Key Takeaways:
- The columnist contrasts Michigan AG Dana Nessel’s Atlantic/Frum remarks—that Jews define antisemitism and she would keep her Jewish identity over the Democratic Party after Oct. 7—with a Michigan Jewish Caucus line four days later putting climate and “the world’s needs” above even Israel’s survival.
- He lists a long Catholic-targeting record: 2014 “hate” language on a marriage brief; a 2019 statewide diocese abuse probe (“badge, not rosary”); a blocked attempt to end faith-based adoption contracts; 2022 “drag queen in every school”; and reports he calls costly fishing trips into old cases.
- He says she did not match that intensity on Larry Nassar’s universities or public-school abuse (USA Today’s 2016 “F” for Michigan), treating the climate pivot as proof she is not a consistent opponent of religious bigotry.
Last week, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel made waves when she went on the Atlantic’s “David Frum Podcast” to rail against anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party.
In no uncertain terms, she declared that Jewish voters felt alienated by the party ever since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. She railed against the idea that is common among left-wing anti-Semites that Jews should have no place in defining what is bigoted against them, stating that it was “very off-putting and offensive” and “totally unacceptable.”
Poignantly, she said if she was forced to choose between being a Democrat or her Jewish identity, “If that’s the deal that has to be made, and I’ve been really candid about this, I was Jewish before I was ever Michigan Attorney General. I’m going to be Jewish afterwards.”
But just four short days later at an event for the Michigan Jewish Caucus, Nessel changed her tune telling conference goers that they needed to sacrifice themselves on the altar of the radical left. She argued that “we have a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest and, yes, even our own survival.”
To illustrate her point, Nessel asked, “What good is…demanding that candidates acknowledge [Israel’s] right to exist if the planet upon which it rests is no longer inhabitable?” In other words, a candidate’s position on “climate change” is a greater concern than if he makes common cause with radical Islamists.
This sudden shift in her priorities should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nessel is not a serious opponent to bigotry. As a matter of fact, she has greatly contributed to anti-Catholicism. Her is just a brief overview of her numerous efforts to target Catholics.
- In 2014, Nessel disparaged the Michigan Catholic Conference along with a coalition of religious groups for filing a legal brief supporting the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage calling them “a radical fringe” engaged in “the demagoguery of hate.”
- In 2018, Nessel’s predecessor, Bill Schuette announced that all seven Michigan dioceses would be subjected to an investigation into the sexual abuse of minors. She gleefully took over this highly targeted investigation in 2019. In fact, Nessel was not in office for two months before she put Catholics on notice: if they were asked by law enforcement about clergy sexual abuse, they should “ask to see their badge, not their rosary.” Clearly, she could not wait to get the Catholic Church and intimidate Catholics.
- In 2019, Nessel unilaterally moved to override a Michigan law that allowed faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to partner with the state without having to compromise on their religious beliefs. She previously had described the law as “a victory for hate mongers.” Fortunately her actions were slapped down by a federal judge after a Catholic charity challenged her in court. In the ruling, the judge found that Nessel’s actions had created “a strong inference that the State’s real target is the religious beliefs and confessions” of the charity. Moreover, she sought to terminate the state’s contract because the charity “adheres to its sincerely held religious belief that marriage is an institution created by God to join a single man to a single woman.” Furthermore, this “strongly suggests that the State’s real goal is not to promote non-discriminatory child placements, but to stamp out” the charity’s religious beliefs and replace it “with a State-orthodoxy test that prevents Catholic believers from participating.” The judge concluded that the charity “was targeted based on its religious belief, and that it was Defendant Nessel who targeted it.”
- In June of 2022, while speaking at an education event, Nessel spouted off about “fake issues” that she believed were invented only to divide the electorate. Particularly, she claimed that concerns of parents about their children being exposed to drag queens was one of those issues. Nessel went on to say, “Drag queens make everything better. Drag queens are fun. Drag queens are entertainment.” She even went as far as claiming she wanted “a drag queen in every school.”
- From 2022 and 2026, Nessel released the reports of her highly prejudicial investigations into the sexual abuse of minors in all of the Catholic dioceses in Michigan. The reports make clear that these investigations were nothing more than fishing expeditions that turned up very little evidence of wrong doing and at great cost to the taxpayers. In fact, the vast majority of the instances documented by Nessel were from decades ago, in some instances dating back to the Truman administration.
- Demonstrating her contempt for Catholics, during the time she was looking into the Michigan dioceses, Nessel allowed Michigan State and the University of Michigan to shirk responsibility in her probe of Larry Nassar, the notorious serial abuser of USA gymnasts and school athletes.
- Worse still, Nessel refused our repeated pleas to look into sexual abuse in the state’s public schools. We noted a 2016 USA Today study of all 50 states that gave a grade to each one on how well it handled this problem. Michigan received an “F” for its failure to adequately address the crisis of sexual abuse in its public schools. We even supplied Nessel with numerous examples of these horrific crimes that were ongoing, but she still kept her focus solely on Catholics.
These are not the acts of someone who is passionate about confronting the injustice of bigotry. Indeed, Nessel would not have pursued such policies if she was deeply concerned about targeting people for their faith. Her quick about-face on not choosing party over her Jewish identity and her record of anti-Catholicism demonstrates here tortured views on bigotry.
