Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Media Wildly Mischaracterized That Video of Covington Catholic Students Confronting a Native American Veteran


Muda69

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, swordfish said:

SF wonders where the next example of the non-existent "Fake News" is going to come from?

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Are you implying that Mr. Phillips isn't a Vietnam vet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

No. Did you read them to see if there was anything there you could use to discredit her? 

Are the boys in the video just using "locker room talk"?

Why do you automatically assume that I want to discredit her?   Again, I don't know what happened in the minutes leading up to the clip.  I want to see what kind of info she throws out into the world, gain a little context. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, foxbat said:

Are you implying that Mr. Phillips isn't a Vietnam vet?

That's because he isn't, according to the Marine Corp.  And Mr. Phillips has never expressly claimed to have served in Vietnam: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-nathan-phillips-veteran-vietnam-marines-covington-20190123-story.html

Quote

Native American activist Nathan Phillips has never said he served in combat in Vietnam, though he has often referred to his service in the U.S. Marine Corps as the “Vietnam times.”

On Wednesday the Marines clarified this, telling The Washington Post and other media outlets that Phillips had served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, serving first as an infantryman and then a refrigerator technician.

.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, foxbat said:

Are you implying that Mr. Phillips isn't a Vietnam vet?

Not "implying" anything - You define "Vietnam Vet".....In your terms......And see if Mr. Phillips qualifies.....According to the Marine Corps, he does not......

https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/nathan-phillips-not-vietnam-vet-discharge-papers-show/

The DD-214 indicates Phillips was stationed stateside in the Marine Corps Reserves as a refrigeration mechanic and was cited for being AWOL three times. After four years of service, he was discharged as a private.

In recent interviews, Phillips has not explicitly stated he served in Vietnam, calling himself a veteran of “Vietnam times” or “Vietnam days.” But he has not corrected widespread reporting identifying him as a “Vietnam veteran.”

 

Phillips told the Democratic Underground regarding his military service: “I’m what they call a ‘recon ranger.’ That was my role.”

In an interview a decade ago, he apparently indicated he had been deployed overseas, contrary to his DD-214.

A 2008 Indian Country Today article, Shipley pointed out, reported Phillips “described coming back to the U.S. as a veteran of the Vietnam era.”

“People called me a baby killer and a hippie girl spit on me,” he said.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31284-former-seal-drum-pounding-indian-not-a-vietnam-veteran-not-a-recon-ranger

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/23/tribal-elder-in-viral-standoff-video-was-not-a-vietnam-veteran-military-records-show/
 

He served stateside May, 1972 - May, 1976 first as an infantryman (for 2 days) then was as a refrigeration mechanic....Was discharged as a Private with a few AWOL citations.  A private after 4 years, and never left the country......Almost seems like "stolen valor".....

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s becoming clear that nothing could even partially excuse the Covington kids in the eyes of some, because wearing that hat and smirking are now crimes.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/covington-catholic-maga-hatcrime-facecrime/

Quote

Orwell in 1984:

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (incredulity when a victory was announced, for instance) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

Mulling over what Orwell got right and wrong will be the work of decades to come. The video screens he envisioned are indeed ubiquitous, but they’re in our pockets, not run by a central authority. Orwell got one purpose of incessant video monitoring right, though: to identify and punish those whose facial expressions don’t conform to the cultural orthodoxy.

The Covington Catholic High School boys, it is now obvious, were initially charged with facecrime. Regardless of everything else we know now about the Lincoln Memorial incident, they remain guilty of that. And also hatcrime, the newest hate crime. I initially thought the bizarre reluctance to let go of the original, false narrative was due to people’s stubbornness about admitting their first impression was incorrect. Now it’s becoming clearer that in the eyes of some, nothing could even partially excuse the Covington kids.

Ruth Graham of Slate, on the boy we now know to be Nick Sandmann, was one of many who rushed to put down thoughts like these:

But I think the real reason the clip has spread is simpler: It’s the kid’s face. The face of self-satisfaction and certitude, of edginess expressed as cruelty. The face remains almost completely still as his peers hoot in awed delight at his bravado. The face is both punchable and untouchable. The face is in this photo of a clutch of white young men crowding around a single black man at a lunch counter sit-in in Virginia in the 1960s, and in many other images of jeering white men from that era. . . .Anyone who knew the popular white boys in high school recognized it: the confident gaze, the eyes twinkling with menace, the smirk. The face of a boy who is not as smart as he thinks he is, but is exactly as powerful. The face that sneers, “What? I’m just standing here,” if you flinch or cry or lash out. The face knows that no matter how you react, it wins. [Emphasis mine.]

On Twitter, Jessica Valenti wrote, “I’m willing to bet that fifty years from now, a defining image of this political era will be that smug white MAGA teen disrespecting a Native elder and veteran. It just captures so much.” It’s 49 years and 361 days short of 50 years, Jessica, how do you feel about that bet now? Valenti also wrote, “I think so many of us have been on the receiving end of the face he was making: a smug, untouchable, entitled f*** you.” A Saturday Night Live writer offered via Twitter oral sex to anyone “who manages to punch that maga kid in the face.” Former CNN contributor Reza Aslan wrote on the same platform, “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”

A day after the initial story of what happened with the Covington kids fell apart, and after Nathan Phillips was exposed as having told a number of lies about it, TMZ was still offering headlines like, “MAGA hat smirking teen offers no apology to Nathan Phillips.” Why a teen must offer an apology to a purposefully annoying adult who walks into his group banging a drum inches from his face is unclear — unless you understand that wearing that hat and smirking are the crimes here.

Until the day before yesterday, I don’t think I would have had to say something this obvious, but: Let’s not leap to condemn people based on their facial expressions. Let’s not be an army of facecops making cultural arrests for facecrime.

When you hear Sandmann’s account of what happened — he was confused by Phillips’ act of aggression but thought the best way to defuse the situation was simply to smile and look non-threatening — it makes a lot more sense than Phillips’ blend of lies and distortions. At worst, a child was responding to a supposedly wise adult’s bizarre act of aggression with the visual equivalent of saying, “Bless your heart.”

On Monday, Molly Roberts of the Washington Post offered the following take: “Everyone is still wrong about the Covington kids.” Roberts re-introduces the idea that the teens shouted “Build the wall,” although her own paper has reported that there seems to be no video evidence of this. She castigates the many centrist and left-of-center commentators who have backed down from their initial take on the story because they’re just playing into the hands of a “fancy PR firm with Republican links.” (Do Washington Post editorial writers receive elementary instruction in the ad hominem fallacy?) She blasts the Covington kid who “ripped his shirt off in a gesture of self-assured dominance” (shirtcrime!) when in fact this “gesture of self-assured dominance” is better understood as a high-school sports cheer. We must re-condemn the Covington kids, Roberts scolds us, because “a smirk is a smirk” and because “Anyone who wears a Make America Great Again hat knows what it stands for, and who it stands against.”

Also on Monday, Laura Wagner of Deadspin made essentially the same argument. “Don’t Doubt What You Saw With Your Own Eyes,” runs her headline. Well, quite. She reminded us all not to cede any ground to “Right-wing trolls,” “gibbering masturbators” or “random MAGA chuds and Pepes” (ad hominem again) and charges the kids with being “draped in the symbols of white nationalism and misogyny,” by which she means the hats. Can you drape yourself in a hat? I don’t think so. Anyway, just to make sure we get the point, in the very next paragraph she informs us that the boys were “draped in racist, misogynist paraphernalia.” By which she again means the hats. Wagner mentions “MAGA” eight times in her piece. She just can’t let go of the fact that some people like the hats. She can’t believe anyone would side with “some s***head MAGA teens.” That’s question-begging unless you understand that to her it’s just a pair of synonymous terms.

I don’t doubt that people like Molly Roberts and Laura Wagner hate Donald Trump so much that they think the 63 million Americans who voted for him, and the many more who didn’t vote then but support him, are by definition racist, misogynist, and white nationalist. I feel bad for those who think nearly half of their own countrymen are evil. But the Covington kids simply got caught in the middle of all the fire progressives are raining on Trump. The Left started out incensed that the Covington kids were wearing hats and smiles, and now that we know those kids didn’t “mob” or “surround” a Native American but simply jeered a bit in response to an obnoxious activist who entered their group and pounded a drum in their faces, we’re back to the original charges: hatcrime and facecrime.

As I stated near the beginning of this thread, it's about the hats.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there not a greater focus on the Black Hebrew Israelites who were mocking Mr. Phillips and the Catholic kid?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/01/22/who-are-black-israelites-center-viral-standoff-lincoln-memorial/?utm_term=.de1eb697cecd

In the initial media churn, they were nearly missed.

But a small band of Hebrew Israelites, members of a historic but little-known American religious movement, may actually be at the center of a roiling controversy that has gripped the nation in recent days.

It began with a now-viral video clip, filmed Friday at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, in which high school students from a Catholic school in Kentucky appeared to be in a faceoff with a Native American elder, who was beating on a drum. The boys, some wearing red hats with President Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, appeared in the clip to be mocking a man, named Nathan Phillips. The clip was widely understood as being centrally about the dangers of Trumpism, and the teens were condemned.

But a longer video soon bubbled to the surface, widening the lens. It showed how a group of half a dozen Hebrew Israelites had, in fact, been goading and preaching at both the Native Americans and high schoolers, using profanity and highly provocative language, for nearly an hour. Phillips later told journalists that he was seeking to defuse tensions between the Israelite group and the high school students by stepping in between them.

Kinda sounds like they started this whole thing.  The Catholics (white kids) and Mr. Phillips (Native American Vietnam ERA vet) were just sucked in......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Why is there not a greater focus on the Black Hebrew Israelites who were mocking Mr. Phillips and the Catholic kid?

Because they can't be effectively criticized for their part in the confrontation without the "that's racist!" label being thrown about.  Kind of like any criticism of an individuals of Jewish ancestry runs of the risk of "anti-Semite!" being applied.

Also other comments I have read concerning the BLI's is that they are kind of like the "neighborhood kooks" that have been wandering around Washington D.C. and proselytizing for years, and therefore are basically just "part of the fabric' of the city.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not "implying" anything - You define "Vietnam Vet".....In your terms......And see if Mr. Phillips qualifies.....According to the Marine Corps, he does not......

https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/nathan-phillips-not-vietnam-vet-discharge-papers-show/

The DD-214 indicates Phillips was stationed stateside in the Marine Corps Reserves as a refrigeration mechanic and was cited for being AWOL three times. After four years of service, he was discharged as a private.

In recent interviews, Phillips has not explicitly stated he served in Vietnam, calling himself a veteran of “Vietnam times” or “Vietnam days.” But he has not corrected widespread reporting identifying him as a “Vietnam veteran.”

 

Phillips told the Democratic Underground regarding his military service: “I’m what they call a ‘recon ranger.’ That was my role.”

In an interview a decade ago, he apparently indicated he had been deployed overseas, contrary to his DD-214.

A 2008 Indian Country Today article, Shipley pointed out, reported Phillips “described coming back to the U.S. as a veteran of the Vietnam era.”

“People called me a baby killer and a hippie girl spit on me,” he said.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31284-former-seal-drum-pounding-indian-not-a-vietnam-veteran-not-a-recon-ranger

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/23/tribal-elder-in-viral-standoff-video-was-not-a-vietnam-veteran-military-records-show/
 

He served stateside May, 1972 - May, 1976 first as an infantryman (for 2 days) then was as a refrigeration mechanic....Was discharged as a Private with a few AWOL citations.  A private after 4 years, and never left the country......Almost seems like "stolen valor".....

I didn’t realize we qualified military service by whether the Veteran served in a war zone or not. Or is this The New Normal? 

A lot of people who served their Country without fighting in a war are likely to be upset about this attitude.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

That's because he isn't, according to the Marine Corp.  And Mr. Phillips has never expressly claimed to have served in Vietnam: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-nathan-phillips-veteran-vietnam-marines-covington-20190123-story.html

 

 

25 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not "implying" anything - You define "Vietnam Vet".....In your terms......And see if Mr. Phillips qualifies.....According to the Marine Corps, he does not......

https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/nathan-phillips-not-vietnam-vet-discharge-papers-show/

The DD-214 indicates Phillips was stationed stateside in the Marine Corps Reserves as a refrigeration mechanic and was cited for being AWOL three times. After four years of service, he was discharged as a private.

In recent interviews, Phillips has not explicitly stated he served in Vietnam, calling himself a veteran of “Vietnam times” or “Vietnam days.” But he has not corrected widespread reporting identifying him as a “Vietnam veteran.”

 

Phillips told the Democratic Underground regarding his military service: “I’m what they call a ‘recon ranger.’ That was my role.”

In an interview a decade ago, he apparently indicated he had been deployed overseas, contrary to his DD-214.

A 2008 Indian Country Today article, Shipley pointed out, reported Phillips “described coming back to the U.S. as a veteran of the Vietnam era.”

“People called me a baby killer and a hippie girl spit on me,” he said.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/31284-former-seal-drum-pounding-indian-not-a-vietnam-veteran-not-a-recon-ranger

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/23/tribal-elder-in-viral-standoff-video-was-not-a-vietnam-veteran-military-records-show/
 

He served stateside May, 1972 - May, 1976 first as an infantryman (for 2 days) then was as a refrigeration mechanic....Was discharged as a Private with a few AWOL citations.  A private after 4 years, and never left the country......Almost seems like "stolen valor".....

While I appreciate that he wasn't a COMBAT vet and you may question the vet classification in association with a war period from your stance, for veteran benefits purposes, here's what the VA says:

https://www.benefits.va.gov/pension/wartimeperiod.asp

FTA:

Eligible Wartime Periods

Under current law, VA recognizes the following wartime periods to determine eligibility for VA Pension benefits:

  • Mexican Border Period (May 9, 1916 – April 5, 1917 for Veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders, or adjacent waters)
  • World War I (April 6, 1917 – November 11, 1918)
  • World War II (December 7, 1941 – December 31, 1946)
  • Korean conflict (June 27, 1950 – January 31, 1955)
  • Vietnam era (February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975) [my emphasis]
  • Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – through a future date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation)

My father was stationed in Europe during his five-year stint in the US Air Force as a volunteer, from roughly 1960-1965.  Never set foot in Vietnam.  Upon his death, he received the following type of grave marker from the VA/National Cemetery Association that was placed on his burial site:

image.png.af6773978294f1f6d49d831768c06c21.png

which specifically listed his rank and states VIETNAM on the plaque.  Whether folks want to call a Vietnam vet someone who saw combat duty, or was stationed in the theater, or "in the rear with the gear," or who was in the services somewhere on the planet during war-time at veteran, that's of their own choosing, but someone who served in the armed services is a veteran regardless of war-time or peace-time or "ceasefire" time or humanitarian aid time.  Someone who served in the services during the designated periods are considered veterans of that war ... with the exceptions listed above such as the early part of Vietnam or the Mexican Border Period.

I would hope that we'd all, especially those of us who have or have had service members, don't get caught up in playing "he's not really a vet."  You can make the claim that he's not a combat vet, but he's a vet nonetheless.  And by the limitations provided by the VA ... for example, you had to have been "in-country" to be counted as Vietnam vet from February 28, 1961 - August 4, 1964 or in the service, August 5, 1964 - May 7, 1975 ... they have already accounted for the fact that "in-country" isn't a requirement for classification of a Vietnam vet unless it was in the February 28, 1961 - August 4, 1964 period.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Why is there not a greater focus on the Black Hebrew Israelites who were mocking Mr. Phillips and the Catholic kid?

 

There should be more coverage of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what special goodies do veterans who have a <insert wartime period here> designation receive that "peacetime" veterans do not?

And this is frankly asinine:

Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – through a future date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not SF's words.......

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/23/tribal-elder-in-viral-standoff-video-was-not-a-vietnam-veteran-military-records-show/

Tribal elder in viral standoff video was not a Vietnam veteran, military records show

So the military is qualifying Veteran status based on Service in a combat zone. Even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not SF's words.......

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/01/23/tribal-elder-in-viral-standoff-video-was-not-a-vietnam-veteran-military-records-show/

Tribal elder in viral standoff video was not a Vietnam veteran, military records show

Actually, it's nobody's words.  The article that you provided doesn't show a quote and also doesn't show an official statement or document, which would be nice to have in a situation like this.  Even something like, "An unnamed Marine Corps spokesman said, ' ....'" would be preferable to what was posted.  But, let's dig a bit deeper on this.  The article that you posted says that Phillips received the National Defense Service Medal.  The National Defense Service Medal is awarded to honorable members of the armed services with the following SPECIFIC requirements of service date:

  • June 27, 1950, to July 27, 1954 (for service during the Korean War).
  • January 1, 1961, to August 14, 1974 (for service during the Vietnam War).
  • August 2, 1990, to November 30, 1995 (for service during the Gulf War).
  • September 11, 2001, to present (for service during the War on Terrorism).

The National Defense Medal was specifically created to recognize service members who have served honorably during a designated period of national emergency or war, or to other active military members at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Note that the general designations come from war-time service with the exception of the War On Terrorism which is seemingly broader than the specific theater wars in the list.  Also note that the NDSM also has an additional restriction to reserve service for Korean War and Vietnam War recipients that states, "Reserve Component service during the Korean and Vietnam periods, other than those Reserve Component personnel in a full-time status or on active duty greater than 89 days, did not qualify for award of the NDSM."  So attempts to limit minimize Mr. Phillip's service as being Marine Corps Reserve or limited time status as an infantryman were obviously not minimal enough to keep from being considered for and awarded the NDSM.

By the designation of the award, it makes him not only a recognized veteran, but also a recognized veteran of a specific war.  For more info on the award, see https://www.thebalancecareers.com/national-defense-service-medal-3344971 For a specific reference, by the US government, and specifically the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness under the DOD , see https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/MPP/OEPM/Docs/NDSM Authorized Conflicts.pdf.

Again, you see Vietnam vet as COMBAT Vietnam vet.  That's also the way that Ms. Copp, the author of the article sees it too or interprets it, but it would seem that that's not what the medal would say, nor the VA, nor the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness so far.    

55 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

So the military is qualifying Veteran status based on Service in a combat zone. Even worse.

I don't think that's the official case.  See my post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Actually, it's nobody's words.  The article that you provided doesn't show a quote and also doesn't show an official statement or document, which would be nice to have in a situation like this. 

Here are a few pictures of official DoD documents regarding Mr. Phillips's service record, obtained via a FOIA request.  I haven't watched the actually video from this link yet though:

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2019/01/22/nathan-phillips-dd-214-released-shows-hes-not-quite-claims/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Here are a few pictures of official DoD documents regarding Mr. Phillips's service record, obtained via a FOIA request.  I haven't watched the actually video from this link yet though:

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2019/01/22/nathan-phillips-dd-214-released-shows-hes-not-quite-claims/

 

 

In looking at Ms. Copp's article and looking at other articles, some like this one from RedState, what's happened is that folks have tended to use their own idea of what a specific term means or implies and have then stretched it. ... note, I'm not saying that's what you are doing.  Ms. Copp's article states that the Marine Corps states that he's not a Vietnam veteran, but doesn't actually produce documentation or a quote.  What it appears that she's done though is piggybacked off of the argument that some folks started with, that being a Vietnam vet is synonymous with being a COMBAT Vietnam vet.  The released DD-214 shows that Mr. Phillips wasn't in-country, and thus isn't a combat Vietnam vet.  Folks that consider the two synonymous have then doubled-down on saying that he's not a Vietnam vet.  I would venture a guess that, if anyone actually asked Ms. Copp where is her proof, she will reference the WaPo article where the thrust is disputing whether or not Phillip's was in-country.  Many other articles of that type are written with statements akin to "Phillips claims to be a Vietnam veteran, but paperwork shows that he was not there" or "... documentation shows he was never deployed."  Folks then run with that and then say, see he lied he's not a Vietnam vet ... when what they probably meant was "Aha, he's not a combat vet in Vietnam."  Others who then write editorials or opinion-like pieces then also lazily state, "He's not a Vietnam vet and that was proven by the Marines."  As people said said he's not a combat vet, but he is a vet, then the new direction is to make him a bad vet.  He may well be a less-than-stellar soldier; however, some things that aren't in true dispute are, he did not get a dishonorable discharge, he is a vet, he's a Vietnam vet, he was awarded a NDSM, he's not a combat vet.   

This stuff reminds me somewhat, unfortunately, of the cr*p that my father-in-law is going through with the VA over Agent Orange claims.  He was Navy and was was in-country in Vietnam.  Despite the Blue Water Navy Act, he's still getting a bunch of run-around as waterways are "re-designated" etc.  Doesn't change where he was, nor his exposure, nor his symptoms, just whether or not his claim gets granted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, foxbat said:

Are you implying that Mr. Phillips isn't a Vietnam vet?

Actually this entire line of "was he or wasn't he" started because foxbat challenged when I posted a humorous (IMHO) meme showing Blumenthal and Phillips in a "So there we were in Vietnam" meme.   And I took the bait. 

FTR - I still chuckle at it.  

Bottomline - This proud Native American who served in the military, and may or may not be a Vietnam Vet shouldn't be the center of this discussion.

These people should be in this case yet are being ignored......

Image result for black hebrew israelite meme  Image result for black hebrew israelite meme

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LawrenceGreene said:

In order for a Reservist to get Veterans Preference status for Federal Employment, they would've had to been put on active duty status for at least 90 or 120 days.  I'm not certain which.

LOL, wut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, gonzoron said:

LOL, wut?

In response to Muda's question

19 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So what special goodies do veterans who have a <insert wartime period here> designation receive that "peacetime" veterans do not?

 

And yours

19 hours ago, gonzoron said:

So the military is qualifying Veteran status based on Service in a combat zone. Even worse.

While I don't know the exact details involving peacetime vs wartime statuses, I can tell you that Reservists who weren't assigned to a certain number of days active duty can't use "Veterans Preference" when they apply for federal employment.  A so called "special goody" for those active duty military personnel vs those who aren't.  So in a way, the military/federal government does qualify veteran status  based on service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan Phillips rally protesters attempted to disrupt Mass at DC’s National Shrine: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/nathan-phillips-rally-attempted-to-disrupt-mass-at-dcs-national-shrine-91038

Quote

While demonstrators chanted and played ceremonial drums, protesters at a rally led by Nathan Phillips attempted Jan. 19 to enter Washington, DC’s Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during a Saturday evening Mass.

The group of demonstrators was stopped by shrine security as it tried to enter the church during a Saturday evening Vigil Mass, according to a shrine security guard on duty during the Mass.

“It was really upsetting,” the guard told CNA.

“There were about 20 people trying to get in, we had to lock the doors and everything.”

The guard said the incident was a disappointment during a busy and joyful weekend for the shrine.

“We had hundreds and hundreds of people from all over the country come here to celebrate life, to celebrate each other together. That a protest tried to come inside during Mass was really the worst.”

The guard told CNA the situation was “tense.”

....

A California seminarian, who was not permitted by seminary officials to be publicly identified, spoke to CNA about his experience of the events.

“I was outside when the protesters were coming up the steps of the basilica. I was curious because of the noise and chanting. At first I didn’t take it too seriously, but as they came up the steps we were told to go inside - I was with a group of people from California there for the March for Life. The security people shut the doors and locked them.”

“I was inside and the protesters were banging on the doors.”

On the basilica steps, Mr. Phillips read a statement which said: “We demand that the students of Covington Catholic High School be reprimanded not just by their school officials but, as seniors, by their upcoming universities.”

“We demand that the Catholic Church hold itself responsible for the [indistinct] hundred-plus years of genocide that indigenous peoples have endured and endure persistently by implementing the following: with reparations of land and restorations to the indigenous peoples in the U.S. and across the world.”

“We demand that the Catholic Church revoke the papal bulls related to the doctrine of discovery, which laid the foundation for religious prejudice and the dehumanization of indigenous peoples.”

The video shows several shrine security guards standing between the group and the basilica's entrance.

Inside the basilica, the seminarian said that visitors to the shrine and Mass attendees were unable to leave immediately, either through the main doors or the various side exits.

“We couldn’t leave from there either [downstairs and side doors],” the seminarian told CNA. “There was more security that told us it was not exactly safe to leave at that point.”

The seminarian said his group was not permitted to exit the building for another 20 or 30 minutes.

“It was about 30 minutes before the police were able to contain the situation and disperse the protestors,” he told CNA.

...

Video footage posted by CBC showed one supporter saying that the group had gathered at the shrine to listen to Phillips, and to hold the Catholic Church “accountable” for the alleged actions of the Covington Catholic students and for the “colonial violence that the Catholic Church reproduces every day.”

The Facebook video viewed by CNA concluded with the reflections of one protester.

“It’s cold, but you know what the cold, the rain, the snow, whatever, it ain’t gonna stop us. We’re gonna get out here and let our voices be heard. Whether it be at a Catholic Church, it don’t matter, Catholic school, whatever.”

“We’re still gonna come on this property, it’s all our ours anyway. We came, said our part. You know, because what them boys did, you know, Trump supporters, and you know, being disrespectful. We didn’t bother them. They came over and bothered us, saying stuff, being disrespectful. You know what, we’re still here. We’ll be back.”

The shrine security guard told CNA that for him the incident was especially distressing because Mass was underway.

“It’s a house of worship, a place of prayer where people come to celebrate. All this anger is so against what we are all about here.”

He told CNA that he’d never witnessed anything like it during his whole time of employment at the basilica.

“I don’t know the details of what happened on Friday [after the March for Life], I wish I did. All I know is it’s a shame, and it’s got nothing to do with why people were here.”

“And this all happened on our biggest event of the year. I hope we never see it again.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...