Controversies: November 2005 Archives

This Veteran's Day, it's worth remembering the sacrifices that veterans have made, in America and in other free nations. It is also worth remembering that many groups on the Left, and not a few Democrats, are terrorist collaborators who are trying to undermine those sacrifices.

Before you click away in exasperation, let me explain what I mean. "Collaboration" is from the Latin cum + labore, literally "to work with." Left-wing groups don't have face-to-face strategy sessions with al Qaeda, nor do they share information and tactics. They do not carry out terrorist attacks themselves. But Western left-wing activists and the terrorist networks function as complimentary halves of the same whole.

Al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq is simple and coherent: wreak enough mayhem and kill enough U.S. servicemen to convince the American public that the Iraq War is "unwinnable." Then they will move, in conjunction with their Baathist allies, to convert the country into a vast terrorist training camp from which they can ship jihadi thugs into the moderate Gulf states, Israel, Europe, and the U.S.

The Left doesn't agitate for the overall strategic goal of creating a new Taliban-like Islamofascist state (though I note that according to their own noninterventionist principles, if such a state became reality, they could do nothing other than wring their hands.) However, their proximate goal is the same as al Qaeda's: get the U.S. out of Iraq, and humiliate the Bush Administration so thoroughly that no future American government will consider a similar foreign venture.

Consider two groups that get a decent amount of press coverage: Code Pink and Veterans for Peace. The former group has protested regularly outside of Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, carrying messages like "You were maimed for a lie." Walter Reed is where servicemen go to recuperate after being wounded in Iraq. On Nov. 17, they are promoting something called "NOT YOUR SOLDIER: National Student Day of Action." "We demand for our schools and communities to be military-free zones," their Web site screeches. The next day, they are participating in "National Stand Down Day," where they will block the entrances of military recruiting stations.

It goes without saying that Code Pink claims to "support the troops."

Catholic Light readers may recall my confrontation with two members of Veterans for Peace last May. One of the men, Marcus Eriksen, told me that the display they were setting up -- a thousand white crosses next to the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial -- was non-political, and contrary to my concerns, it did not use the names of the dead as if their families gave their endorsement.

Marcus was lying to my face. As this Web site demonstrates, their display does include photos and names of the fallen (something I didn't know until I read about it in a news account). Furthermore, Veterans For Peace supports the non-political idea of impeaching President Bush. They have a prominent link to thoroughly non-political funnyman Michael Moore's Web site. Another link is to a group that helps people escape their military service. A huge graphical banner promotes "BEFORE YOU ENLIST!," aimed at discouraging young people from joining the military.

As Marcus said, this is how they "support the troops."

If al Qaeda could run a negative advertising campaign in the U.S., it would probably try to undermine our country's leaders, discourage people from signing up for military service, encourage the belief that the Iraq War is futile, and downplay the idea of defeating terrorism by building a more just order in the Middle East. Lucky for them, they don't have to run an advertising campaign. The Left is making al Qaeda's points for them every day, through activist groups and through the mainstream media.

As I have said repeatedly here on CL, if you believe the Iraq War to be unjust, that's your right. It would also be, as far as I understand, your Christian duty to attempt to stop it. But to do so in such a way that encourages this country's enemies is worse than irresponsible, it is reprehensible. And I don't see too many Democrats standing up to denounce that.

Poverty kills, again

| 3 Comments

A tornado in Indiana killed 22 residents of a mobile home community yesterday. It's safe to say that given a choice, most people wouldn't live in a mobile home, and so the residents lived there because of economic circumstances. My grandparents used to live in a mobile home due to the high cost of living in southern California, and it was quite nice, but probably not what they might have wanted.

The only way to prevent these tragedies, therefore, is to work for an ever-growing economy to make mobile homes obsolete. In economically advanced societies, houses don't have thatched roofs or walls made of bundled sticks; people also don't live in caves or mud huts. Those materials and structures are undesirable and often dangerous, so they aren't used anymore.

The more economically productive the lower segments of society are, the more wealth they can create and hang onto — including the wealth in the homes where they live. Creating wealth isn't seen as a social-justice issue, but it can frequently mean the difference between life and death.

The following Lifesite story (through FreeDominion) has me fuming, particularly the following paragraphs:

DIOCESE UNABLE TO INTERVENE UNDER CANON LAW

The diocese says it is unable to act on the matter of Katelyn's expulsion. Rev. Charles S. McDermott, S.T.D. Chancellor and Vicar Episcopal for Theological Affairs for the Diocese of Sacramento, explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the school is run by an order of nuns popularly known as the Loretto Sisters. Rev. McDermott described the order as "A religious institute in the church which is of pontifical right," explaining that "they are subject in their internal affairs directly to the Holy See and not to the local bishop."

In the matter of the pro-abortion teacher the bishop exercised special powers reserved to him in canon (church) law permitting him to intervene in cases of faith and morals, explained the diocesan Chancellor.

Rev. McDermott did however provide key information shedding light on the disagreement between the family and the school. He told LifeSiteNews.com that "The mother approached Loretto high school about it quite quietly, as far as I understand, and asked them to respond to the situation." The school failed to act, and the matter was "eventually" brought to the attention of Bishop Weigand.

------------------

This is incorrect in my opinion. Because the case concerns the common good, the girl can and should appeal through the local tribunal, which is more than competent to hear the case. She can also appeal to Rome. That being said, even if she wins, if she were my daughter, I wouldn't send her back to that school. Rather, I would demand a tuition refund, financial compensation for additional damages, and an apology.

What? Who?

On life and living in communion with the Catholic Church.

Richard Chonak

John Schultz


You write, we post
unless you state otherwise.

Archives

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries in the Controversies category from November 2005.

Controversies: October 2005 is the previous archive.

Controversies: December 2005 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.