—if that—making these parades fundamentally different from the myriad of racial and ethnic parade celebrations that take place across the country.

No matter, why anyone should be shocked in 2023 about behaviors like these is the real story. But it looks like the White House is the last to get the memo.

How to Challenge Teachers Unions’ Control Over Local Elections with Mich...

Hate, And Hate Some More

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – You would think that groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Skinheads,Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists organizations could easily be categorized as hate groups. And if you think that way you are probably right.

And if you have any doubts about that, there is an organization whose purpose is to identify them. In fact, the organization is so pervasive in its reach that the FBI, the Department of Justice, and newsrooms around the country rely upon it as the definitive word on an entity’s hate status. That group is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and it has built up a good business making hate pay — for itself that is.

Now if you go to the SPLC website you can find its famous Hate Map which shows you the location of nearly every group that it finds to be hateful. The problem with the map is that besides including those recognized hate groups I’ve mentioned above, you’ll find a number of very ordinary citizen, religious, and legal groups that are also listed as things of hate.

For example, there are dozens of parent groups, such as Moms For Liberty, who are listed as anti-LBGTQ. Of course you know the story, it’s not because they hate anyone, it is because they do not want their children indoctrinated into the LGBTQ culture by the teachers unions that run their kids’ schools. So what one side might see as parents protecting their children another sees it as a group of haters with an animas against gay/lesbian and bisexual people.

Of course, that is not exactly how a neutral observer might describe the clash; not as people who engender hate, but people with different ideas about who should control their child’s cultural upbringing, and how and what should be taught at each level of a child’s development. For example, a six-year-old is not sufficiently cognizant to understand the depth of sexual roles, but a sixteen-year-old probably is.

But when someone points out that the moms’ group is listed as a hate group, far too many members of local newsrooms check out that hate map and report that the moms have been identified as haters. I wonder if that is the reporters’ natural inclination or if it is just laziness. Having been a reporter once, I tend to think that it’s probably a combination of both.

But let’s go back to that natural inclination part and try to apply it to the SPLC. As we do that let me add a few others that appear on that hate map:

The Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the premier legal groups fighting for religious liberties, parental rights, and free speech.

Ditto the Pacific Justice Institute and Liberty Counsel, who along with others have an outstanding history of representing churches, parents, and small businesses against Godless demands that they reject their own heritages and follow a path they find that violates their consciences or is, in fact, downright evil.

How do you suppose they ended up on the map? It’s simple, it is because the SPLC, like the vast majority of activist left-wing organizations, refuses to believe that anyone could in good faith disagree with their rock-solid ideology. The result is the natural inclination of the left to shut-up the right because as everyone knows, the right is always wrong and has no right to spout its hateful ideas.

The next problem, of course, is that federal law enforcement believes that the SPLC is a valuable aid to assist it in protecting the country from the white supremacists and domestic terrorists who want to destroy our schools and, perhaps, overthrow the government. Thus, part of the FBI’s investigation of traditional Catholics who attend the Latin Mass relied on information from the SPLC. An FBI whistleblower that appeared on my radio program admitted as much.

So how did this group gather so much influence?

It was founded in 1971 during the height of the civil rights movement in Montgomery, Ala., by Morris Dees, Joseph Levin, and Julian Bond. During that time period it developed a strategy for enforcing anti-discrimination laws and protecting civil rights by aggressive civil litigation and the resultant monetary damages that followed its victories.

It went after the Ku Klux Klan, as well as other notorious civil rights violators and became a respected civil rights organization. In 1987 it won a case against the United Klans of America for the lynching of a black teenager, by holding the organization liable for the crimes of its members. The resultant $7 million judgment forced the United Klans into bankruptcy. It had similar legal victories against the Aryan Nation, and the White Aryan Resistance.

However, the group expanded its activity to include investigations into political topics such as immigration and church-state relations. Since the 1990s the group had been issuing its annual list of hate groups which included those you would expect to be there, but more recently it has included pro-life groups, pro traditional marriage/Christian organizations as anti-LGBTQ hate groups.

It also underwent a leadership turnover in 2019 when it was forced to fire Dees over “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism” which overshadowed the moral authority of the organization. Since then it seems that the SPLC has excelled its leftward march to the point where any group not kowtowing to the Left’s political agenda risked inclusion on the hate map.

The problem here is not that the SPLC has lost credibility, but that it hasn’t. Those folks who need an official imprimatur for their ad hominem attacks against their opponents find the SPLC a friendly venue, as do journalists who are more interested in making a point rather than telling the full story, as well as cheap law enforcement officials wanting to make an easy, pre-determined case.

The red flags are all over this left-wing propaganda machine. You should read anything that it originates or supports with a grain of salt. It has an agenda and a following. In today’s political climate that’s all you need to create havoc. If you don’t believe me, ask any attorney working on behalf of religious liberty, or better yet, one of those moms trying to protect their kids from sexual indoctrination in their schools.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/.)

California Bill Would Charge Any Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Transgenderism With ‘Child Abuse’

By Tony Kinnett, The Daily Signal 

A recently amended California bill would add “affirming” the sexual transition of a child to the state’s standard for parental responsibility and child welfare—making any parent who doesn’t affirm transgenderism for their child guilty of abuse under California state law.

AB 957 passed California’s State Assembly on May 3, but a co-sponsor amended it after hours in California’s State Senate on June 6. 

Assembly Member Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, wrote the bill and introduced it on Feb. 14. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, co-sponsored it. Wilson’s child identifies as transgender.

Originally, AB 957 required courts to consider whether a child’s parents were “gender-affirming” in custody cases. Wiener’s amendment completely rewrites California’s standard of child care.

AB 957 post-amendment “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child,” altering the definition and application of the entire California Family Code.

California courts would be given complete authority under Section 3011 of California’s Family Code to remove a child from his or her parents’ home if parents disapprove of LGBTQ+ ideology.

By changing the definition of what constitutes the “health, safety, and welfare of [a] child,” schools, churches, hospitals, and other organizations interacting with children would be required to affirm “gender transitions” in minors by default—or risk charges of child abuse.

AB 957 could also expand which organizations provide “evidence” of gender “nonaffirmation” to California’s courts.

Because of the addition of “gender affirmation” to the qualifications of California’s standards for “health, safety, and welfare,” California’s courts would now be able to accept reports of gender “abuse” from progressive activist organizations—as long as they claim to provide “services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.”

In essence, a boy could report his parents to his local school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club or other LGBTQ+ organization, who could then report the boy’s parents for child abuse.

Incredibly, the bill provides no definition whatsoever of what would qualify as “nonaffirming” to a child’s gender. 

As Susannah Luthi of The Washington Free Beacon points out, “The bill makes no distinctions regarding the age of a child, how long a child has identified as transgender, or affirmation of social transition versus medical sex-change treatments.”

It remains unclear what law or precedent California courts would be able to cite in determining whether a parent was affirming—much less to define a standard that applies to all situations.

AB 957 isn’t Wiener’s first foray into legislating transgenderism for children. Last year, Wiener authored bill SB 107, making California the first state to establish itself as a sanctuary for minors’ transgender treatments and surgeries. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed the bill into law in September.

In March, Advocates for Faith and Freedom sued Newsom’s administration in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division.

Parental rights advocates and experts lambasted Wiener’s amendment that would upend the California Family Code.

Jay Richards, the Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, calls AB 957 a “grotesque violation.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

Nicole Pearson, founder of the Facts Law Truth Justice law firm and civil rights advocacy group, condemned AB 957’s unconstitutionality in an interview with The Daily Signal:

This bill makes law that failure to affirm your child’s identity is child abuse. This will be a final, legal determination without any evidence in support, or a hearing with notice or the opportunity to be heard. Assemblywoman Wilson and Senator Scott Wiener are not doctors. They can’t make this determination for every single child aged 0 to 17 in the state and, yet, that is exactly what they’re trying to do here.

If a parent or guardian is unwilling or simply not ready to affirm their 7-year-old’s new identity—as they transition from Spongebob to Batman to Dora the Explorer—they can be found guilty of child abuse under AB-957 if it passes into law. 

This is a horrifying bill for children, and for parents and guardians not just in California, but across the country. Gavin Newsom is gunning for president in 2028. If he signs this bill into law, here, it will be headed to every state if he wins. 

‘I Stand With Clayton Kershaw’: Tim Scott Condemns Dodgers’ ‘Shameful and Disgusting’ Stunt With Anti-Catholic Drag Group

By Tyler O'Neil, The Daily Signal  

Sen. Tim Scott

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who is running for president, condemned the LosAngeles Dodgers’ decision to celebrate the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of drag performers who mock Christianity, and Roman Catholicism in particular, by dressing up as sexualized nuns and even sexualizing Jesus himself.

“We should all be incredibly disappointed in the Los Angeles Dodgers,” Scott told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Thursday, one day before the Dodgers’ Pride Night on Friday evening. “It was shameful and disgusting.”

The Dodgers announced May 4 that the team would bestow a “Community Hero Award” on the Los Angeles chapter of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for “their countless hours of community service, ministry, and outreach to those on the edges, in addition to promoting human rights and respect for diversity and spiritual enlightenment.”

This sparked an avalanche of criticism, because the “Sisters” repeatedly have engaged in acts that most Christians—and especially Catholics—would consider blasphemous.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, compiled a list of the group’s most outrageous acts of anti-Catholic bigotry, including a 1987 “Condom Savior Mass” in San Francisco where the group burned the pope in effigy, multiple Good Friday shows featuring a sexualized Jesus pole-dancing on a cross, and its advocacy for abortion.

The Dodgers announced May 17 that the team would disinvite the group following backlash from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., among others. Yet on May 23, the team flip-flopped again, offering “our sincerest apologies” to the “Sisters” and reinviting them to the June 16 event.

“In the weeks ahead, we will continue to work with our LGBTQ+ partners to better educate ourselves, find ways to strengthen the ties that bind, and use our platform to support all of our fans who make up the diversity of the Dodgers family,” the team announced in a written statement.

Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw condemned the team’s move in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, and said the team would host a “Faith and Family Day” on July 30.

“I don’t agree with making fun of other people’s religions,” Kershaw said. “It has nothing to do with anything other than that. I just don’t think that, no matter what religion you are, you should make fun of somebody else’s religion. So that’s something that I definitely don’t agree with.”

Scott, an evangelical Christian, praised Kershaw’s statement in his call with The Daily Signal.

“I stand with Clayton Kershaw,” the South Carolina senator said. “The act of denigrating faith as a way of celebrating independence, to me, is disgusting.”

“No one should be promoted and encouraged to denigrate someone else’s faith,” Scott added.

He noted that Americans wouldn’t mock Islam in the same way.

“I can’t imagine someone in this country doing that to the Muslim faith—it just wouldn’t fly here,” Scott said. “But to the Christian faith, it seems like people see us as a minority to be made fun of, or to be denigrated. I just reject it outright.”

“There’s never a place in America where being disgusting toward our Judeo-Christian principles should be OK,” the senator added.

This week on Faith On Trial ... from Boston to San Diego with ADF

You can listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Québec forces palliative care homes to provide eut...

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Québec forces palliative care homes to provide eut...: Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition On June 7, The Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia joined with the Living with Dignity citizen network to express their great disappointment that Bill 11, An Act to amend the Act respecting end-of-life care and other legislative provisions was passed in the Québec legislature.

Kellogg’s Exploits Kids—Time To Boycott

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

The blowback against Bud Light and Target for getting into bed with radical transgender activists should have persuaded major corporations not to go there. But somehow Kellogg’s never got the memo. Maybe it will now.

Kellogg’s wants children to understand that transgenderism is a family-friendly ideology. Why else would it feature “Tony the Tiger”—Mr. Frosted Flakes—hamming it up with Dylan Mulvaney (the same trans activist that got Bud Light into trouble) on the red carpet at the Tony Awards on Sunday?

There is nothing normal about the trans agenda: it is built on a lie, one that denies the fundamental biological differences between males and females. Moreover, those who have elected to “transition” are fraught with long-term psychological and physical problems. So why would Kellogg’s want to push this agenda on kids?

Kellogg’s is no stranger to left-wing politics. “Since 1930 the mammoth W.K. Kellogg Foundation has given billions of dollars to causes and projects that encourage dependency on government.” That was how a report by the Capital Research Center put it.

The Kellogg Foundation is one of the biggest foundations in the nation, having given away billions to liberal-left causes for decades. Throughout most of its history, it has focused on issues such as welfare, racism, pollution, gentrification, homelessness, the environment and healthcare.

Beginning in 2016, the Foundation jumped on the LGBT’s bandwagon. Five years later, the Kellogg Company promoted its “Together with Pride” cereal. Now the Foundation is one of the LGBT’s most reliable donors, fighting state laws designed to protect children from being lured into propaganda about flipping their sex identity.

While the LGBT cause is relatively new, Kellogg’s moral compass has been broken for more than a decade. In 2012, it stood alone among large corporate sponsors of “The Daily Show” in making a thinly veiled defense of perhaps the most blasphemous and obscene attack on any religion ever aired on television.

On the April 16, 2012 edition of Jon Stewart’s show, the host made a strong appeal to women insisting they protect their right to abortion. He could have stopped there, but he didn’t. As he was making his pitch, a large picture of a naked woman with her legs spread was flashed on a screen behind him. In between her legs was a nativity scene ornament, which he referred to as a “vagina manger.”

On May 21, the New York Times published an op-ed page ad I had written condemning Stewart for his vulgar anti-Christian attack. I also asked advertisers to pull their ads, and some, like Delta, did. No one but Kellogg’s refused to condemn what Stewart did.

In a letter addressed to me, I was told, “Consumers speak most loudly when they vote with their remote control and change the channel or turn off the TV if a program does not fit their personal criteria.” This led me to take out an ad in the local newspaper of the Battle Creek company, the Kalamazoo Gazette, taking it to task.

The attempt to make Stewart’s vile assault on Christian sensibilities a matter of individual taste was insulting. There are social norms of decency that most Americans adhere to, and deliberate attacks on Christianity—or Judaism or Islam—are violative of them.

Many years ago, CBS decided not to allow reruns of “Amos ‘n’ Andy,” citing its covert racist leanings. It did not say to viewers, “If you don’t like it, change the channel.”

Given the ideological leanings of Kellogg’s, it is not a shocker to learn that it depicted “Tony the Tiger” embracing Dylan Mulvaney. In doing so, it also embraced the most morally debased movement in the country. One hopes that mothers throughout America will take note and exercise their right to change their buying options. A boycott is long overdue.

Illinois governor signs law to defund libraries that remove sexually explicit, LGBT books for children

CHICAGO (LifeSiteNews) — Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Monday signed a new law penalizing any public school that does not allow children unfettered access to whatever LGBT and/or sexually explicit material that it may house, in the first measure of its kind and a rebuke of states moving in the opposite direction.

HB 2789 declares it “the policy of the State to encourage and protect the freedom of libraries and library systems to acquire materials without external limitation and to be protected against attempts to ban, remove, or otherwise restrict access to books or other materials.”

To carry out this policy, it “adopt[s] the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights that indicates materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or, in the alternative, develop a written statement declaring the inherent authority of the library or library system to” assemble a diverse collection of material and “prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.” Any library or library system that fails to adopt the ALA bill of rights or adopt an equivalent policy against the removal of materials will be ineligible for state grants.

“Here in Illinois, we don’t hide from the truth, we embrace it,” Pritzker declared upon signing the bill at Chicago’s Harold Washington Library. “Young people shouldn’t be kept from learning about the realities of our world.”

“Everyone deserves to see themselves reflected in the books they read, the art they see, the history they learn. In Illinois, we are showing the nation what it really looks like to stand up for liberty,” he added.

The ALA Library Bill of Rights to which the new law refers declares that books and other materials in libraries “should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation” or “because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval” and that a “person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.”

A note at the bottom of the page acknowledges that “questions do arise concerning application of these principles to specific library practices.” The ALA’s statement on how these principles apply to minors’ access to materials indicates that the group, and by extension any facility that formally adopts its standards, does not allow for any age-based restrictions on access to certain content.

“Equitable access to all library resources and services should not be abridged based on chronological age, apparent maturity, educational level, literacy skills, legal status, or through restrictive scheduling and use policies,” the group says, and concerns about that access should be handled exclusively by how parents “advise” their own children. “Libraries and library governing bodies should not use rating systems to inhibit a minor’s access to materials.”

“I support local control,” responded Republican state House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, the Associated Press reports. “Our caucus does not believe in banning books, but we do believe that the content of books should be considered in their placement on the shelves.”

MLB’s Perverted Definition Of Bigotry

Bu Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

Major League Baseball (MLB) is okay with one of its teams honoring a vile anti-Catholic group of drag queen bigots, but it is not okay with a pitcher who objects to the radical LGBT agenda. That is the principal takeaway in light of MLB’s response to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence being honored by the Los Angeles Dodgers, and former Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Anthony Bass’ rejection of LGBT extremists.

Everyone knows how Bud Light used a twisted cross-dressing activist to market its beer, triggering a backlash from normal men. Similarly, Target’s decision to market “tuck-friendly” women’s swimsuits that conceal male genitalia (the outfits are made for men who claim to be a woman yet refuse to have their sex organs cut off) inspired normal men and women to object. In late May, Bass posted an Instagram video that criticized the two companies.

The video included a plea by its creator, Ryan Miller, asking Christians to boycott Bud Light and Target. Although Bass did not personally comment on the post, he came under fire by LGBT activists and the front office of the Blue Jays. After the blowback, he apologized but it was too late. His team dumped him, saying he was a “distraction.”

We have not heard a word from Rob Manfred about this perversion of justice. 

We forced his hand on May 16 to nix the Dodgers decision to honor the “Sisters” (he was so bombarded with emails protesting this stunt that the next day the bigots were disinvited). But a few days later, he and the Dodgers succumbed to pressure from the LGBT crowd and reinvited them. So we know which side they’re on. 

Manfred’s silence with regard to the Bass matter suggests he is okay with the player effectively being fired for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Nothing in the video was obscene or insulting, but everything the “Sisters” do is both. 

What kind of moral compass Manfred, the Dodgers and the Blue Jays are working with is a mystery. They have managed to sanction a vicious assault on Catholic sensibilities while simultaneously punishing those who reject LGBT mania. They are twice wrong.

Megyn Kelly Explains Why She Will No Longer Use "Preferred Pronouns" as ...

The Threat, The Cure… Cultural Marxism In America

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Last fall two of the Heritage Foundation’s fellows, Mike Gonzalez and Katharine C. Gorka, issued a report that everyone should read. It is entitled “How Cultural Marxism threatens the United States — and How Americans Can Fight it.” I’ll provide a link to it at the end.

The report succinctly lays out the case against the Marxist left, its origins in Communist political thought and how it has morphed — with the help of the Academy — into the movement that threatens the viability of our precious nation. It begins:

“In 1989, as the Soviet empire was crumbling, The New York Times noted an interesting new development: While millions who had lived under the brutal rule of Communism for decades were finally throwing off their yoke, Marxist professors were taking over American academia.” Then quoting the Times article, it concluded:

“As Karl Marx’s ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders.”

Here, in a nutshell, is what happened: Marxism and Communism lost their clout in the United States over a very simple point: Capitalism worked. It had proved itself capable of doing what Marxism and Communism was unable to do: Provide for the needs of all. Marxism, on the other hand, relied on the proletariat to rise against their oppressors, the bourgeoisie, those owning property and the means of production which labor lacked.

The rise against the property owners would need to be violent.

But that violent rebellion was no longer necessary. Capitalism had proved that men could rise above their lowly conditions to provide for themselves and their families. Thus, being a member of the proletariat class was not a permanent status. Capitalism had shown that while not all might be able to obtain great wealth, they could rise their standard of living within the system, and could even become rich themselves.

Since the lower class could improve their situations, the allure of Marxism lost its shine. They then must re-package this whole ideology to find a substitute for the proletariat, who were not tied to the class struggle as much as the Communist propaganda had relied upon.

In short, the ideal new “class” were people who could not leave their tribe, those who had immutable characteristics which could not be thrown off as poverty could. Thus, the cultural Marxists focused on race, sex, national origin, emphasizing the “cancer of human history” is the white race, thus creating non-whites, women, and racial minorities as the poor and oppressed, the new proletariat.

While this was bubbling up during the 1980s, the American Marxists had been spending generations infiltrating college and university campuses with scores of tenured professors ready to heed the call for Cultural Marxism, the result of which we are seeing today, as the report notes:

“Today’s cultural Marxists believe that the reason economic, social, cultural, academic, and health outcomes (to name just a few) show persistent racial disparities is because of a pervasive, systemic racism that can only be eliminated by smashing the system itself. The quickest way to do that is to create a never-ending number of racial and country-of-origin categories (such as Hispanics and Asian Americans, both created by government fiat in 1977 at the insistence of leftist activists), the members of which would be instilled with grievances about the disparity of these outcomes, to the point that they will want to become active soldiers in smashing the system.

“The Marxist narrative that all of society for all of history has been divided into categories of the oppressed and their oppressors is played over and over. The government, and all society, the purveyors of CRT say, must thus treat people not as individuals with liberties, but as categories that deserve special treatment and benefits as members of these categories.

“What is happening today, therefore, is nothing more than this age’s identity category version of Marx’s 19th-century claim that, because individuals have different abilities, and because they belong to different classes, their rights must differ. According to Marx, if government or society in general were to grant people equal individual rights (such as to consumption and services), material inequality (the bugaboo of all Marxists then and now) would ensue.”

Or, as the “anti-racist” Ibram X. Kendi stated, “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Thus, the government must discriminate in favor of those categories of people deemed oppressed.

Marxism, through its base in the Academy, has been able to spread its tentacles throughout society with concepts such as DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion), CRT (Critical Race Theory), the “trans” movement, and the adoption of environmental controls through ESG (Environment, Social, Government) rules which require corporate boards to place greater emphasis on the environment and diversity than on return on investment which is being imposed on markets by asset firms such as BlackRock by using their ability to vote shares of stock over which they have control, but no ownership.

What about cancel culture? The report says, “Because of that absolutism, cultural Marxism cannot tolerate or co-exist with other worldviews. It demands censorship, which began as ‘political correctness’ but has since veered into the far more insidious censorship, which leads inevitably to tyranny (as Marxism always has everywhere it has been tried). It punishes alternative views by attempting to drive those who express them from public life, a phenomenon dubbed ‘“cancel culture’.”

The report did lay out a strategy for defeating cultural Marxism.
Focus locally, it says. While most folks are looking to national trends and politics, most of the damage being done by the cultural Marxists is done on a local platform: school boards, colleges, and local officials who control public funds and operate under the radar. Of course, that is not to diminish the importance of national politics, it’s just at the local level that the rubber hits the road.

Take back education, the writers urge. They point out how Gov. Ron DeSantis used legislative power to retake control of the schools in Florida. That same power can be harnessed by local officials determined to break the influence of the Marxists.

Another suggestion is using existing laws on child abuse to prosecute those who are sexualizing our children. If the laws you need in your jurisdiction do not protect children, work to change them.

There are several other suggestions made, but a twelve hundred word essay can’t cover the richness of the report, so I urge you to read it yourself at: https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/how-cultural-marxism-threatens-the-united-states-and-how-americans-can-fight.

The co-author of the report, Katharine C. Gorka, is scheduled to be on my Faith On Trial program this week. You’ll be able to find it using the link below, look for Episode 366.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

Americans to Congress: Leave the Court Alone

Poll commissioned by First Liberty Institute finds more than two-thirds of Americans oppose restructuring of Court and attacks on integrity, ethics of Justices.

Washington, DC—First Liberty Institute today announced the results of a nationwide poll from Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy revealing 72 percent of Americans believe that the politicization of the Supreme Court threatens judicial independence and 69 percent do not want Congress taking over and setting rules for judicial ethics.  First Liberty, the nation’s premier law firm dedicated exclusively to religious liberty, commissioned the poll.

Read the results of the poll here.

“Americans clearly reject the manufactured attacks on the integrity of Justices and radical attempts to delegitimize the Court,” Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, & Chief Counsel to First Liberty said.  “Americans understand that if the politically motivated efforts to restructure our judicial system works, judges will lose their ability to enforce the rule of law with impartiality, and the last safeguard to our civil liberties will be gone.  The message of the American people to Congress couldn’t be clearer: leave the Court alone.”

The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon of registered voters nationwide May 30-June 2, suggests 91 percent of Americans believe an independent judiciary is a crucial safeguard of our civil liberties.  In addition, 68% of all respondents oppose court packing, a number consistent with previous polls.  Importantly, self-identified Independent voters overwhelmingly reject plans to pack the court (66% opposed).

###

About First Liberty Institute: First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans.