WSJ: School choice causes spike in enrollment

According to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, a handful of states have seen a significant increase in the use of education vouchers or education savings accounts (ESAs) in the past year. “Many states have recently created or expanded school-choice programs, but are parents taking up the opportunity?” the Journal wrote Sunday. “It’s early days, but data from several states should encourage lawmakers that robust offerings are in demand.”  READ

The Abortion Wars: Who’s Violent And Who’s Not?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Last month an online publication, Rewire News Group, published an article, “Anti-Abortion and Fascist Violence Are One and the Same,” by Garnet Henderson. Speaking of abortion clinics, the first sentence of the article sets the tone: “How can clinics stay safe as the anti-abortion movement — with its deep ties to white supremacy and Christian nationalism — becomes more aggressive?”

Ms. Henderson goes on in her article conflating abortion protests, those protesters that enter abortion clinics, such as Red Rose Rescue, the January 6 riots, and true acts of violence against abortion clinics, such as the well-known abortion clinic bombings in the 1980s and suggests that they are all related to white supremacy and gun violence:

“Given the anti-abortion movement’s longstanding ties to white nationalists and other fascist groups, it’s impossible to ignore the similarities between these events and a number of anti-government actions in recent years — the 2021 attack on the Capitol, the 2016 occupation of a federal building led by members of the Bundy family, and the 2020 occupation of the Michigan state capitol, which many now see as a rehearsal for January 6. The more recent trend of attacks and armed protests outside drag shows also follows an eerily similar blueprint. For abortion providers, this raises another fear: that the next time someone forces their way inside a clinic, they could be armed.”

That is a lot of conflation. Demonstrations at state houses, the January 6 riot, and protests at kiddie drag shows don’t seem to be related to pro-lifers — of course it would probably help if I knew who the Bundy family was. It’s simply painting with too wide a brush.

She noted, “Following the Dobbs leak and decision, there were a number of highly publicized vandalisms and arsons at anti-abortion centers. A group calling itself Jane’s Revenge took public responsibility for most of these incidents…. Conservative media and lawmakers latched on to the story, demanding federal investigations.”

Well, of course, that’s true, although many of us want to know why so few of those responsible were ever apprehended, oh, I remember now, that’s because they did their dirty work at night when they couldn’t be seen.
But, I digress, after all, as Ms. Henderson says, “Anti-abortion centers contribute directly to the chaos and violence outside abortion clinics. It’s often their volunteers, seeking to intercept and misdirect patients, who do things like climb into cars, follow patients, and antagonize their companions.”

Okay, let’s settle the violent vs. violent question. There is no question that violence has occurred from both sides. We have to admit that there have been clinic bombings, shootings, and bricks thrown by adherents of both sides. But what is prevalent in my mind right now is the complete disregard of attacks on pro-life clinics, and the damnable protests that occurred at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, including a threat to kill one of them, the silence of the media and the Justice Department and the enormous overreaction against pro-life demonstrators. Among the most notable was Mark Houck in Philadelphia, whose house was raided by an early morning FBI swat team with automatic weapons in front of his children — who the FBI knew would be there — because he defended his son from a pro-abortion agitator over a half city block away from the abortion facility.

Should we be surprised? After all the FBI is now investigating traditional Catholics as possible domestic terrorists.

But looking at the situation it appears that all the violence is coming from one side abetted by the federal government and a complacent media. Just recently, for example, two pro-lifers who were outside an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., were brutally attacked physically by abortion advocates who appeared to be clinic escorts.

According to one of the victims, the altercation started when she was approached by a woman who threw coffee in her face. Yet despite video evidence of the event, the local D.C. police refused to press any charges against the pro-abortion individuals who started the fight. Michael New, a professor at Catholic University of America, told LifeSiteNews that it was not the first time that D.C. police have refused to press charges against individuals who have engaged in violence against peaceful pro-lifers.

And just recently Catholic League President Bill Donohue reported on the anti-Catholic attacks against Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, who was instrumental in President Trump’s selection of three conservative justices for the Supreme Court. Angered, the anti-Catholic pro-aborts have been picketing Mr. Leo’s home and business and accused him of being a member of the KKK.

“This is what happens when civility breaks down and demagoguery triumphs. The population control crowd, beginning with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has a long history of anti-Catholicism. Today’s iteration is even more virulent, and in some cases, such as with Antifa and Jane’s Revenge, anti-Catholic bigots turn violent, especially when the issue of abortion is prominent,” he wrote.

Anne Reed, senior policy adviser to Operation Rescue, has catalogued some of the acts of violence against pro-lifers and pro-life pregnancy centers. She wrote of one instance, “On Friday, May 26, two pro-life sidewalk advocates in their 70s and 80s were brutally attacked while praying and reaching out to abortion vulnerable women at a Planned Parenthood in Baltimore, Md. The vicious, unprovoked assault left the two pro-life heroes, Dick Schaefer and Mark Crosby, unconscious and seriously injured.”

According to Anne Reed’s report, when one of the pro-life volunteers turned his back, he was violently attacked by a man who had just handed his coffee to a clinic escort. Both men were severely beaten and now require ongoing medical care. No arrests were made.

In another incident, Reed wrote: “Last October, Ross Foti [88] was rushed to a hospital emergency room and hospitalized with a punctured lung after being violently shoved onto a fire hydrant at San Mateo Planned Parenthood. It took months before charges were filed against his attacker for ‘Battery with Serious Bodily Injury’ and ‘Battery on an Elder or Dependent Adult’.”

In another incident, “Richard Harvey, a Michigan man, received one year of community service for shooting Joan Jacobson, an 84-year-old pro-life woman campaigning against a pro-abortion constitutional amendment last September.”

In Kansas, a teen-aged girl canvassing for the “Value Them Both” constitutional amendment initiative, was attacked by a grown woman in Overland Park. “The woman shoved the girl in the chest with both hands and hit her repeatedly in the head with closed fists. She proceeded to follow the teen down the street screaming expletives and cursing her with phrases such as, ‘I hope you get raped,’ and ‘I hope you get run over by a car’,” Reed reported.

Obviously, this is only a thumb-nail version of what is happening to pro-life advocates across the country: from assassination attempts to beating elderly folks and teenaged girls, to the cowardly anti-Catholic attacks on leading pro-life leaders — this is the state of violence over abortion today. It doesn’t have to be linked to everything from Pearl Harbor to January 6, from white supremacy to the KKK.

Perhaps Henderson should take a better look at what is really going on, not the propaganda spewing from one side — the baby-killing side.

+NOTE: You can listen to Mike’s interview with Anne Reed by following the link below for episode 373.

(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/)

The Biggest Bully in School: Why Public Education Is Failing in America

Do Democrats Have A Penchant For Violence?

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

There are extremists in both the Republican and Democrat parties, and some support violence to achieve their goals; this is true even among some self-described independents. But the enthusiasm for violence is clearly more popular among Democrats.

In a large survey recently released by the Chicago Project on Security & Threats, which is affiliated with the University of Chicago, researchers tapped hot button issues for Republicans and Democrats, seeking to measure support for violence. For Republicans, the issue was Trump; for Democrats it was abortion.

The report, “Dangers to Democracy,” found that 6.8 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” Among Republicans the figure was 9.5 percent. It also found that 12.3 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore the federal right to abortion.” Among Democrats, the figure was 16.4 percent.

he Democrats were also the more likely than Republicans to favor using violence to attain other goals.

One in four Democrats (25.6 percent) say “the use of force is justified to protect the voting rights of Black Americans and other minorities.” But when it comes to using force “to prevent the teaching of CRT [critical race theory] in schools,” far fewer Republicans (14.6 percent) were inclined to violence.

Among Democrats, 16.3 percent are in favor of using force “against the police to prevent police brutality against Black Americans and other minorities.” When Republicans are asked if the use of force is justified “to preserve the rights of whites,” 9.9 percent agree.

The inescapable conclusion is that Democrats are more comfortable endorsing violence to accomplish their goals than Republicans are in achieving their ends.

It is striking that neither the authors of the report, nor the media who covered this story, decided to highlight this conclusion. Indeed, an article by The Hill on the survey only mentions Republicans who support violence over the treatment of Trump, never mentioning that hot button issues for Democrats elicit more support for force.

Why are Democrats more supportive of violence than Republicans? They are the party which adopts the most aggressive forms of political persuasion. They favor direct intervention, including blocking traffic, shouting down conservatives on campus, free speech gags, and unauthorized street demonstrations. Not surprisingly, they are the party that was supportive of the violence committed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They are also the party of abortion.

Sometimes it’s not hard to connect the dots.

LGBT Advocates Attack Peaceful Pro-Family Event: "Paint hit me in the eyes"

While Catholic students protested against drag queen story hour events in Chicago on Monday, a group of radical leftist counter-protesters attacked them with spray paint.

Students who were part of the Catholic activist group TFP Student Action gathered outside of the Art Institute of Chicago on Monday holding signs with messages such as “Honk! Stop Promoting LGBT Lifestyle to Kids.”

Bystanders had mixed reactions to the demonstration, according to a video of the event shared by TFP Student Action on their website on Thursday.

“I strongly, strongly support what you guys are standing for,” one woman told the demonstrators in the video, identifying herself as a math teacher. “People have different opinions, they don’t even want to talk about it. They just call you names.”

A man walking by with a dog called one of the students a “hateful bigot,” while claiming that they are “living in a dream world.”

Another woman who approached the protesters told them to not “spread hate” and tried to grab the camera of one of the protesters.

“Spread the hate, it’s lovely,” the same woman later said as she was walking away. “I’m very glad I’m being taped, spread the hate.”

Meanwhile, the Catholic students continued to protest — chanting slogans such as “biology is not bigotry” and “innocence is a God-given right.”

Radical LGBT counter-protesters soon arrived at the scene, one of whom brought a bullhorn and began screeching: “Drag queen story time is f—ing harmless. Grow the f—k up.”

Another counter-protester with bright red hair disrupted a group of Catholic students praying the Rosary to shout: “LGBT rights are human rights.”

“You guys are bigots,” she claimed.

The red-haired LGBT activist returned later in the day with a can of spray paint and began spraying the students’ signs while they tried to drive her off. During the scuffle, she allegedly sprayed students and a teacher — leaving several of the Catholic protesters with paint on their clothing and even hitting at least one of them in the face.

One protester can be heard on video saying that they wanted to press charges against the LGBT activist, who left before police arrived at the scene.

The leader of the TFP group, Rex Teodosio, reported being hit in the face with spray paint — stating that his eyes “burned for about six hours,” according to a press release.

“Getting hit in the face with spray paint is not pleasant. My eyes are stinging, inflamed and bloodshot,” Teodosio said, according to the press release. “The attacker yelled ‘bigot’ and ‘hater’ as she destroyed our signs and ruined our clothes with paint — she played the victim as she committed the crime. But the sacrifice is all worth it because I know I’m building a culture that protects the innocence of children and shields them from grooming and corruption.”

The press release further notes that one of the radical LGBT activists told the Catholic students: “I hope you (expletive) die, you Christian fascist (expletive).  You will die a lonely death.”

Californian lawmakers attack parents’ rights

The California Legislature is considering two bills that, if enacted, would severely limit the rights of parents to raise their children in the state. The text of AB 957 states that it “would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” AB 665 would allow a minor as young as 12 to be emancipated from his or her parents and transferred into state custody without a court order.  READ

Pro-Life Pregnancy Help Ministries Sue Illinois Attorney General Over SB 1909

(July 27, 2023 – Chicago) Today, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, seeking to stop him from enforcing Illinois Senate Bill 1909, a measure drafted by Raoul’s office that declares the pro-life speech of the state’s life pregnancy help ministries to be a “deceptive business practice.” Thomas More Society is representing NIFLA, a national pregnancy help center network, along with several Illinois pregnancy help centers and pro-life organizations. 

“This law is a blatant attempt to chill and silence pro-life speech under the guise of ‘consumer protection,’” explained Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, and a former Illinois State Legislator. “Pregnancy help ministries provide real options and assistance to women and families in need, but instead of the praise they deserve, pro-abortion politicians are targeting these ministries with $50,000 fines and injunctions solely because of their pro-life viewpoint.” 

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against SB 1909. If temporary and preliminary injunctions are granted, they would prevent the law from being enforced while the case makes its way through the court system. 

“The state government has completely overstepped the bounds of any logical and relevant authority by inserting insane partisan politics into their governing bodies and attempting to trample the First Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree,” said Thomas Glessner, President of NIFLA. “There is no basis for their blatant attacks on pregnancy centers, who provide all of their services for free for women and their families throughout Illinois. They do so out of their deeply held beliefs of caring for one another and exhibiting human decency and compassion for those in need, something the leaders of Illinois are completely clueless about. This attempt to deny mothers their constitutional right to choose life is disgraceful and should be an embarrassment to the people of Illinois.” 

Under this new revision to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the state seeks to curtail the speech of pro-life organizations by illegally targeting their efforts to “dissuade pregnant [women] from considering abortion care.” It also faults pro-life organizations for “pay[ing] for advertising… that is intended to attract consumers to their organizations and away from medical providers that offer” abortions, accusing the pro-life organizations of providing misleading information “overstating the risks associated with abortion.” Yet, Breen asserts, and as the filing states, that all of the abortion-related information provided by these pro-life centers and organizations is backed by scientific research. 

“In addition to being unconstitutional and extremely prejudicial,” added Breen, “state officials have not had cause to take legal action against pregnancy help centers, using the tools of the law that were already available.”This lawsuit, Breen stated, has been filed to protect the right of pro-life pregnancy help centers and sidewalk counselors across Illinois to continue their meaningful and important work of providing compassionate and competent advice, care, and support to thousands of women across Illinois facing unplanned pregnancies. 

Breen observed that the instigation of the new law, backed by Raoul, is completely without rationale or provocation. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office has not been able to provide any hard evidence that pregnancy help centers engage in so-called “deceptive practices.” According to Freedom of Information Act documents obtained from Raoul’s office, Breen shared that “the Attorney General has received zero complaints from members of the public against an Illinois Pregnancy Help Center for alleged violations of the Deceptive Business Practices Act.” 

Breen also testified before the Illinois House Health Care Availability & Accessibility Committee, which voted to advance SB 1909, despite receiving more than 17,000 witness slips from voters opposing the bill and only a little over 3,000 supporting it. 

Read the Complaint, seeking Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction from the State of Illinois’ just enacted Senate Bill 1909, filed on July 27, 2023, in the United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois Western Division, by Thomas More Society attorneys on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Women’s Pregnancy Services, Rockford Family Initiative, Relevant Pregnancy Options Center, and Pro-Life Action League, in NIFLA, et al. v. Kwame Raoul here. 

Read about the testimony of Peter Breen in opposition to Illinois Senate Bill 1909 given before the Illinois House Health Care Availability & Accessibility Committee on April 25, 2023, here.        

UVA Wrongfully Fired Employee for Refusing COVID Shot

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA – The Sixteenth Judicial Court in Virginia ruled yesterday that the University of Virginia Health System (UVA) wrongfully denied an employee’s religious exemption and unlawfully fired her for not taking the COVID-19 shot. The Court granted the employee injunctive relief by reversing the UVA’s firing decision and awarding monetary damages to the employee.

In McCoy v. Rector & Visitors UVA/UVA Health System, Virginia attorneys Rick Boyer, David Browne, Christopher M. Collins, Bret G. Daniel, and Patrick M. McSweeney represented plaintiff Kaycee McCoy in the case. McCoy had worked as a highly specialized cytotechnologist at UVA for nearly 10 years. In September 2021, she requested a religious exemption to the university’s COVID-19 shot mandate since the university’s vaccination policy allowed for exemptions for medical or religious reasons. A committee of UVA’s human resources personnel reviewed McCoy’s exemption request to determine the sincerity of her religious beliefs, but ultimately denied her exemption without explanation and did not allow her to appeal the decision. UVA fired McCoy in November 2021 after she did not comply with the university’s mandate according to her religious beliefs.

In granting the injunction, District Court Judge Claude V. Worrell, II, explained that Virigina courts usually leave the hiring and firing decisions of organizations alone unless a decision is “arbitrary and capricious.” Case law defines those terms as decisions made “without a determining principle.” Essentially, Judge Worrell examined whether the university stepped legally out of bounds by evaluating the sincerity of McCoy’s religious beliefs, and whether they arbitrarily chose to fire her without a clear underlying principle.

Judge Worrell wrote in his opinion, “…here, we have essentially a religious test that is being applied to determine sincerity of belief, and that is violative of the separation of church and state….”

Judge Worrell noted the realm of religion is beyond the expertise of any government body, and that since McCoy had “met all the necessary requirements to show she had sincerely held religious belief that allowed her to seek an exemption” under UVA policy, he ruled UVA denied her exemption and fired her “in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

The ruling prevents UVA from discriminating against McCoy for the COVID shot as long as she continues to be eligible for a religious exemption. The Court ordered UVA to pay damages in the amount of McCoy’s salary from the date of her wrongful firing.

In January 2022, UVA rescinded its COVID shot mandate after Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order removing the mandate for state employees.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This is an important victory for religious liberty and for those who have not caved into these unlawful shot mandates. Forcing an employee to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and their job is highly unconstitutional. Applying for a religious exemption is a legal right and cannot be arbitrarily denied.”

This week's broadcast

 

FBI GIVES CONGRESS DOCS BEHIND MEMO TARGETING CATHOLICS

The FBI this week handed over to Congress internal documents relating to the bureau’s now-withdrawn leaked memo that recommended investigating devotees of the Traditional Latin Mass. The leaked memo, dated January 23, claims that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists will likely become more interested in “radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology … in the run-up to the next general election cycle.”  READ

Anti-Catholic Bigots Attack Leonard Leo

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President 

Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and the man most responsible for shepherding through President Trump’s appointments to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court Justices, is being attacked by anti-Catholic bigots in his hometown in Maine, simply because left-wing extremists object to his work. 

The protesters, who are doxxing Leo by showing up at his house in Northeast Harbor, are not content to object to his jurisprudential philosophy. No, they are viciously attacking his Catholicism. 

On July 22, protesters carried signs denouncing his religion and pledging to run him out of town. Leo, who is a member of Opus Dei, a traditional Catholic organization in good standing in the Church, was condemned for his membership in the group.

Anti-Catholic banners read, “Rosaries Off Ovaries,” and a recently created website depicted him as a Ku Klux Klan member (the Klan was anti-Catholic, as well as anti-black and anti-Jewish). His Catholicism was also targeted on social media. He was called a rapist and accused of violating women’s uteruses.

This is what happens when civility breaks down and demagoguery triumphs. The population control crowd, beginning with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has a long history of anti-Catholicism. Today’s iteration is even more virulent, and in some cases, such as with Antifa and Jane’s Revenge, anti-Catholic bigots turn violent, especially when the issue of abortion is prominent. 

What happened to Leo should be condemned by all men and women, independent of what side they choose on the subject of abortion. 

Anti-Catholic bigotry, and angry protests outside the home of a public person, have no legitimate place in public dialogue. But to those who can’t marshal a plausible defense of their abortion politics, resorting to bigotry comes naturally to them.

Abortion Activists Assault Two Pro-Life Advocates Saving Babies Outside Planned Parenthood

Abortion Activists Assault Two Pro-Life Advocates Saving Babies Outside Planned Parenthood

Defamation By The Defamers

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – There are two interesting defamation lawsuits working their way through the judicial system that become interesting in whom each names as a defendant; in both cases it is someone who holds themselves up as the pure anti-hate people.

One involves an old favorite punching-bag of ours, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the other is the attorney general of the state of New York, Letitia James.

The SPLC, as you may recall, was once an honored civil rights organization that was in the forefront of equal protection under the law. Sometime after the enactment of strong civil rights legislation — on both state and federal levels — followed by favorable results from the courts, the organization turned its attention to an expanding role. It started to label other organizations it felt that opposed civil rights as hate groups.

Now it wasn’t just the skinheads, KKK, and the neo-Nazis that it went after, if was almost any group that opposed some aspect of the SPLC’s notion of full civil engagement. Thus, legal and religious groups that opposed the LGBTQ+ platform, especially those involving trans-genderism, were cited as “hate groups” and placed on its annual hate report and its now famous “hate map.”

One such group was the Dustin Inman Society (DIS). The organization is named after a 16-year-old boy who was killed in a car accident when his car was rammed from behind by a Mexican citizen who was in the country illegally. The accident also sent Dustin’s parents to a hospital where his mother was in a five-week coma and spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

Charged with the death of Dustin, the driver of the other car escaped police and ran to Mexico where his whereabouts are unknown. Despite being in the country illegally, he had been able to obtain a state drivers’ license by using his Mexican birth certificate and Mexican Consular ID card.

The Society using his name lobbies for stricter, broader enforcement and other measures to curb illegal entry into the United States, and to stop aid to illegals. It describes itself in its pleadings as: “DIS is a nonprofit Georgia corporation with a stated mission and goal of promoting the enforcement of immigration laws in the United States.”

In 2018 the SPLC classified DIS as an “anti-immigrant hate group” and subsequently published a web page profile on DIS in which it claimed that DIS and its founder “pose as an organization concerned about immigration issues, yet focuses on vilifying all immigrants.”

That resulted in DIS filing a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC for making hateful comments against it by the organization that is famous for calling others haters. The matter, of course, is tied-up in other legal issues, but the SPLC did file a motion to dismiss the case against it. In April the court denied the motion and the case continues.

Now we don’t know what the outcome will be but it sure feels right that the SPLC is getting some of its own treatment. The case is being tried in the federal district court for the Middle District of Alabama.

A similar thing is happening in New York. The state attorney general there is Letitia James, who you might remember campaigned on a promise to “get” Donald Trump, and, to a degree, is trying to keep that promise.

She is also a hardened pro-abortion politician and will often use her time to disparage pro-lifers. That has gotten her into a bit of trouble recently.

It seems that last June Ms. James held a news conference to announce a new civil lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and several members of the Red Rose staff. For those of you who do not know, Red Rose is a pro-life ministry that will sometimes enter abortion facilities with a message of life in an attempt to dissuade mothers-to-be from terminating the life of their children.

Obviously there have been several confrontations between Red Rose folks and the facilities they entered and the police who were summoned. Interestingly, while many Red Rose supporters have joined in picketing and protests outside abortion clinics, not all have ever attempted to enter a clinic.

The lawsuit Ms. James unveiled alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). The lawsuit principally sought to create a 30-foot buffer zone around abortion centers, thus restricting the location of any picketers and barring their access to the clinic itself. It contained no allegations of terrorism. But during the press conference Ms. James called those associated with Red Rose, including those who have never entered or attempted to enter a clinic, “terrorists” and Red Rose a “terrorist group.”

Two members of the Red Rose group who live in Michigan filed a defamation suit against Ms. James, in her personal capacity as well as her official capacity as attorney general.

“Defendant James’ labeling of those who associate with Red Rose Rescue as ‘terrorists’ is grotesque and absurd on its face; it is reckless in the extreme; it harms Plaintiffs’ public reputation; and it is an unconstitutional dereliction of Defendant James’ sworn duty to uphold the United States and New York Constitutions and to provide equal justice under the law to all persons and organizations regardless of their religious beliefs and views,” said the plaintiffs’ lawyer David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

The suit alleges: “As set forth in this Complaint, Defendant James has disseminated false and defamatory information about Plaintiffs, which irreparably harmed Plaintiffs’ interests and will continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Absent relief from this Court, Defendant James will continue to take action that unlawfully designates and targets Plaintiffs as terrorists.”

The main claim against Ms. James is that of defamation. Which, the suit claims: “Defendant James’ labelling Plaintiffs as ‘terrorists’ and belonging to a ‘terrorist group’ exposes Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion, and it induces an evil and unsavory opinion in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community, causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ reputations.”

The lawsuit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and five million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Again, it only seems fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. A long way to go on this yet, but it will be fun to follow. The case is in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York.

(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/)

Surprising ‘resources’ for teachers

A K-12 education consultant and public speaker recently exposed numerous resources provided for teachers to groom their students into the LGBTQ+ agenda. In an interview with CatholicVote, Deb Fillman said that the problem goes deeper than just one company providing resources to schools—the issue also lies in the school system. READ

Nurses forced to buy into CRT

Nurses in Kentucky were told they could face “discipline” after they were mandated to take an “implicit bias” training that claimed there is a “history of racism in healthcare.” The training, required by the Kentucky Board of Nursing, instructs the health care workers to “recognize the history of racism in healthcare.” Nurses were taught that examples of “covert racism” include “white silence” and phrases like “there’s only one human race” and “reverse racism.”   READ