Barack Obama The Most Pro Abortion Candidate Ever

Yesterday, in the Townhall.com forum, columnist Terence Jeffrey defended his statement that “Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.”

Jeffrey stated in his article,

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

I’ve posted a few entries dealing with U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and his record on abortion, one this week, one this past June and one in July.

Earlier this week I received a comment from one reader who took exception to my position that Obama ought to be disqualified on the basis of his pro-child-killing stand. Here is the reader’s comment in full, followed by the response I offered him:

Patrick Furlong said...

On the looks of things, you and I would fall on opposite ends of the spectrum of Christian faith. One reason I love and support my faith is because of the variations amongst it's followers- like you and I.

I found a quote by a Catholic hero of mine, regarding the very issue of voting and abortion, and I thought it would be relevant to share with you...

Cardinal Joseph Bernadine of Chicago, an opponent of abortion, cautioned Catholics against turning abortion into a single voting issue: "Our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. "Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. ... Consistency means we can't have it both ways."

And so, in the spirit of that urging by Cardinal Bernadine, I support Barack Obama with the belief that the value and dignity of human life DOES NOT END at conception, and I believe when I look at the issues holistically, Barack Obama is the best man for the job.

And so, in regards to health care, the issues in war torn areas like the Middle East, the Congo, and Sudan, as well as a host of other issues like gun control, taxes, social security, the environment, civil rights and immigration, Barack Obama is the man that is most in line with my ideals, with my morality.

I hope that helps you understand why I support the man. I assume we will disagree still, but for me, I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue...

"It's not about taking the right stand on issues. It's about choosing to stand in the right place. With those on the margins, those whose dignity has been denied. To choose to stand with the poor and the powerless and the voiceless. To choose to stand with the easily despised and the readily left out. To choose to stand with those whose burdens are more than they can bear. To stand with the demonized so that the demonizing will stop. And so you stand against forgetting as you leave this place, that we belong to each other." Father Greg Boyle, S.J.

http://pjfurlong.blogspot.com

ELA said...

Patrick,

You said, “I just can't vote or not vote for a candidate on one single issue.”

What if the candidate was a racist, e.g. a card carrying member of the KKK? What if the candidate was a Jew-hater and a holocaust denier? What if the candidate was sympathetic to terrorism in order to achieve political ends?

Would any of these “issues” by themselves be sufficient for you to dismiss the candidate?

I hope you get the point. Without a doubt, for every voter, there are many “single issues” which would disqualify candidates. It’s simply a matter of starting to identify them and see where the “issue” of abortion might rank in that list of evils.

As we make clear in our voter’s guide:

*****

Imagine a politician saying, “I support terrorism.” And then a voter saying,” I disagree with you on terrorism, but what's your health care plan?” You'd think they were both mad! You wouldn't think twice about rejecting a candidate who supported terrorism. His stance, permitting the public to be killed, is dangerous to society and contrary to every principle of public service.

Consider abortion in the same light. Abortion is no less violent than terrorism and produces the same result-dead and bloodied human beings, most often in pieces.

*****

Regarding Cardinal Joseph Bernadine, his “consistent ethic of life” was dangerously flawed as evidenced clearly by the manner in which pro-abortion politicians interpreted his argument and used it to maintain the status quo on child killing. You might want to refer to this article.

Patrick, think about it. You’ve used the Cardinal’s point of view to nullify, for all practical purposes, your opposition in the public square to the killing of unborn children. This flies in the face of official Catholic teaching and the specific teachings of our last two Popes. Take some time to read and reflect on John Paul II’s "Evangelium Vitae," the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" as well as Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion."

Finally, if we consider the unborn to be the poorest of all human beings, a case which can easily be made, I believe your quote by Father Greg Boyle is an earnest plea to stand with the Unborn, unalterably opposed to their legalized murder and to all those who wish to maintain our evil status quo.

Links to news stories about Obama which have recently appeared on the Vote Life, Canada! blog:

Obama's Pastor: "True Gospel" only for poor and black!Town Hall - Washington, DC—If Dr. Jeremiah Wright is the spiritual mentor that guides Barack Obama then it becomes easier to understand how and why Obama himself may not have that Biblical of a grasp in terms of understanding the gospel.

La Shawn Barber asks a question of Barack Obama
Question for Obama: What faith is this?
For instance, Obama voted against a ban on infanticide while a senator in Illinois. A partial birth abortion, as child murder is euphemistically called, is when a “doctor” grabs the unborn baby’s body and pulls him down the birth canal.

The Audacity of Nuance
The Washington Times
…Barack Obama won a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year. "The issue of abortion, I don't think has gone away….I don't think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I've arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination.”

Barack Obama Promotes Abortion, Slams Abstinence in Iowa Speech
Des Moines, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Campaigning in Iowa over the weekend, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama attempted to moderate his views on abortion and abstinence education. However, he made it clear he has no interest in limiting or reducing abortions and his pro-abstinence stance is tempered by his backing of sexual education.

Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
More on yesterday’s reported news that Obama backs Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora
Sen. Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to weigh in on the battle over a Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora. Not surprisingly, the abortion rights supporter from Illinois said he would like to see the clinic open soon.

CUPE and International Day for the Eradication of Poverty Must First Target Poverty of the Unborn

Yesterday, about 2,000 union members and supporters rallied in downtown Toronto against the “scourge of poverty,” and called poverty a “national disgrace.”

The rally, one of many around the globe, was in support of International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which has more than 500,000 members indicated poverty was a moral issue when he was quoted as saying:

Canada cannot claim to provide moral leadership to the world without putting its money where its mouth is.

It’s very normal—and right—to view poverty as a moral issue. Of course poverty can also be considered an issue of justice. Poverty in Canada is truly a “national disgrace,” as the protestors claimed.

But let’s be very clear about what we are talking about when we refer to poverty. As I said in a previous posting entitled “Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty,”

Considering the fact that poverty, in the narrow sense of proper food and clothing, is deemed an injustice, then the denial of that individual’s very right to live would constitute the greatest poverty and an infinitely greater injustice.

Again, in the narrow, “politically correct” sense of poverty, we see that it is only one of many kinds of injustices against children. Child abuse is another. As a society we are enraged at the thought of children being abused in any manner by adults. But which is the worse injustice: “pc poverty” or child abuse? The answer is obvious. Taken a step further, it should be equally clear that killing a child is a worse injustice than abusing a child.

If one protests about “pc poverty,” maintaining that a child cannot be denied proper food, clothing, housing, etc. [as these thousands of protestors seem to be doing] but says nothing when the same child’s very right to live is denied [make no mistake about it, most of these protestors were not participants in the March for Life], how seriously must we take them? If we are to be truly concerned about poverty we will not conveniently close our eyes to the far greater injustice of killing children. This parable strikes a blow to such hypocrisy.

Of course, some will protest that “abortion is about a woman’s right to choose,” and not about killing children. It’s not about poverty at all, they will say. But merely stating such slogans do not make them true. The one question that must be asked by all Canadians considering the larger picture of poverty is this one: What is the Unborn?

Let’s rightly answer that question first and set ourselves upon the truly high moral ground. Then and only then can we consider ourselves in any important sense to be a “moral beacon” to the world.

And by the way, since Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) was such a high profile presence in this march against poverty, it would be good to see what CUPE’s position is on legalized child-killing.

Obviously CUPE, like too many other groups, including religious ones, is concerned about the “politically correct” and very narrow version of poverty. Someone needs to help them get their eyes opened.

Barry Manilow Won’t Compromise His Choice Beliefs

Who woulda guessed that “tolerant” advocates of a woman’s “right to choose” would be so outraged and intolerant of this woman’s right to choose…….to be a pro-lifer?

It’s all kinda confusing…except of course to “pro-choicers.”

RSAC to NL: Concerns For Unborn Unwarranted And Irrelevant

Imagine if the Vote Life, Canada! press release had centred on the charge that religious leaders had refused to condemn child abuse that was taking place in the province, yet now were pressing for poor children to receive three square meals per day. What might we expect as a result of such charges of double standards and hypocrisy?

A good guess would be to expect religious leaders to immediately deny the charge and cite their unequivocal opposition to child abuse. Some would certainly refer to past statements and initiatives already on the record in order to deflect such criticism. And, granted, this would be the proper response.

But in respect to the recent charges by Vote Life, Canada! that the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC) was risking charges of blindness and hypocrisy by pressing for the abolition of poverty without first being on record as opposing legalized child killing, no such response was forthcoming.

So what was the message communicated to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by the RSAC in this situation?

A fair guess would be that, in light of the actions taken against Eric Alcock by the RSAC, they found the charges to be not only without credibility and unworthy of comment, but also they judged that Mr. Alcock’s presence at the press conference posed a real threat of some kind. If indeed his charges were without warrant and unworthy even of rebuttal, then Mr. Alcock must be an unbalanced individual requiring police presence to ensure the public peace.

I ask again—what then was the message communicated to NL by the RSAC in this situation?

Obviously, with respect to Vote Life, Canada's message, clearly it was that Vote Life, Canada! had no message worth mentioning.

So to spell this out even more clearly, the RSAC was saying that a concern about legalized child killing in our province is a message not worth mentioning, let alone discussing.

Thank you, RSAC, for qualifying the matter as you did.

It’s really a challenge to imagine that religious leaders who have risen in their ranks have not heard or thought about legalized child killing going on in their very midst. We may safely assume that they have done so. Yet it’s obvious—by the previous logic—that they have no concerns about this NL reality.

Looking further into their logic, they are saying it’s ok to be concerned about a child’s needs for food, clothing, etc. and, at the same time, it’s ok to be selective in which children are entitled to these rights.

Since such attitudes result in the deaths of the most innocent of NL’s citizens, they are saying something much more substantial—something insidiously evil—when they communicate their message. Doesn’t this constitute the worst kind of double standards imaginable?

[Assuming, of course, the most important question has been answered and the Unborn are considered to be fellow human beings.]

On Wednesday, September 5, the first day of school in St. John’s, the police were called to a local school for acts of violence by youths against one another.

I found it ironic that the police were called to an incident of violence on the first day of school while I sat in the paddy wagon, being confined there for seeking to highlight the greatest violence taking place in our society against children. I heard the call come in over the police officer’s radio while he stood guard outside the door of my detainment cage on wheels.

Afterwards I posed a question to the constable. “Do you know why kids resort to violence in their dealings with one another?” He said, “Tell me.”

I explained that it was because of poverty—the poverty of the Unborn—the very reason I came today to the Conference and the police had me removed. I explained that we teach mothers that it’s ok for them to use violence to kill their children in the womb when it suits their purposes but then we wonder why kids are so violent and cruel to one another. Our children are simply acting out what they have learned from their parents.

The officer said, “I don’t see any connection there at all.”

No, and most likely he won’t either, as long as religious hypocrites keep control of the message. As long as the truth is not spoken by Christians (who know the Truth) or by other leaders entrusted with the common good of society it will never reach to the common Joe or to the common constable.

Keeping Canada’s Christian leaders accountable is a necessity and Vote Life, Canada! will be doing its part to sound out warnings.

Accusations of being uncharitable have already been leveled. In my interview with Randy Simms on VOCM radio, he seemed to be calling for a more polite approach. Did Randy forget that I never got to say one single word at the RSAC press Conference?

Think about that for a moment. I guess Randy thinks a person can be impolite for just showing up and wanting to express a viewpoint. And no doubt about it, the thought police were there to lock up that idea (and me along with it).

Others have condemned me for laying charges of hypocrisy in the first place. Apparently we have become so polite in Canada that we should never use the word “hypocrite.” It’s almost as though no hypocrites could possibly exist in Canada.

hyp·o·crite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Religious Hypocrisy In The Province Of Newfoundland And Labrador

[UPDATED with latest postings.]

As a result of the events of Wednesday, September 5, 2007, a number of postings have served as commentary on the shameful incident.

If nothing else, these postings paint a picture of the hypocritical actions of the Religious Social Action Coalition and the cheap tactics to which they resorted to keep from being exposed.

Religious hypocrisy is the chief cause behind the slaughter of innocent unborn children as well as the spiritual blindness of a nation.

For ease of review, the postings can be found in the following chronological order:

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Warns St. John's Religious Social Action Coalition Of Blindness & Hypocrisy

Arrested By Police For The First Time For Representing The Unborn

VOCM Radio Interviews Eric Alcock On His Arrest By Police Yesterday For Defending The Unborn

Vote Life, Canada! Video Of News Surrounding Arrest Of Eric Alcock

Parable of Poverty, Dead Children And A Religious Coalition

“Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Accuses NL Media of Cover-Up And Same Double Standards as Religious Social Action Coalition

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Duped by Religious Leaders into Violating the Rule of Impartiality

Good Pro-Life Strategy: Always Take A Friend And A Camera

RSAC to NL: Concerns For Unborn Unwarranted and Irrelevant

Press Release: Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! Pursuing Human Rights Complaint against RSAC and Local Police

Religious Wolves And Hypocrites Gather To Offer Prayers In Support Of Child Sacrifice

City's High Priests Gather at Temple to Support Child Sacrifice, Offer Prayers to Molech

Religious "leaders" who support abortion gathered Wednesday to call for a day of prayer this Sunday in support of Planned Parenthood's soon-to-open Aurora clinic. The "leaders" -- from throughout the Chicago area -- met at the Chicago Temple downtown (First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple), saying they wanted to reclaim the moral mantle from the anti-abortion activists who have been vocally opposing the clinic.

The nine clergy at the Chicago Temple said ensuring women's access to abortions is a matter of social justice and consistent with the lessons of their faiths.

"To deny women access to, and choices about, abortion, to contraceptives, to sexuality education, is essentially to deny them their moral standing," said the Rev. Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.
E-Mail Rev. Larry Greenfield: larry@abcmc.org

"The religious right believes that they have heard the voice of God, and they try to impose their hearing of it on the rest of us by law," said the Rev. Ana Levy-Lyons of Oak Park's Unity Temple (Unity Temple Unitarian Universalist Congregation). "But there are many women of faith who have heard a different voice of God when they've prayed."

[Source]

ABC7 has video

[image source]

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Duped by Religious Leaders into Violating the Rule of Impartiality

UPDATE: Please see update at end of posting.

Or this might also be appropriately entitled: "Dialogue between the RNC and a St. John’s Religious Leader"

Last Wednesday, September 5, 2007, something shameful went down in Newfoundland history in the city of St. John’s, and shockingly, but very sadly, it took place at a meeting of the province’s top religious leaders.

Furthermore, officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) not only permitted it to happen but they also facilitated the outrageous incident where a loyal son of Newfoundland was stripped of his fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech.

In addition, as a result of the RNC’s cooperation and complicity in the affair, at the end of the day this man’s character was impugned and on provincial, if not national, television news he was filmed and falsely portrayed as an unruly protestor, some extremist who had disrupted the Press Conference of a wonderful new coalition of religious leaders.

To date, no correction, retraction or apology has yet been issued by any of the parties involved in this egregious violation of the person of Eric Alcock.

The following scenario is one that might have been constructed by any Newfoundlander who expected the RNC, of all parties, to be able to assist and defend in a situation where fundamental rights and privileges of his/her person were being threatened, and where unjust discrimination and accusation had been laid.

1. Religious Leader (RL): Officer, we called you here to have this man removed.

2. RNC: Very well sir, what has this man done?

3. RL: Well, he has come here to disrupt this meeting and he is not welcome.

4. RNC: He looks peaceful enough to me.

(turning to guest) Is this true sir? Have you come here to disrupt?

5. GUEST: No Officer I have not.

6. RNC: (to guest) What are your intentions in being here sir?

7. GUEST: I came here Officer hoping to express a viewpoint should the opportunity present itself. I have no intention of disrupting this meeting.

8. RNC: (to RL) Sir, this man says he has no intention of disrupting this meeting. Has he actually done anything disruptive?

9. RL: Well, no, but he just got here a minute ago. I’ve been welcoming him (and holding him) by shaking his hand, until my associate just headed into the hall to immediately fetch you two officers.

10. RNC: So he hasn’t done anything disruptive to this point?

11. RL: No, but we just don’t want him here in case he does.

12. RNC: But Sir, you must realize, this is a public press conference and all interested parties have been invited.

13. GUEST interrupts: Yes, Officer, and the reason I learned about the Conference was I received a forwarded email from Coalition members to all those interested in the issue of poverty and encouraging them to be in attendance.

14. RL: Well, we insist Officer that he must leave immediately or that you remove him because he is a threat to our meeting.

15. RNC: Sir, has this man threatened you or others in any manner?

16. RL: No.

17. RNC: Has he made any threatening gestures?

18. RL: No.

19. RNC: Do you suspect that he has a weapon of some sort that he intends to use here?

20. RL: No Sir but he did say some very mean, bad things about us yesterday in a press release.

21. RNC: I’m sorry Sir, there’s no law against expressing a viewpoint. I ask you again, what has this man done to warrant his removal?

22. RL: Very well then, we would just like to disinvite him, to rescind his invitation. We don’t like him.

23. RNC: I’m afraid Sir there hardly seems sufficient cause to remove a law abiding citizen from a public event to which he appears to have been invited just because you don’t like him. Furthermore there is no evidence whatever of disturbance or threats.

24. RL: We just don’t want this man expressing his opinion and bringing chaos to our meeting.

25. RNC: Sir, as I said before, there’s no law against expressing viewpoint. I’m sure others present here today are likely to be doing the same. And besides, please explain how your meeting will be thrown into chaos simply by allowing this man to express his opinion. Will others present start throwing chairs around?

26. RL: Of course not! But it will detract from our good initiative and usurp our very pleasant message to Newfoundlanders.

27. RNC: Perhaps Sir, if you wanted to ensure that everyone present was going to say only good things about your initiative, you should have sent out private invitations and given passwords for the door.

28. RL: But I protest Officer! I had you people called in and waiting so that you could immediately remove this man once we had identified him.

29. RNC: Sir, you are beginning to sound very extreme. We understood there might be some threat posed by this man’s presence at this event. It appears that is not the case and I urge you to remember that this man has certain rights and freedoms which we must also respect and protect. We will monitor this man’s activities throughout this conference and act accordingly. In the meanwhile, please release this man’s hand.

Imaginary? Yes. Sadly so, and perhaps too much to ask for in the times in which we live.

When the same thing happens to YOU and you recall that you were one of the people who failed to speak out regarding this incident, you’ll be feeling a whole lot worse sitting in the paddy wagon than even Mr. Alcock did.

Now remove #’s 4 through 29 and replace it with the following and you have a summary of how the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary failed miserably in its duties to ensure justice on the most fundamental level at the Press Conference called by the Religious Social Action Coalition on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11AM in St. John’s NL at The Lantern.

4. RNC: Sir, you are no longer welcome here. If you do not immediately leave, we will forcibly remove you.

And indeed, they did just that.

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the real violation here was not being discourteously thrown off private property, as rude and hypocritical as that was, but detention without accusation.

Apparently my detention for one hour in a police cage on site, without reading of my rights or being accused of an offense, was the real violation.

Vote Life, Canada! Video Of News Surrounding Arrest Of Eric Alcock

The shocking details of the "set-up" to arrest Eric Alcock by leaders of the Religious Social Action Coalition in St. John's, NL.

Control Freaks, Religious Hypocrites And Other Such Cowards

More posting is due later today on my “arrest” two days ago which was orchestrated by religious hypocrites in my fair province who were concerned only about the “politically correct” version of poverty and about keeping the thoughts and minds of an entire province under their anesthetizing control.

Speaking of control—and religious hypocrites—Father Frank Pavone had a beautiful short answer yesterday on his blog to those concerned about the negligence, and yes, even the obstruction, of Christian leaders in the pursuit of justice for the Unborn.

Father Pavone notes in his last sentence that victory is assured for the pro-life movement. WE WILL WIN.

But let’s not let up for a minute in the meanwhile. Children waiting to see God’s glorious creation are depending upon us.

**********

Control Freaks

Dear Friends:

There’s increasing frustration out in the grassroots over the timid response of the Church to the abortion problem. As an organization with the name “Priests for Life”, of course, we receive a lot of questions about why the Church doesn’t do more in this arena.

It’s more and more clear to me that the answer can be summarized in the word “control.”

Put simply, there are too many leaders in the Church who are more concerned about controlling God’s work than about doing God’s work. The control freaks want everything done at their command and according to their specifications - or not done at all. The apostles fell into this temptation at a certain point until Jesus set them straight. Here’s what we read in Mark 9:38-40: “Teacher,’ said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

The good news is that the pro-life movement does not take kindly to control freaks. In fact, it completely frustrates them, because this is not a movement with a puppet-master. Nobody controls it “from above.” Rather, its energy, creativity, and perseverance flows from the very depths of the humanity of each and every citizen (of whatever religious background) who comes to realize what abortion is.

In an emergency in which many lives are being taken and many more are at stake, people band together, gather the resources they need, and come to the rescue of the victims. They need not wait for any permission; they need not work under any particular banner or title. They are, after all, human. That’s all the title and permission they need to save their fellow humans. And they know it.

That’s why the movement will succeed.

Fr. Frank

VOCM Radio Interviews Eric Alcock On His Arrest By Police Yesterday For Defending The Unborn

Developments in connection with yesterday’s arrest are ongoing.

I’m very busy preparing a series of posts on this event, which, like turning over a rock, has exposed other creepy critters.

In the interim I’ve prepared this little item to keep readers informed. This is an interview which took place today on VOCM radio St. John’s—on perhaps the busiest talk show program in the province.

Be advised though: radio interviews are not my forté. I do my best.

However, it is sure to generate more conversation throughout the province.

And we sure do need it.

Arrested By Police For The First Time For Representing The Unborn

[Preface: No, that's not me in Ronald MacDonald outfit...it just seemed like such an appropriate picture considering the treatment I received.]

I just returned from my “visit” to The Lantern, where a Press Conference was to be held at 11AM to announce the goals of a new religious group based in St. John’s, NL, named the “Religious Social Action Coalition,” a coalition aiming to abolish poverty in the province.

My previous post carried the press release which was forwarded to the NL media late yesterday afternoon by Vote Life, Canada! after I was alerted to the Press Conference by email.

I was hoping to have an opportunity at this Conference to clarify further my concerns to the religious leaders of this coalition, some of the members of which I have met on previous occasions prior to the formation of this coalition. So I was dressed up in my Sunday best, hoping to say a few words on behalf of the Unborn of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada.

I should have suspected something was cooking when I walked inside the building and around the corner were two police officers in full uniform. It was about five minutes before the conference was due to start. Walking past them and into the Conference room, it was only perhaps two minutes before a burly looking gentleman approached me with outreached hand, asking me my name, to which I responded. Immediately he grasped my hand tightly as if to hold me in that exact position while informing me that I was not welcome there and that I must immediately leave.

I was rather stunned at this rare gesture of welcome and advised him that the Coalition’s announcement that was issued indicated that it was a public event and that all were welcome. He said he would call for the police to remove me if I did not leave immediately and then motioned to another man who was listening to the conversation to fetch the police. I asked the burly gentleman why I could not stay and he told me that I had said some very bad things about them in yesterday’s press release and that I must immediately leave.

By that time the police arrived, telling me that my invitation was rescinded by these people and that I must immediately leave the premises, which were private property, or failing that, I would be removed by police.

It was becoming a little bit of a scene with voices being raised but no yelling or screaming. Since my knees felt a little weak, the officers promptly took me by the shoulders, body and bones, and literally dragged me out of the building, all the while I was yelling loudly so people could hear me “Poverty begins with the Unborn! Poverty begins with the Unborn!”

The officers took me to the paddy wagon [no handcuffs!], making sure on the way to inform me that my little media circus was not going to work. They locked me up for the hour that the Conference was taking place. I heard them discussing various things outside the police wagon and then finally they released me, saying they were not going to lay charges. They didn't call it an arrest. They noted that they had simply "detained" me.

Sure felt like an arrest.

I’ve had no calls from media yet although I suspect I will soon enough. As the officers were dragging me out, a news photographer was taking pictures and other media were present as well.

Obviously the religious leaders, many of them “Christians,” did not wish to have their hypocrisy highlighted. They had planned to silence me entirely before I could even say a word and they had arranged for the local police to act as their thugs and bouncers.

More on this story to come.

By the way, the statement that I hoped to make at the conference, given the opportunity, appears below.

********** 

I am here today to represent the poorest children of NL—those who are denied the right to live. Those who will never get to the point of worrying about how much food, clothing, housing or education they receive. 

And I apologize to anyone here today who has gone on record publicly to denounce legalized child-killing. Looking over the names on this list I was not aware that anyone there had made announcements to newspapers or radios protesting the atrocity taking place in our midst. Nor do I remember seeing any of the above named individuals protesting in front of the local abortuary where five or six hundred little children each year are cut to pieces or suctioned to death. 

So pardon me, but I didn’t know anyone here was concerned about the challenges that the children of NL face. 

Forgive me.  

Today you are here to announce the fact that you ARE concerned about children after all. You want to see that children receive proper food, clothing, housing and education.  

This is a good thing. As I said in our press release, this is noble. 

However, what I find curious is that there still is no mention made of the children being ripped out of the womb. Does that concern the Religious Social Action Coalition? Is that not the greatest injustice taking place against children in this province? Shouldn’t that at least be stated as such by the Coalition?

Perhaps the Coalition is not ready at this time to tackle such a monstrous evil but shouldn’t they at least state for the record that this is the worst injustice taking place against children? 

Without such an acknowledgement the Coalition’s project has no credibility. How does the Coalition expect that poverty can be addressed—even abolished—while child killing is permitted? Will politicians respect a child’s right to be fed and clothed as long as they don’t respect the child’s right to live? 

But what the Coalition is really saying is this:

"Abortion? Oh, we’ve given up on that objective. That’s now legal and well accepted in our society, so whether it is or isn’t the greatest form of child abuse is irrelevant. People want it and accept it and the government says it’s legal so we’ll leave it at that.

We must work on achievable goals." 

I therefore have a question for the Coalition:

If the government passes a law today which says that the poor are entitled to no more than is currently available to them, will the Social Action Coalition then move on to another goal? 

Do you not see the hypocrisy oozing from this whole scenario? 

Do children have certain rights or not? Do they even have the right to live? That is the question.

Knights Vote To Ban Pro-Choice Politicians From Knights-Sponsored Events

That’s the story headline.

Yes…but the question is: Will they ban Anti-Life and Anti-Family Knights from their own ranks?

Until they do, or until they get serious about a mechanism to discipline their own people, their credibility, to me, is extremely low. There’s only one word for their failure to deal with this problem:

HYPOCRISY

Kenneth Fisher, founder and chairman of Concerned Roman Catholics of America asks a crucial question

“How can they call themselves 'the strong right arm of the Church' when they harbor enemies of the Church as members?"

**********

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 1 Corinthians 5:6

... he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12:1b-3

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is become guilty of all. James 2:10

He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. Luke 16:10