A Checkered Record: Four Decades of Iranian Violence

Shortly after midnight, on January 3, 2020, a United States Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone unleashed a barrage of Hellfire missiles at a convoy leaving the Baghdad International Airport. The convoy was obliterated, along with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani had the infamous distinction of bearing direct responsibility for over 600 American deaths during the Iraq War, along with thousands more who were wounded by proxy forces under his command.

Soleimani’s death generated hysterical responses, both from members of the Iranian government, and from the American left. In the Senate, Democrats refused to support a measure approving the strike. Others, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), referred to the strike as an unprovoked “act of war” against Iran. The media portrayal of American relations with Iran couldn’t be further from the truth. Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged a four decade war against America and her allies, both openly and through proxy forces. At various points in time, it has been necessary for the United States to utilize force to deter further Iranian violence. The strike against Soleimani represents only the latest retaliatory measure in this long and bloody conflict.

After seizing power from the relatively progressive Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the mullahs wasted no time in declaring America to be their greatest enemy. Their hatred of the U.S. came to a head on November 4, 1979, as Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran and seized fifty two hostages in retaliation for the U.S. providing cancer treatment for the ailing Shah. During their captivity, the hostages were subjected to beatings, theft, and psychological abuse. Tantamount to a declaration of war, the Hostage Crisis represented Iran’s first salvo in its forty year offensive against the U.S.

In 1982, the U.S. and several other nations intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to act as a peacekeeping force. In October 1983, two truck bombs were detonated against the American and French military barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American and 58 French personnel. The attack was carried out by a pair of Shia suicide bombers who were strongly suspected of involvement with Hezbollah and Iran. In 2004, a monument was erected in Tehran to commemorate the two bombers as “martyrs.” A mere five years later, on April 14, 1988, the American frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in the Persian Gulf, injuring several sailors and severely damaging the ship. Serial numbers on unexploded mines proximal to the incident area were traced back to the Iranian mine laying vessel Iran Ajr. After nearly ten years of unanswered Iranian aggression, America would finally retaliate.

On April 18, 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis. Over the course of the operation, American forces sank or damaged half of Iran’s navy and destroyed two oil platforms. After the U.S. pulled back its forces, Iran opted not to pursue further action. In one fell swoop, the United States had effectively neutralized Iran’s naval capabilities, while escaping any meaningful retaliation from the Iranian regime. 

In the decades after Praying Mantis, the Iranian regime resorted to more subversive measures in its conflict with the U.S. Chief among these was the use of Shia proxy groups during the Iraq War. Among those facilitating the attacks by these proxy groups was General Soleimani. Over the next few years, Iran’s activities grew increasingly bold, as it began clawing its way toward a nuclear arsenal, and taking 10 American sailors into captivity at gunpoint met with little response. If anything, like a misbehaving child, Iran was incentivized to continue its aggression as a result of a lack of tangible corrective action. That lack of enforcement abruptly changed with the push of a button on January 3.

The past four decades of American relations with Iran have provided some important lessons. Short of a regime change or a full-blown war, Iran will continue its aggression. However, it is also clear that forceful retaliation for overt acts of war on the part of Iran are extremely effective at lessening Iranian attacks, and may help prevent additional American casualties. In the wake of Praying Mantis, Iran was forced to count its losses and put an end to its mining operations. So too will the Soleimani strike serve as a warning to those in the regime who would seek to harm American assets. Until the day when the Islamic Theocracy finally crumbles under the growing protests of its citizens, those involved in America’s foreign policy would be wise to pay heed to the past. If they are to limit Iran’s attempts to assert its dominance in the Middle East, it is a necessity for military strategists to be prepared to utilize America’s offensive might if the opportunity demands it.

Is Bernie Being Burned Yet Again?

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gained much attention in 2016 when he almost clinched the Democratic nomination. Although he lost to Hillary Clinton, he is now vying for the nomination again in the 2020 election. He has always been one to attract the media and voters, especially those of younger demographics, with his enthusiasm, progressive policies, and ever-growing base of support. But in January, a fight between him and his fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the spotlight. This fight, however, has done more than exposing political differences or even providing entertainment factors - it has revealed the sad state of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and elite leaders of the Democratic Party, who are showing themselves to pick favorites rather than letting the primary process play out naturally -- much like they did in 2016. Between the DNC, CNN, and other media, Bernie Sanders is, yet again, being targeted this election cycle.

Early on in the cycle, it became well known that Sanders and Warren agreed not to attack each other this election. But this pact seems to have disappeared after a Politico report showed that Sanders volunteers received a script for talking to voters in which they were told to put down Warren. It included comments such as “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what,” and then goes on to say, “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” These criticisms drew much attention to both Sanders and Warren, the latter of which who said she was “disappointed.” At first, the Sanders campaign tried to downplay the script by saying it was not as accurate as reported. However, they then changed the script and told officials not to distribute the older one, which had also included attacks on Democratic candidates Buttigieg and Biden. But instead of moving on, a full-on fight erupted between Sanders and Warren, and their nonaggression pact seemed to vanish.

Warren then accused Sanders of saying a woman could not be president. He denied the claim, but at the January Democratic Debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillip talked about this supposed remark and she ended her question to Sanders by asking, “Why did you say that?” He explained how he, in fact, did not say it and did not want to waste time even talking about it, since that is what Trump and perhaps some in the media want. He then went on to say, “Anybody [who] knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. It was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run afterwards." After giving a well-thought out response, Phillip asked him to confirm he did not say a woman could not be president. After he denied the allegation, she turned to Warren and asked, “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

The word choice in CNN’s question reflects a deep bias against Sanders. Sanders was not asked whether or not he said what Warren had claimed and what he thought when he heard Warren made this claim. Rather, he was asked why he said it. Even after he denied making the comment, Warren was asked what she thought when he asked it. For an official debate, this rhetoric from a professional journalist is absolutely ridiculous. Moderators are not supposed to cater questions to specific candidates nor take a clear side in a disagreement. 

In 2012, during a Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, CNN’s Candy Crowley similarly took a side during an exchange about the Benghazi scandal. Rather than doing her job of asking questions and making sure the candidates simply followed the rules, Crowley defended Obama over Romney’s accusations. Romney explained the situation afterwards: "So, she obviously thought it was her job to play a more active role in the debate than was agreed upon by the two candidates, and I thought her jumping into the interaction I was having with the president was also a mistake on her part and one I would have preferred to carry out between the two of us, because I was prepared to go after him for misrepresenting to the American people that -- the nature of the attack." It is not the job of the moderator of a debate to take a stand; it is their job to give the candidates the opportunity to be questioned on their views and actions, to have a platform for their policies, and, for entertainment purposes, to possibly incite some fights. However, it is never appropriate for them to take a clear stance in these heated exchanges— something CNN clearly did with Obama in 2012 and has now done with Warren. CNN automatically believing Warren is a sad example of Sanders once again being shafted because he is not the favorite candidate of the DNC and major Democrats. 

Although there were unfair questions during the debate that brought up the fight, the exchange between Warren and Sanders afterwards is what grabbed the attention of the media and voters most. Sanders put his hand out to shake Warren’s, but she rejected it and just immediately started speaking:

"I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

"What?" Sanders said surprisingly.

She repeated herself, "I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

"You know, let's not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion," Sanders responded.

"Anytime,” she said.

"You called me a liar," Sanders, seemingly frustrated, continued. "You told me -- all right, let's not do it now."

Clearly an uncomfortable exchange, it has sparked much speculation. One explanation could be that this was completely planned by Warren - she knew and wanted the exchange to be released in order to put down Sanders and to be viewed as a strong woman standing up to a man. Another explanation could be it was not planned and simply was released to cause more drama between the campaigns - more to talk about for the media, and more entertainment for viewers. Regardless, the question still remains: which of the two candidates should be believed?

Given the past histories of both candidates, it would make more sense to believe Sanders. He has continually fought for women’s rights, eventually supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, and has made statements in the past saying a woman could be president. Logically, it is hard to believe a woman could not be president — Clinton received more popular votes than Trump, there are over 100 women in the House of Representatives, and there is a female Speaker of the House. On the other hand, Warren has been known to fabricate stories in the past. From claiming to be of Native American heritage to lying about being fired from a job for being pregnant, she has continually used lies to further her career. In this case, her campaign had been attacked so she felt she had to counter. Since simply saying she was disappointed by the negative comments of his volunteers did not help her campaign, she took it a step further by making a major accusation with no supporting evidence. This vicious attack against her fellow senator and friend shows she will do anything to attract attention and support. 

Through all of this, another major question remains: why is Sanders treated this way? In 2016, Sanders was angry feeling the DNC played favorites. Although Sanders did not perform as well as Clinton with black, female, Democratic, and older voters, a major reason for his loss was the fact that many  superdelegates pledged their vote to Clinton before the caucuses and primaries even began. The DNC, publicly claiming to be neutral during the 2016 primaries, exchanged emails insulting Sanders. Almost 20,000 emails were leaked and posted, demonstrating that certain top Committee officials were not acting as unbiased as they claimed. These emails revealed that the DNC purposely scheduled few debates and purposely scheduled them for the weekend so not many people would watch. They also called his campaign a mess, and commented that he did not “have his act together.” In a February 2019 CNN town hall, Sanders spoke out, saying, "In 2016, I think I will not shock anybody to suggest that the DNC was not quite even handed. I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anybody else." 

Although Sanders expressed hope for the DNC, Chairman Tom Perez’s appointments to the Rules Committee which oversees the DNC convention in Milwaukee this July, are not sitting well with the Sanders campaign. Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will co-chair the Rules Committee, whom the Sanders campaign tried to remove from the committee in 2016 claiming he was an “aggressive attack surrogate for the Clinton campaign.” John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, who previously stated in a leaked email that he was, “not opposed [to] grinding Sanders to a pulp,” will have a seat on that committee as well. Although superdelegates have different rules for 2020, these appointments could play a major role on whether or not Sanders gets the nomination.

There are also many theories circulating about the Iowa caucuses. Normally the top candidates are able to use the caucuses as a case for their electability, but due to the technical difficulties this year, Sanders is unable to use his electoral results to his advantage. Could this be another means of the Democrats attempting to rig the election? People have theorized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held onto the impeachment papers to hurt Sanders leading up to the caucuses, since the favorite of the Democratic elites seems to be Biden. There could have just been technical difficulties in the Iowa caucuses and other intentions in the House about impeachment. Regardless, both are situations that have tried to hurt Sanders, but he is continuing to campaign strongly in hopes of securing the nomination.

In order to win a Primary Election, candidates must become more extreme in their policiesr, in this case, to the left. But now, the Democratic Party as a whole already appears to be going further left as reflected by the election of the freshman “ Squad” of Congresswomen, the increased support for socialism, and the desire to greatly increase taxes. They need to entice voters more than their fellow candidates with bold plans (like free college) and hope to attract more extreme voters who will be more passionate and therefore help rally support. However, by doing so, a candidate can doom themselves in a general election. The point of the general is not only get the support of one’s party but to also appeal to moderates and those on the other side. Because of this, they have to gravitate more to the center — something some candidates, like Sanders, struggle to do. 

The biggest concern for Democrats in 2020 is defeating Donald Trump. Beating an incumbent is difficult on its own— it is even tougher when the economy is booming, impeachment is bringing the Republican Party together, and distrust amongst the Democratic Party is splitting them apart. On one hand, Sanders does have strong support from young people, and although they are typically less likely to vote, Sanders may be able to rally enough of their support because of his socialist policies and their hatred of Trump to drive them to the polls on Election Day. There are serious disadvantages to a Biden nomination, such as his lack of skill in debates, his son Hunter’s associations with Ukraine, and his overall lack of enthusiasm (hence, “Sleepy Joe”). Any of these could lead him to struggle getting voters out on Election Day.

On the other hand, however, a Sanders nomination could mean a new direction for the Democratic Party that older Democrats, who are much more likely to vote than young ones, may not be ready to embrace (and, arguably, should not). Because of this, Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, will struggle to get voters he needs: moderate Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats. They will either vote for Trump, who they view as the lesser of two evils, or they may not feel driven to vote at all. Regardless, that choice should be up to voters not the DNC and media.

Despite all these attempts to smear him and his campaign, Sanders continues to rise in the polls. It is important that voters are more aware of candidates than just what the news and the leaders of their party are telling them. Perhaps he is doing well because he is good at fundraising and has a strong social media presence? Maybe people are seeing how weak of a candidate Warren is and shifting their support to Sanders? Superdelegates’ power is lessening in 2020 and leftover anger from 2016 may affect voters. But, whatever the reason may be, Sanders has a strong effect on people, and it will be interesting to see if he will be able to rally enough support to get the nomination.

I end this by saying that by no means am I endorsing Bernie Sanders nor do I think he would make a good president. He is a Democratic Socialist with far-left policies that would not work in this country and would never be passed by Congress. He would enact heavy taxes (no, not just on the rich like he often claims) and greatly hurt the middle class. The media, rather than playing favorites, should be exposing how extreme his views are so people can better understand what his policies truly entail to see if they support him rather than taking cheap shots at trying to paint him as a sexist during a CNN debate, attacking him for an endorsement from podcaster Joe Rogan, or failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton publicly insulting him. Sanders is, however, exactly the type of far left candidate Trump wants in order to scare the American people of what he would try to do as president (which is quite concerning that Americans are supportive of his policies). Despite all of this, I do sympathize with Sanders. It is unfortunate to see the Democrats, just like in 2016, attempting to manipulate the system in order to have the favorite of the leaders of the party win rather than the favorite of the people who belong in it. But we shall soon see who comes out on top as the Democratic nominee.

Cancel Culture: An Angelistic Fallacy

Cancel Culture has become sort of a buzzword and, admittedly, has become quite a cliché. Many intellectuals, celebrities, and other various Twitter blue-checkmark accounts on both the right and the left have denounced this phenomenon, though many do still deny the existence of, or in some cases even support Cancel Culture. Articles espousing such ideas have been published in the New York Times and other mainstream publications. Either way, the discussion has become stale, yet the occurrences do not seem to fade away. Just recently, the Left has tried to cancel both Ricky Gervais and Vince Vaughan for a comedy routine and a handshake, respectively. As people’s livelihoods and good reputations are at stake, this is not a discussion that should be fading away. To remedy this staling, I would like to introduce a new lens through which to view Cancel Culture, inspired by Catholic thought, yet applicable to secular consideration as well – that of the angelistic fallacy.

Mortimer Adler, a philosopher and public intellectual of the 20th century, coined the term ‘angelistic fallacy’ to encompass the range of issues that arise if we equate human beings and angels. According to him, “an angleistic fallacy consists in attributing to man attributes or powers that belong only to purely spiritual substances – to minds without bodies and not associated with bodies that are somehow their own.” While derived from a Catholic understanding of angels as pure intellect – a religion in which it is held that such beings truly exist – religion of any kind is not required to apply this concept. You need not believe that a being of pure intellect actually exists to consider the implications for such a being if it did.

A being of pure intellect is not hindered in its understanding like we, as corporeal beings, are. We apprehend through our senses and thus know things imperfectly, no matter how much study we apply to any one thing. However, a being of pure intellect, as it comes to know something (though the process by which such a being would come to know something is another story and would not fit into an article of this size) knows that thing perfectly – it is not limited in its knowledge by materiality.

This epistemological fact provides us with a difference in ethics between the two types of beings: corporeal and incorporeal. We humans, as corporeal beings, always act with an imperfect understanding of our actions and their repercussions, though that understanding can be more or less informed. For instance, a Catholic who is well read in Catholic Morality can still succumb to temptation and fall into sin as they lack full knowledge of the gravity and consequent repercussions of their offense. Intellectually, he may be able to say why it is morally reprehensible and perhaps make an educated claim concerning the degree of it severity, yet he lacks the full grasp of its true gravity and its true repercussions - knowledge he will always lack. However, because we always lack full knowledge of our actions, human fault invites forgiveness. Forgiveness is an acknowledgement of human weakness, of our inability to fully understand our actions.

Incorporeal beings of pure intellect know their actions and their respective repercussions perfectly. Because of this perfect knowledge, there are no unforeseen repercussions, no consequences that being did not fully intend to reap. For this reason, such beings cannot be forgiven. They have no weakness in understanding and forgiveness cannot apply. Again referencing Catholic theology, Lucifer had perfect knowledge of his actions and their impact before the fall, and due to this perfect knowledge, God will not forgive him for his sins.

I know this has been kind of abstract, and you would rightly ask how this applies to Cancel Culture. Perhaps you’ve even forgot this article is ultimately about Cancel Culture.

Cancel Culture does not permit forgiveness. It finds a fault and seeks permanent blacklisting, ostracization, of another. It is not the goal of Cancel Culture to reconcile the canceled with society at large. Think back to the incident with Kevin Hart over a year ago, where he was forced to abdicate his position as host of the Oscars over a few off-color, “homophobic” tweets – tweets that were years old. This episode not only reveals the bloodthirsty desires of the cancel mob to ruin careers and reputations, but also the permanence and totality they ascribe to relatively incidental factors. So the tweets were offensive, but they were also almost a decade old and held no bearing on the current day (not until the cancel mob drudged them up and forced them back into the popular discourse, that is). The truth is, Kevin Hart’s career was not built upon the content of those tweets, nor did it reflect ideals even somewhat similar; there is nothing he has done which would tell us he holds similar views today. Yet, as it goes with Cancel Culture – a sin can never be forgiven.

More recently, the cancel mob has found a new target: Joe Rogan. What did Joe Rogan do? He endorsed Bernie Sanders. In his podcast, he revealed, “I think I’ll probably vote for Bernie… He’s been insanely consistent his entire life…And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from.” This looks just like any other celebrity political endorsement – a routine occurrence. Look again, my dear reader, because Joe Rogan is a bigot! Not shy of a politically incorrect joke, or controversial guests on his podcast, and perhaps more egregious to the left, reasonable and well-informed right-wing guests (see Ben Shapiro, Stephen Crowder, etc.), Rogan is not the typical outspoken lefty propped by conventional media. But, to call him a bigot is an utter fallacy. Nonetheless, the accusation has been levied, notably by prominent canceller, journalist Carlos Maza, who tweeted, “Bernie’s campaign cutting a campaign ad with Joe Rogan f***ing sucks. Rogan is an incredibly influential bigot and Democrats should be marginalizing him.” 

Such a tweet makes clear the goal of Cancel Culture – to “marginalize” those who go against the mainstream, leftist mob. To marginalize them no matter the severity of the crime, the relevance of the crime, nor the actual character and values of the cancelee. It is important to note that both these examples of “bigotry,” and a large portion of the “bigotry” in cancel scandals, are examples of humor, not genuinely held political and social views, yet in most cases (though notably excluding Joe Rogan and the Sanders Campaign) the "perpetrator" apologizes. However, apologies do not sate the mob as there is no room for forgiveness. The minor is made major, the insignificant is made significant, and the easily rectifiable is made unforgivable.

If Cancel Culture acts as though humans should not, and even cannot, be forgiven for their actions, then it must assume that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions. If it assumes that humans have perfect knowledge of their actions, then it must assume that humans are beings of pure intellect. It must assume we are incorporeal. It must assume that we are angels. Or if we have offended the cancel mob – fallen angels. This denies part of our very human substance - materiality.. In a world where abortion is supported after a child is born, it is no surprise to see popular leftist culture, once again, deny the humanity, and the intrinsic dignity that comes with such a substance, of others.

Now, this is not to suppose that all the bad actions of an individual can and should be whisked away with merely an apology. Murder, rape, theft, and a host of other serious crimes cannot be rectified by a mere apology. Duly, the perpetrators of these crimes serve jail time as an extension of justice in retribution for their offense. However, still the criminal justice system presupposes that a person can make recompense for their crime, or at least begin to in the limited time we have in our lives. Cancel Culture wants a complete termination, with no hope for redemption. So, yes, serious crimes must face retributive justice, but the actions of many of these celebrities are not serious crimes. They are off-color jokes, or offensive tweets, generally years old. An apology tweet is more than sufficient as penance for their “crimes.”  The punishment fits the crime.

However, this entire article, I’ve been throwing the cancel mob a bone, presupposing that their gripes with these various celebrities are legitimate. Often times, the infraction in question does not even necessitate an apology. Should Joe Rogan apologize for taking a fairly common, legal, political action? Should Bernie Sanders’s campaign apologize for accepting a political endorsement? Should any host of comedians apologize for  their jokes that twitter-happy people deem offensive?  I hope you'll find the answers to these questions to be quite obvious.

The Buttigieg Brand

Given that he was entirely unknown on the national stage before he formally announced his candidacy last April, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s ascension to the top tier of Democratic candidates is perhaps the most unforeseen development of the primary season thus far; yet, it is also perfectly fitting and in many ways even predictable.  Though any prospect of the former South Bend, IN mayor’s electoral victory seems to dim by the day, he appeals to a coalition that appears to be multiplying.  His carefully crafted, silky manner of speaking is alluring, no doubt, but his rhetorical acumen and feel-good pomposity make up the totality of his intrigue.  “He gets the juices […] of idealism flowing through liberal veins,” writes Kyle Smith of National Review.  “He speaks the language that they don’t merely respect, they revere—the language that hushes them up and makes them knit their eyebrows in sympathy.”  Savvy in his speech and unyielding in his sanctimony, Mayor Pete is emblematic of the style-heavy, substance-free progressivism that reigns supreme on much of the left — particularly among the young, upper-middle-class, ‘spiritual-but-not-religious’ types.  Buttigieg’s millennial snootiness and New Agey bombast are indicative of the rise of a shallow intellectual brand that disseminates hot air under the guise of sophistication, wokeness under the guise of moderation, and conceit under the guise of candor.

Buttigieg’s well-established ‘smart guy’ aura is the crux of his popularity.  Look at all the things he’s done!, his supporters say.  He went to Harvard!  He’s a Rhodes Scholar!  He can speak seven languages!  He served in the Navy!  He worked at a consulting firm!  Not unlike President Obama, Mayor Pete depends almost solely on empathy-signaling platitudes that might tug at the heartstrings, but in reality fail to offer or communicate anything other than nice-sounding words and the ever so important impression that he cares.  When asked how he plans to garner support from African American voters during a November 2019 campaign event, for instance, Buttigieg replied: “So, what’s working for us best right now in engaging the black community is two things: first, substance.  And secondly, engagement.”  In other words, the key to “engaging the black community” is, in fact, “engagement.”  Genius!  When asked about specific policy plans, he mostly resorts to restating the question and merely acknowledging the existence of the problem in long-winded, often sermon-like responses that might be soothing and sober in tone, but are banal and bland in essence.

Buttigieg often boasts of his interpersonal “experience on the ground” in South Bend, referring to the Indiana college town as one of the “best-run communities in the heartland.”  What remains strangely unacknowledged by the media, however, is that USA Today ranks South Bend among the worst cities in the United States, and since Buttigieg began his tenure as mayor in 2012, the city has seen its highest rate of violent crime in two decades.  The city’s murder rate is exorbitantly high given its small size.  In his eight-year term as mayor, Buttigieg has gone through three separate police commissioners, two of which have been accused of racism and misconduct.  His attempt to create modular homes for South Bend’s drug addicts and mentally ill – one his most notable acts as mayor – flopped, as the homes lapsed into crime hubs that ultimately forced him to spend over $40,000 to remove six of the seven housing units as a safety precaution.  It’s no wonder the Buttigieg campaign deflects when asked about the mayor’s record of public service, instead turning to his seemingly enchanted ability to instigate change, hope, and unity through the “boldness” of his “ideas.”  But his “boldness” is really his only “idea,” and is apparently all it takes for anyone to be considered a frontrunner for the presidential nomination in today’s Democratic Party.

Mayor Pete’s supposed moderation and capacity to reach across party lines is similarly farcical: the few policies for which he offers anything more than his ‘Let’s rally together behind bold ideas!’ shtick are just as radical as those of his left-most Democratic opponents.  Though Buttigieg rightly recognizes that ‘Medicare for All’ (as proposed by the likes of Senators Sanders and Warren) would remove nearly 200 million Americans from their private health insurance plans, his allegedly more moderate ‘Medicare for all who want it’ proposal would accomplish precisely the same, albeit in a nicer and calmer way, over a span of several years.   Even Buttigieg admits his own plan would provide a “glide path” to what Sanders and Warren seek to implement on a more immediate basis.  Buttigieg’s language on abortion is likewise anything but moderate.  In a January Fox News town hall, he shrugged off a pro-life Democrat who asked him if there was any room for “more moderate language” about abortion in the Party’s official platform — suggesting that his campaign’s “effort to include everyone” really only applies those who are predisposed to radicalism or otherwise susceptible to his superficial charm.

Perhaps most irritating about Buttigieg is his insufferable smugness and condescension.  Following the humiliating result-delaying technical failures of the Iowa caucuses, for instance, he hastily presumed and declared victory when only one percent of voting results had been reported.  Even more telling is his frequent insistence that Republicans use religion as a political “cudgel,” which is ironically representative of the way he has approached matters of faith on the campaign trail.  Despite there being no evidence of any bad blood or hostility between himself and Vice President Mike Pence, with whom he regularly interacted when Pence served as Indiana’s governor, Buttigieg routinely hurls personal attacks at the Vice President for his traditional views on marriage and “fanatical” social beliefs.  By all indications, the Vice President has treated Buttigieg with nothing but courtesy and respect: when Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015, Pence — who is falsely characterized by much of the left as a homophobic extremist — responded, “I hold Mayor Buttigieg in the highest personal regard. I see him as a dedicated public servant and a patriot.”  When Buttigieg was deployed to Afghanistan, the Indianapolis Star reported “a noticeably moved Pence called Buttigieg the day he was driving to the base.” But since announcing his candidacy, instead of reciprocating Pence’s graciousness in spite of their policy differences, Mayor Pete has derided the Vice President as bigoted and intolerant because, well, it fits his party’s narrative.

He similarly disparages Christian supporters of President Trump as purveyors of “unbelievable” “hypocrisy.”  During a July 2019 Democratic debate, he invoked Scripture to condemn “so-called conservative Christian senators” for blocking a bill to raise the federal minimum wage.  Meanwhile, no prominent Republican has ever questioned Buttigieg’s faith (despite his proud advocacy of abortion on-demand) or launched baseless attacks against his personal motives.  Whether he knows it or not, Buttigieg has come to embody the very vindictiveness and holier-than-thou contempt of which he is so eager to accuse, without evidence, his political adversaries.

At this point, of course, Buttigieg’s chances of victory are slim, but his popularity and broad base of support ought not be overlooked.  In reference to his failed plan to build modular homes for the drug addicts and mentally ill of South Bend, a local college student commended Buttigieg, stating he “went into this with the best intentions.”  To his supporters, admirable intentions are all that matter.  The Buttigieg Brand, in short, is a brand of “best intentions.”  It’s a brand of vague promises that elevate soul over substance.  It’s a brand of empty eloquence, of unabashed duplicity, of patronizing self-righteousness. The Buttigieg Brand, in all its contradictions and deficiencies, has a small but all-too reasonable shot of making it to the White House in a few short months.  National Review’s Kyle Smith aptly observes that “The Woke Left draws much media attention these days, but don’t underestimate how much the Best-Intentions Left matters to today’s Democratic party.” We should all be careful to heed his advice.

Roe v. Wade & Its Polarizing Impact

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that recognized abortion as a legal right, marked the beginning of a serious national debate over the legality of abortion in the United States. Fervent movements have emerged as a result of the decision, drawing attention from prevalent political officials as both pro-choice and pro-life advocates have sought to gain support to further their respective causes. The March for Life has, in particular, proved  a telling event, as, just this year President Trump made history as the first incumbent President to speak at the March –– a bold move for any politician, regardless of how strong his or her beliefs are. The polarity that has resulted since Roe is certainly a cause for concern, and efforts for true bipartisan understanding and dialogue on the matter are increasingly imperative.

Friday, January 24th marked the 47th annual March for Life –– an event that has brought people together in efforts to protect the unborn since 1974. The March began in reaction to the threat to life that resulted from the Supreme Court victories of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the latter of which was also decided in 1973 and ruled abortion regulations to be unconstitutional. The March’s website states its mission as promoting “the beauty and dignity of every human life by working to end abortion—uniting, educating, and mobilizing pro-life people in the public square.” As a national call for action, the event gathers tens of thousands who seek to protect the rights of the unborn together to march to the steps of the Supreme Court. 

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in 30 states, permitted only under certain circumstances in 16 states, legal in three, and generally permissible in the state of New York. Roe v. Wade dismissed state laws that prohibited abortion and, instead, insisted that women had the right to an abortion until viability of the fetus––a fairly vague term––under the privacy rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. States that had chosen not to allow abortions were then subjected to new laws that condoned the right to abort. The enactment of Roe in 1973 was largely when national polarization on abortion started to become more apparent: abortion became a hot button issue, which fostered an inevitable pressure on government officials.

Many are labeling President Trump as the most pro-life president in history. This claim, however, might be a bit misleading since there was not necessarily a need for a “pro-life president” before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Nixon was the acting president when the decision was made, but did not appear to make an official statement on the matter; however, his thoughts on abortion rights were discovered via the Nixon tapes, in which he said that he did not fully support abortion rights because the easy access to procedures would enable excessive abortions and could potentially break up families. He did, however, see abortions as necessary to prevent interracial children and permissible in the case of rape.

The debate over abortion progressed quite a bit following Nixon’s presidency, and the issue became much more partisan. Being pro-life has emerged as an overwhelmingly Republican position, as each president that has outrightly criticized Roe v. Wade has leaned conservative. Presidents Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and Trump have all spoken out in opposition to abortion. However, both Trump and H.W. Bush took less aggressive stances prior to their elections, with each supporting abortion rights early on before switching to pro-life platforms. Ford, on the other hand, became pro-choice in his later years. Presidents who supported the Roe decision include Carter, Clinton, and Obama. This politicization has become very prominent, as crossing party lines on abortion issues is a rarity nowadays.

One might wonder whether the stance that each politician takes on the abortion debate is actually true to his or her personal beliefs on the matter. The capricious nature of H.W. Bush and Trump initially favoring abortion does raise some red flags. Although they did go on to champion the pro-life movement, might this just be a result of party loyalty? Even Bill Clinton opposed abortion in the mid-1980s before changing his position prior to the 1992 election. The increasing partisan nature of the issue demands that candidates tread lightly, lest they experience party and voter backlash.

With Vice President Pence being the first sitting VP to attend the March back in 2017, the Trump administration appears to have sided with the pro-life cause more so than any other administration since the enactment of Roe. The following year, President Trump became the first sitting president to speak to the rally via video; though, it should be noted that both Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush did address the marchers via phone call and other means during their presidencies, but not nearly to the same extent that Trump did. The Trump administration continued to tout close ties to the March this year when Trump became the first to actually attend and speak at the event in person. 

However, President Trump appeared to have an unclear grasp on what the pro-life movement stood for when he was running during the 2016 election. At times he called for the punishment of women who have had abortions –– a stance out of touch with the broader pro-life movement, which instead blames the abortion industry and believes the women are vulnerable victims of the procedures. President Trump has, however, gained an understanding that is more in-tune with the pro-life community since then, and has since presented himself as the most outwardly pro-life president the country has had, evidenced by his passionate speech at the March.

In his speech, the President notably spoke about how he has fought for the protection of life during his time in office. He reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, like George W. Bush did during his presidency, which prevents non-governmental groups from using federal funds to promote abortions in other countries. The policy itself was first instituted by Reagan in 1984. Trump also boasted confirming 187, constitutionally abiding federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. While Gorsuch is perceived as a staunch pro-life ally, Kavanaugh seems less committed to the cause, due in large part to a conversation he had with Senator Susan Collins––a pro-choice Republican––in which he said that Roe v. Wade is “settled law.” He holds this position due to his commitment to preserving precedents set by previous Court decisions. President Trump’s presence at the March was certainly a milestone, but it was only one step in the right direction for the fight for life. The March's audience was those who already support a child's right to life, and if anything President Trump's presence just provided more hope for the eventual end to abortion. Continued political action is necessary in order for the March to someday become a celebration of the guaranteed protection of life, rather than a fight for it.

Nevertheless, Trump has undoubtedly proven himself to be a pro-life advocate, and has succeeded in bringing a great amount of attention to a major political movement that had previously received only minimal consideration on a national level. Despite the seemingly deep partisanship that has stemmed from the Roe v. Wade decision, figures like Louisiana Democratic State Senator Katrina Jackson still emerge as strong advocates for the pro-life movement. She does not believe that Trump’s appearance makes him the best representative of the movement; rather, she hopes that he was able to set a precedent for future presidents to speak about the issue. She also cautions against his attendance making the March seem like a partisan event, going as far as to say she believes a majority of her fellow Louisiana Democrats are pro-life. Her claim is supported by her proposed No Right to Abortion constitutional amendment, which resulted in close votes among Democrats in both the Louisiana State House and Senate (with the former voting against the amendment, and the latter voting in support of it).

The pro-life movement should transcend political movements. The protection of life and the end to abortion is surely something that calls for political action, but not simply on one side of the political spectrum. Life should be fought for and cherished with bipartisan support, and party lines should not prevent anyone from supporting the cause. Perhaps this is a good start to the disregard of presupposed party loyalties in the fight for life. Politicians must act in accordance with their own beliefs and consciences when it comes to issues as vital as the lives of the unborn instead of solely acting as representatives for their chosen political parties: instead, they must act as defenders of humanity. President Trump calling executive attention to the March was a great start, which hopefully builds momentum for the movement in the years to come.

Soleimani and the Terrorist Regime in Tehran

The threat of Iran is not new, and it was not new a decade, or even two decades ago. Since the radical Islamic theocracy took over Iran from the Shah in 1979, Iran rarely deviated from its terroristic behavior. Ceaselessly attempting to spread terror and revolution across the Middle East, Iran and its terrorist proxies have been waging a bloody war against the civilized world for decades. On January 3, 2020, the United States took out General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps subsidiary Quds Force, and the second-most powerful man in the country. Soleimani was a terrorist —one with thousands of innocent lives to his name, including hundreds of Americans. The vast swath of negative reactions to this justified strike rejects the reality of decades of Iranian provocation and outright violence. There is no question that Soleimani, and Iran generally, posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies, regardless of whether or not that involved a future strike on a U.S. Embassy compound. From its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made clear its desire for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, and its actions have fit such a goal. In the face of consistent provocation, it was high time that the United States reassert its message of strong and resolute deterrence. American policy towards Iran must fit the world as it is, not the world as politicians want it to be. 

It is impossible to give justice to the entirety of Iran’s provocations in an article of this length, but it can be summed up best in an analysis of Iran’s relations with known and accepted terrorist organizations. Beyond the more concrete goals, Iran’s relationships with terrorist groups allow it to spread its tentacles across the Middle East, and exercise undue power in the area. As far back as 1996, Iran’s state-sponsored terror was widely recognized, with President Clinton saying, "Terrorism has many faces, to be sure... but Iran and Libya are two of the most dangerous supporters of terrorism in the world.” To this day, Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world.

In the 1980s, Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist group now based in Lebanon, was founded by around 500 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at the behest of the Iranian government. With its roots based in the IRGC, it should come as no surprise that the relationship remains tight. Hezbollah’s most prominent goal is the destruction of the state of Israel; a goal which Tehran wholeheartedly supports. Hossein Salami, then-Deputy Commander of the IRGC, left little room for speculation:

“In Lebanon alone, over 100,000 missiles are ready to be launched… and strike at the heart of the Zionist regime [Israel]... they are just waiting for the command so that when the trigger is pulled the accursed black dot [Israel] will be wiped off the map.”

Iran is responsible for the vast majority of Hezbollah’s multi-hundred million dollar budget, and provides vast quantities of weaponry to the organization. It is not just small arms– Iran has provided Hezbollah with significant firepower, ranging from drones and anti-ship missiles to anti-air systems. Hassan Nasrallah, currently the Secretary General of Hezbollah, openly admits Iran’s support.

Hezbollah is internationally recognized as a leading terrorist organization, and Tehran is wholly complicit in its bloody reign of terror in the Middle East and beyond. 

Iran’s relationship with Hamas is more complex, but not less significant. A Sunni terrorist group, one would assume that Iran, a Shiite state, would have no interest in supporting it. Yet it does. The Iran-Hamas relationship lays bare Tehran’s priorities: the destruction of Israel, and the extermination of its Jewish population, supersede internal sectarian divides.

From 1990 to 2000, Iran provided Hamas with funds totaling around $20 to $50 million annually. In 2006, Iran provided Hamas with $250 million in funding, partly in support of the group’s activities in the 2006 Gaza War, which beyond funding included weaponry. The aid reached an astounding $23 million per month in 2012 despite a flagging domestic economy, further underscoring Tehran’s priorities.

In keeping with Iran’s support for terrorist groups, the country also props up the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another organization geared towards the dissolution of Israel through violent means. Like with Hezbollah, Iran’s relationship with the PIJ began in the 1980s as Tehran stepped up its efforts to destroy the Jewish state. A Sunni extremist group like Hamas, the PIJ is also an unusual, but revealing, partner for Iran. With varying funding levels over the decades, Iran provided the PIJ with around $70 million in 2016. In 2017-2018, Iran increased its support of both Hamas and the PIJ by around $100 million total.

Iran has also worked with terrorist entities that bear more direct relevance to the United States. Tehran, more specifically the IRGC’s Quds Force, has since at least 2010 been materially supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan with both weapons and training. While the support was limited, it was not irrelevant. Iran also placed a bounty of $1,000 for every American killed in Afghanistan and $6000 for every U.S. vehicle eliminated. More troubling, however, is Iran’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. The extent of the support is not entirely clear, but Iran is known to have provided safe passage for Al-Qaeda terrorists before and after the 9/11 attacks. Some of those allowed to pass through Iran before 9/11 later participated in the attack itself. Negotiations between Tehran and Al-Qaeda also involved discussions over potential funding and arms transfers to the terrorist organization.

It is only in the context of Iran’s substantial record of state-sponsored terror that Soleimani’s killing can be more closely analyzed and justified. Qassem Soleimani built up a presence and power of huge proportions, and by the mid-2000s was effectively involved in every major extra-territorial Iranian activity.

Soleimani became a commander in the Quds Force, a subsidiary expeditionary branch of the IRGC, in 1998. Since then, he has worked tirelessly to expand Iran’s malign influence, with little care for the methods used. His hands were first stained with American blood in 2004 in Iraq: the IRGC Quds Force provided resistance and terrorist fighters with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) for use against American forces which were responsible for around 600 American deaths, and thousands of others maimed.

Soleimani’s Quds Force has managed to become involved in nearly every Middle Eastern hotspot. In the Syrian Civil War, Soleimani was instrumental in keeping Bashar Al-Assad’s murderous regime in power. Without Iranian support, led by Soleimani, it is highly likely Assad would have fallen to the rebels like most of the other governments impacted by the Arab Spring. In the Yemeni Civil War, which began in 2015, the Quds Force has been the principal benefactor of the Houthi rebels. The Houthis, at the behest of Soleimani, were provided with vast quantities of both small and more advanced arms, which have contributed greatly to the tens of thousands of deaths and humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

More recently, and most relevant to the strike that killed Soleimani, is his direct activity against the West. By June 2019, Iran, without reason or pretext, attacked no less than six oil tankers in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The tankers were of numerous different countries, and the attacks were a blatant assault on innocent actors. Also in June 2019, Iran shot down an American RQ-4A reconnaissance drone in international airspace over the Persian Gulf, again without reason or pretext. The provocations continued in September 2019, when Iran was responsible for a major attack on Saudi oil production by 10 drones. The attack forced Saudi Arabia to shut down half of its production capacity, and cut worldwide production by 5%. Again, Iran was taking provocative and violent action without any serious pretext.

In late December 2019, Iranian proxies killed an American contractor and wounded four American troops in a rocket attack on a U.S. base. Shortly thereafter, Iranian-backed militant groups attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This was all occurring in the context of domestic protests in Iran, which were brutally put down with the help of Soleimani’s IRGC, with at least 450 killed, and estimates running over 1000. All of these provocations could not have occurred without the express blessing of Soleimani. He was in near complete control of Iran’s external military activities, and no major action happened absent his consent. 

It is in this context that Soleimani was killed, and rightfully so. The U.S. had not responded to any of these provocations in any meaningful way, and the rising frequency and seriousness of Iran’s actions indicate what happens when deterrence is nonexistent. Absent decisive U.S. action, there is no reason to expect that Iran’s terrorist activities would have lessened; in fact quite the contrary. When a country lacks deterrence and fails to enforce proper boundaries, its enemies will always push the limits. Iran, with a robust terrorist past and a desire to harm both the U.S. and Israel, was bound to continue to provoke.

As a country with diminishing international partners, a poor economy, and a restless populace, the regime in Tehran turned, as it always has, to terrorism and violence. It is likely that their hope was to try to force concessions from the world’s powers in return for a reprieve from international isolation, particularly from the spineless Europeans, who still cling to the hapless and neutered JCPOA. The U.S. had to reset its standard of deterrence to stop this escalating violence from the Islamic Republic. While it is likely that the short-term violence from Iran will increase from a retaliatory standpoint, the long-term credibility of U.S. deterrence has been re-established. The message to Iran is clear: attack American interests, murder American citizens, and attempt to spread your malignant power, and severe consequences will follow. Tehran would do well to heed the warning.

The Internet's Obsession: Andrew Yang's UBI

It is a common talking point of those on the right to accuse those on the left of advocating for giving away free stuff or services in exchange for votes. This can be seen with much of the Democratic Party calling for free healthcare or free college. One Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, who remains low in the polls, takes this idea of free stuff a step further and offers a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which he has ever-so-patriotically named the “Freedom Dividend.” There are a number of problems I see with UBI that I would like to express here. 

Firstly, I see the need to clarify what a Universal Basic Income actually is. UBI is a system, usually replacing existing welfare but not always, that gives a periodic payment to all citizens without exception for wealth status. This means that whether you are unemployed, making $100,000 a year, or a billionaire, you will always receive a set amount of money usually on a monthly basis. Andrew Yang’s UBI takes the form of the Freedom Dividend, which aims to give $1,000 a month, totaling $12,000 a year, to every American citizen over the age of 18.

One of the biggest problems for a national UBI in the United States is on the grounds of implementation: the United States is very large and diverse and the cost of living varies wildly, with $1,000 in my home state of Alabama having a much different purchasing power than the same amount of money in New York, but under Yang’s program, an individual in either place would receive the same amount of monthly income from the UBI. The only way around this in the U.S. would be to implement UBI policies on the state level, but that would require an initiative by each state to implement, which is highly unlikely and impractical.

Another problem is that the UBI might not even be enough to serve its desired purpose as a safety net. If one of the goals of the UBI is to create a job market where people have the freedom to leave or lose their jobs without the fear of becoming homeless, $1,000 in some places might not be enough. If someone has no savings and no means of getting more money and no longer has a job, $1,000 in the big cities where many people live is most likely less than what they were living on before, thereby creating a situation where someone may not be able to afford the housing they are in, which still pressures them to keep maintain their current job.

This all comes with the looming problem of the inevitable inflation that would come from Yang’s method of payment for this program. Yang would tax businesses to pay for his UBI, which will inevitably raise prices and cause inflation. On his campaign website, though, he claims that consumers are “price sensitive” and that those producers will simply find more efficient ways to produce goods. Yang’s UBI will not have any effect on the rate of efficiency that companies operate at, and if companies are faced with an increased cost of production and are presented with a set of consumers who now have more disposable income, they will most certainly raise their prices. The cost of taxes put on businesses are always passed down to the consumer.

The biggest problem that comes with Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend is not the UBI itself, but rather his method of payment for such a costly program. According to what appears to be Yang’s conservative estimate, giving each American over the age of 18 $1,000 a month would cost about $2.8 trillion. To pay for this, he proposes a European-style value-added tax, coupled with an assumption that because of each person receiving an additional $1,000 a month, certain metrics that cost the American government will go down.

Yang claims on his campaign website that, miraculously, people will “Be better able to take care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional,” all by simply giving them $1,000 a month. This may be true on some level, but just like how giving food aid to Somalia rather than giving Somalians the means to make their own food puts a bandaid on the issue of starvation, the UBI simply provides Americans with a fixed income rather than giving them the means to provide for themselves.

The two final ways Yang claims to pay for his program are by the miraculous creation of new revenue from his UBI and the implementation of additional taxes. Though his UBI would create more revenue, this is only because of the major inflation that his program would cause, which would make this same money worth less. Additionally, he proposes even more taxes such as a carbon tax along with stricter taxing of capital gains, both of which would be hindrances on business and raise prices.

In order to cut spending, Yang makes his UBI and other forms of welfare such as food stamps mutually exclusive, meaning that if you choose to take part in the famously effective program of food stamps, you won’t get your $1,000. There is a reason why the U.S. government chooses to give people stamps tradable for food, and that is because it is effective in helping those who have trouble with money management and impulse control on purchases. If everyone was a savvy consumer, we would not need food stamps as we could just give money directly to the individuals. Disability payments are also on this mutually exclusive list. We shouldn’t have to pose an ultimatum to the American people between receiving a check from the government every month for $1,000, or maintaining their disability payments.

UBI’s main drawing point is that it is a simplification of the welfare system, which might sound appealing at face value to conservatives, but Yang does not jump on this idea and instead adds more complications to an already overly complicated American tax and welfare system. His solution is to put more taxes along the production chain, which inevitably get passed on to the consumer, who he then gives $1,000 back to, thus creating an overcomplicated system that doesn’t do anything better or more efficiently than our current system.

What Yang fails to understand is that although people will have more money to spend, their money will have less purchasing power as the cost of goods will increase with the cost of production. The biggest problem is not the UBI, but the tax that comes along with it. The fact of the matter is that there is no good way to currently pay for such a program that would not ultimately fall back on the consumer and create a cycle of inflation. The threat of automation taking jobs from low-skilled workers - of which Yang is afraid - does have merit, but in a free market economy such as the United States, the economics for a UBI simply do not work out.

A Reflection on FOCUS in Phoenix and Beyond…

From December 29, 2019 to January 3, 2020, approximately 8,500 Catholics hailing from over 300 campuses located in the United States attended the Fellowship of Catholic University Student’s (FOCUS) Student Leadership Summit (SLS) in Arizona to usher in the new year. Some fellow College of the Holy Cross students, Father Gavin, S.J., and I went to the five-day conference, which was held in the heart of downtown Phoenix at the city’s convention center complex.

SLS inspired me. FOCUS’s aim for the event was to instill in Catholic youth an understanding of Christ’s friendship, which He extends to all His sons and daughters. To experience and take delight in such a grace is meant for you, me, a person from another continent, and the neighbor next door to participate in. Through ongoing conversion and discipleship, no one is left out from God’s salvation. Fortunately, we are presented with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments and the people of faith in our lives. A spirit of charity and building community—imperatives to witnessing to the Gospels—follows from a recognition of the irrevocable dignity of each human being. Such a realization begins with fostering a relationship with Jesus, who continually extends a Love that pierces the shadows of human failure, brokenness, and despair. We cannot face adversity alone. According to a famous old poem, no man is an island.

Bolstered by over 300 priests, countless brothers and sisters dedicated to the religious life, 16 bishops, the archbishop of Philadelphia, the Apostolic Nuncio (a.k.a. ambassador) to the United States from the Vatican, and an important Cardinal from Germany, SLS provided a faith-filled experience centered around the sacraments and the rich tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, surrounded by thousands of young college students like myself striving to embrace a life with Christ by sharing the Good News and—by letting God work through them—forming friendships and community, I found my time in the American southwest spiritually and socially invigorating.

Daily keynote speakers included Father Mike Schmitz of the popular Ascension Presents YouTube channel, evangelist blogger Emily Wilson, and the wonderful Sister Bethany Madonna of the Sisters of Life, among others.  Their energy and zeal provided a glimpse of the many gifts of the Holy Spirit that provide a person with one of the three greatest virtues: hope.

Without hope, one cannot persevere through the challenges that life presents. Inspirited and healed through the Mass, Reconciliation, and Eucharistic Adoration, a person can realize a spiritual harmony in life through the music of faith, which quietly comforts and enlivens the soul. Cardinal Mueller, the German cardinal, made this insightful and beautiful analogy in his homily on the third day of the conference. Matt Maher also summed up this message succinctly, which I hope I have recalled accurately: "Without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, life simply does not make sense.”

In the past few weeks, which have entailed the heartrending loss of beloved members from our own families, colleges, sports teams, and country, this message comes to my mind in relation to literature. The pathos-ridden, 800-page novel, The Cypresses Believe in God: Spain on the Eve of Civil War by Jose Maria Gironella, provides an account of a Spanish family in the city of Gerona before a conflict full of horrors broke out in the Spanish Republic in the mid-1930s. One of the characters, Matias Alvear, had married Carmen Elgazu. Beforehand, Matias was not religious but upon being wedded to the deeply religious Carmen he became Catholic. His motivation followed from his realization that he could not imagine a world where the love, spirit, and radiance of his wife, body and soul, could not survive eternally. 

Life is indeed full of wonderful people and surroundings. Thus, the ancient idea—based upon the rejection of the conception of there being a loving designer of the world—that everything passes into non-being disturbs me. Consequently, I believe that life does have a deeper purpose and an end beyond death. The greatest hope, which is also the greatest strength, derives from the truth that we are placed on Earth by a Love that knows no bounds. This is revealed through the everyday miracles of life, a natural order that people can learn from which hints at a Reason behind it, and the almost supernatural demonstrations of selfless love and immense thanksgiving that I encounter. The liturgical life of the Church especially reveals these truths through its journey exploring the relationship of God and His people. Despite the vagaries and trials of life that are found in the bearing of the cross, I pray that I might remain confident in the bountiful promises of the resurrected Christ.