Previous post
The annual March for Life just marked its 45th anniversary this year, and participants finally got lots of media attention. Unfortunately, it wasn’t what they would’ve liked. Instead, the media focused on the actions of a group of teenage boys, from Covington Catholic High School in KY, who allegedly taunted an elderly Native American.
Nathan Phillips, a veteran and Omaha tribe elder, was participating in the Indigenous Peoples’ March, which was also happening in Washington DC.
Here’s what happened:
And, because some of the boys were wearing MAGA hats and sweatshirts, the media swooped in like buzzards. Phillips told NBC News that he heard some chants of “build the wall:”
“Chants of ‘Build the wall’ and other things that were even worse. They were brought up to believe I’m less than human.”
And, of course, social media exploded.
From Rep. Deb Haaland, who is Native American:
A Native American Vietnam War veteran was seen being harassed and mocked by a group of MAGA hat-wearing teens. https://t.co/QJm1G7uXs3 via @HuffPost
— Deb Haaland (@Deb4CongressNM) January 20, 2019
Never Trumper Republican Bill Kristol chimed in, too:
“The contrast between the calm dignity and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of
#MAGA brats who have absorbed the spirit of Trumpism–this spectacle is a lesson which all Americans can learn.”
And this guy really threw down the race card:
“#MAGA guy is just standing there! How is that harassment?” – #CovingtonCatholic
History – pic.twitter.com/q7LdjSuREM
— Morgan In 2019 (@TheWire2) January 20, 2019
But, of course, Trump supporters shot back. One website accused liberal media of “pure evil” by “doxxing” the teenage boy staring Phillips down, even though the link it provided did no such thing.
John Cardillo of Newsmax claimed Nathan Phillips is a “radical separatist” and “activist with a history of claiming harassment:
Nathan Phillips who falsely claimed he was harassed by kids in MAGA hats is a radical separatist who flew the U.S. Flag upside down at a Dakota Pipeline protest. pic.twitter.com/WVxDavKmbQ
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) January 20, 2019
MAGA supporters on various websites were also out in force, even at conservative Twitchy, which was appalled at the boys’ actions:
Meanwhile, the beleagued Jeanne Mancini at the March for Life website issued this statement:
“The pro-life movement at its core is a movement of love and the reprehensible behavior shown in the video in no way represents the 46 years and millions of people who have peacefully and respectfully gathered in Washington, DC to stand up for the unborn.”
“This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.”
However, here’s my take on this kerfuffle.
I wasn’t at the March for Life, so I certainly didn’t witness this. And I’m betting no one reading my words saw the event, either. In watching that video, I didn’t hear anyone shout “build the wall,” although I did hear what I think may have been a school chant. I don’t know why one particular boy decided to invade Phillips’s space, and no one else does, either. And while the ‘war chants’ and tomahawk chops were rude, they’re not any different from attending a Kansas City Chiefs home game at Arrowhead Stadium. Yes, I’ve done a few chops and chants on behalf of my Chiefs as well. Mea culpa.
Not me. Credit: giphy.com.
But we also see how the media fawns over this weekend’s Women’s March, despite the toxic (yes, I said toxic) anti-Semitism of its founders. Which, I ask you, is more pernicious — the racist bigotry of prominent women, or the stupid antics of teenage boys?
However, this incident also detracts from the mission of the March for Life, whose participants have, for 46 years, faithfully braved cold weather and media scorn to stand for the dignity of human life. And that means all life — both the unborn and the old. Maybe Nathan Phillips is a bit shady, maybe not, but the boys of Covington wouldn’t know that. They ignored their faith’s teachings on the ‘respect and dignity of the human person.’ Moreover, all the laptop warriors who make these boys out to be heroes are also doing a disservice to the splendid mission of the March for Life.
Meanwhile, the liberal media is lapping up this red meat with gusto, eager to smear Catholics, other Christians, and all those who support the unborn, even though they don’t know what really happened either. Let’s let Covington Catholic High School handle this — not the media mob on either side of this overblown mess.
Featured image: James McNellis @ Wikimedia Commons. Attribution 2.o Generic.
CSS says: What am I missing here? At approximately :55 seconds into the video the drum banger moves into the kid’s personal space, not the other way around and yet you wonder why the “particular boy decided to invade Phillips’s space.” Throughout the video Phillips moves closer to “the boy,” banging his drum and chanting even louder. It also appears as if “the boy” just stood there and certainly did nothing to taunt Phillips. Oh, I get it, white male bad, native american good ;>}
Kim Hirsch says: And my point sailed right over your head. Neither you nor I were there, so let’s not jump to conclusions about anyone’s motives — neither the boy’s, nor Phillips, nor mine, shall we?
CSS says: And my point sailed right over your head Kim. I said absolutely nothing about motives. I was simply commenting on what I observed on the video you posted since, you’re right, neither of us was there. I was just noting that I did not see the “particular boy “decide” to invade Phillip’s space.” Indeed, it appears that Phillips decided to invade “the boys” space. You can ascribe [or not] whatever motives you want to whomever but, I just thought an accurate description of what the video shows might be important in one’s analysis. The last sentence of my previous comment was not directed at you but was my observation of the media’s general default position. I apologize if you thought I was ascribing it to you ;>}
The narrative is crumbling. Unedited video footage shows a different story. I’m so surprised.
Kate says: Yes. I expected it was just more fake news.
[…] Victory Girls Blog: March for Life Finally Gets Media Attention. But It’s Bad. […]
GWB says: Never Trumper Republican Bill Kristol
Oh, Kim. Kim, Kim, Kim. He’s left the Republican party at least 3 times in the last 2 years.
Which, I ask you, is more pernicious
But the boys still need to be corrected, so they don’t grow up to be adult jacka*s.
March for Life, whose participants have, for 46 years
And in FORTY SIX YEARS they’ve managed to come up with ONE incident. Not that the media will acknowledge that.
Too bad this march didn’t come after the Feminist’s, as the entire mall would have been cleaned than it started.
Kim Hirsch says: You’re right — they should be corrected — by their parents and the school. Not by the media or keyboard warriors.
As for Bill Kristol: I used to respect his views. No more. Sigh.
GWB says: I lost respect for Bill Kristol’s views longer ago than Trump. I think it might have even been longer ago than 0bama.
One other thought on these young men – showing up to a rally for LIFE wearing Trump gear seems a bit provocative. It seems they viewed the event as more political than moral. That’s a shame.
Flubber says: “I lost respect for Bill Kristol’s views longer ago than Trump.”
What? Yo lost respect for a warhawk who wanted to send lots of American kids into meat grinders int he Middle East for Israel?
They’ll kick you out of the GOP for that….
CSS says: GWB, I generally appreciate and concur in your comments but, I believe you are way off base on this one. First question, where was this rally held? Second question, why was it held in DC? Do you think maybe it was to influence lawmakers? In other words, a political rally [yes, with moral underpinnings]? What politician[s] have been most supportive of the right to life movement recently? Could it be … wait for it … Trump and Pence? So wearing a Make America Great Hat is “a bit provocative?” Or maybe just a political statement appreciative of the political support for their moral position? Are you suggesting the students should self-censor their support for politicians that support their beliefs in deference to those that might be offended by the “right to life” agenda? No, probably not. Let’s not self-censor at the risk of appearing, at least in the leftist’s eyes, as a “bit provocative.”
GWB says: The March For Life has generally been considered non-partisan, with very little overt party affiliation on display. The protection of innocent life was important enough to set aside parties.
It’s one of the things that sets apart moral movements from political posturing.
I will grant you that the Democrats have turned abortion into a litmus test in recent years. All the more reason to set aside the overt partisanship, and convince a few more misguided women to Vote Life.
GWB says: Oh, and I’m willing to be persuaded with evidence of partisanship on display in previous years. But I’ve not seen much of it.
GWB says: Let me issue a bit of a retraction here.
I think it is not the best idea to wear/carry explicitly party- or candidate-oriented material at the March For Life (for reasons stated above).
However, this was AFTER the march was over and these young men had toured the city and such. I don’t think I can say in any way that they should have refrained from wearing the hats at that point, except as a tactical decision to avoid confrontation.
And a decision like that would require a lot more awareness of the protests still occurring than I think anyone should expect of these young men. It might require a level approaching cynicism.
Jim says: It is not uncommon for people who are unsure of themselves and even nervous to display a grin. I do it often as I am generally rather anxious. One has to look at the context of the whole interaction: here was an elderly Indian Man marching [apparently silently] into the personal space of a teenage lad in a public space and then banging a drum in the lad’s face for a prolonged period. As the lad and his mates were waiting as directed by teachers for a bus to take them home, the lad could not escape the situation. No wonder the lad displayed a nervous grin. What else could he do? I suspect the Indian Man may have hoped for some incident to occur so as to gain him publicity – he has a record in this sense. His actions were provocative and, given he is a mature Man and a combat veteran, he had the advantage over the school boy[s. I consider him a bully.
GWB says: I do it often
Heck, just look at your gravatar. 😉
Phoenix says: This story needs to be updated as the entire narrative has fallen apart with extended videos showing the boys being harassed by black nationalists prior to the Native American activist entering into the kid’s personal space to bang his drum. The MSM wanted a narrative negative to the March for Life, and now have egg on their collective faces.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/319202/#respond
GWB says: Here is the other story:
https://victorygirlsblog.com/covington-outrage-and-the-enemies-within
Jim says: Here’s some more as the Progressives continue to justify their attack on a 15 year old boy:
A so-called specialist on body-language has been enlisted to analyses his behaviour – but not the behaviour of the adult male who walked up to him and his peers and confronted him:
https://luckyottershaven.com/tag/covington-catholic-high-school/
The specialist claims that the lad[s] encroached on the Indian man’s space, yet it was the adult who walked up to the lads:
”10/ Entering into another person’s interpersonal space (personal space and even intimate space) – is a body language behavior which very often provokes violence.
11/ While this is true for all genders, it’s particularly incendiary when two men are Whole Body Pointing toward each other (eyes, head, shoulders, torso, hips, and feet). Simply by turning 20º – 30º to one side will de-escalate the potential for physical confrontation.”
However it is not two ”men”. It is one senior and experienced political agitator confronting a 15 year old boy. He is a bully picking on an inexperienced boy in an open unstructured setting.
Jim says: A follow-up: I would like to hear Kim Hirsch’s assessment of the assessment of the lad’s and Mr Phillip’s communication, being that she is a speech pathologist. Mine as a retired behaviour specialist is that the assessment is one-sided and full of ‘interesting’ mental constructs. It also does not consider the written statement by the lad in the video about his mental state and understanding during the event. I assessed the interaction, as I have already stated, as an experienced political adult male confronting and trying manipulaqte an inexperienced 15 year old boy. There was a complete imbalance in power.
20 Comments