Someday soon someone will write a book about the Covington confrontation that could be titled “The Stoning of the Boy Who Smirked.”
It is truly a mirror on our times that teenage Christian boys who were engaged as responsible citizens in the public discourse of their nation have become victims of a mass media mob of scribes and self-righteous Pharisees.
I’ve written about the incident several times, but it continues to irritate my conscience that the youth at the center of the incident is vilified by the left even though he acted with decency and restraint throughout the drumming assault by Native American activist Nathan Phillips. His crime, of course, is that he was smiling when confronted by Phillips instead of cowering. That, plus he wore a Make America Great Again hat. As David Azerrad wrote at The American Mind, his crime was that he was “Smirking While White.”
Sheriff David Clarke, one of the most clear-headed thinkers on the right, said the optics were irresistible for “the salivating, race hustling, agenda-driven liberal press.” In his op-ed aptly titled “Ready … Fire … Aim,” he wrote:
In a knee-jerk fashion, the media and race hustlers made the story go viral. They pounced at the prospect of this story of a group of white kids— I said kids for heaven’s sake— supposedly attacking liberal activist Nathan Phillips with racist intent in their hearts. However, there was more to the story—as there usually is—as inconvenient facts emerge that jam the gears of the media’s wanted narrative.
Most of us won’t take the time to watch all the video footage from the confrontation Friday, but if you do, then the rush to judgment is even more horrifying. These young men who had come to DC to celebrate life and fight abortion were patsies in a left-wing morality play that cast them as unfortunate scapegoats.
Author Caitlin Flanagan has brilliantly summarized the falsity of the media narrative in a new piece in the Atlantic Monthly called “The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story.” She did watch the videos and paints a graphic picture of how the teenagers in MAGA hats were victimized.
At the center of her narrative are the Black Hebrew Israelites that have been largely ignored in the mainstream coverage of the event. The Black Hebrews believe they are the direct descendants of the biblical Israelites and, with God “on their side,” they are willing to fight anyone. Unlike the white teenagers from Kentucky, the Black Hebrews came to insult and provoke the Native Americans on hand for a demonstration. Here’s Flanagan’s account:
… the Black Hebrew Israelites had come to the Lincoln Memorial with the express intention of verbally confronting the Native Americans, some of whom had already begun to gather as the video begins, many of them in Native dress. The Black Hebrew Israelites’ leader begins shouting at them: “Before you started worshipping totem poles, you was worshipping the true and living God. Before you became an idol worshipper, you was worshipping the true and living God. This is the reason why this land was taken away from you! Because you worship everything except the most high. You worship every creation except the Creator—and that’s what we are here to tell you to do.”
As Flanagan shows, it is the Black Hebrews Israelites who provoke the Native Americans to confront the boys in MAGA hats.
It was heating up to be an intersectional showdown for the ages, with the Black Hebrew Israelites going head to head with the Native Americans. But when the Native woman talks about the importance of peace, the preacher finally locates a unifying theme, one more powerful than anything to be found in Proverbs, Isaiah, or Ecclesiastes.
He tells her there won’t be any food stamps coming to reservations or the projects because of the shutdown, and then gesturing to his left, he says, “It’s because of these … bastards over there, wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”
The unifying theme in all this is that the mostly well-behaved white Catholic boys are “bastards” to the Black Hebrews, the Native Americans and the left-wing establishment. Essentially they are symbols of everything that is “Deplorable” to Hillary Clinton and her supporters — they represent traditional values, American patriotism and common decency.
Of course, they must get stoned.
Frank Miele writes from Kalispell, Montana, at www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com and is a columnist at Real Clear Politics. To see more of my columns about the Dishonest Media, the Deep Swamp, the failed presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Trump’s war to restore American greatness, read my “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy. The books are available at Amazon in paperback or Kindle editions. Also please considering leaving a review in support of my conservative commentary on one or all of my book pages at Amazon! Thanks!
6 Replies to “FLASHBACK: ‘The Stoning of the Boy Who Smirked’: A parable for our times”
Exodus 20:2-17 #9 You Shall Not Bear False Witness
All those pundits and writers, bloggers and so called journalists seem to have forgotten the basic rules.
So true. I meant to write that one at some point too! But you beat me to it!
I have Dennis Prager’s DVD on the Ten Commandments that is now restricted by YouTube. If you haven’t watched it yet, Frank, you are welcome to borrow mine. He goes into detail about what each commandment means.
Thanks Kay: I never borrow books or DVDs anymore. I have so much of my own I haven’t read that it’s just a lost cause. Thanks anyway!
The administrative zealots who sided against their own students instead of keeping level heads should be running scared. Their overreaction is inexcusable and irresponsible. Also, it is impolite to call the young mans facial expression a smirk. His physiognomy is not a reflection of his character. One has to be careful about using lame reasoning to justify a shallow judgement.
Good point. I considered putting smirk in quotes because to me it is just a nervous smile, but I opted not to since I think it’s clear I am using smirk as the Opposition Party’s description.