Illinois U. S. Senator Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, this morning, where Abraham Lincoln gave his "House divided" speech almost 150 years ago.
One of many differences between the two men is Lincoln defended all three tenants of the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - while Obama supports only the latter two.
Pro-lifers plan not to let Obama ignore his moral lapse. We began this morning.
Liberal bloggers claimed Springfield was besieged by well-wishers and nearly shut down by police. But we were able to park one block away 30 minutes before the event.
At 15 minutes prior, we were able to walk to the front of the barricaded space, directly behind the media risers. In all fairness, the ease with which we found this press-friendly position so close to the event was likely due to the extreme cold, which dipped to -15 degrees at one point on our drive from Chicago but reached +1 by our arrival. Cameras merely had to swing around to capture us on film. (Whether or not they will show us is another matter.)
Reporters and cameras left their perch to interview and film up close. This is Mary Ann Ahern, political reporter for Chicago's NBC5, talking to Pro-Life Action League's Joe Scheidler:
There were 40 of us.
At several times during Obama's speech we began shouting, "Abortion no, Obama no!" This not only consternated the pro-abortion crowd around us but must also have had an impact near the man. An agitated Obama official appeared soon into Obama's speech, approached the police who were watching us, and simply ordered, "Remove them."
The police complied, telling us to move to a designated protesters' area a couple blocks away, but Joe simply said no, we had First Amendment rights. Joe was right, of course. There was nothing the police could do but watch us.
I found this sign humorous:
I do hope pro-lifers around the country will also remind Obama of the atrocity of his pro-abortion position when he comes their way. If so, what the Chicago Sun-Times predicted after Obama's speech today will come to pass: "[I]t is going to be a rough learning process, evidenced on Saturday with a planned protest by an anti-abortion group in Springfield - Obama is essentially pro-choice."
"Essentially"? Well, I guess that is the most we can expect from the liberal media in its description of someone who is "pro-choice" to the point of supporting partial birth abortion and infanticide.
Being a presence is good but I think it's rude to interrupt somebody's speech with chanting.
Christina, "rude"? Come on now, who's really rude here, those drawing attention to a person who expends his political energies attempting to ensure the freedom to kill preborn babies, or that person? And what favor do we do such a person by not attempting when we can to focus his attention on his heinous ways?
"Pro Choice" does that mean you can choose to kill your baby or not?
It is a choice now and I will not vote for any candidate that is "pro choice."
Jill,
By that logic, you may as well throw tomatoes at the man, for certainly that is less heinous than dedicating one's life to the destruction of the innocent. This is yet another example of the political tin ear exhibited by far too many of my fellow pro-lifers. The point is not that rudeness or tomato-throwing may be justified in light of what our opponents support. The point is that, when we engage in such behavior, we are only further distancing ourselves from convincing those on the fence. To consign ourselves to political-whackoville is not to advance our cause, but to set it back.
It seemed like the anti-choice people that were there yesterday had little impact other than to disrespect the dead they showed pictures of. I thought it was pretty offensive, but even more so - just plain sad. I only saw a handful of them. Most of the girls huddled around one side didn't even look like they were old enough to vote. If they were, it's nice to know they've been brainwashed into voting based on one issue. I knew some people that voted for Bush because they thought he would protect snowmobiling in Yellowstone... I thought that was stupid too, but it makes more sense to me, because at least they want to go snowmobiling in Yellowstone... if it were made illegal, then they couldn't go. If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't. Why do you care if someone else wants/needs to? Would you like to adopt their baby? I don't understand. Will you be protesting Giuliani if/when he is the Republican candidate?
Also, I wonder wether or not this group is also in favor of the death penalty? If so, how could you oppose "killing" the unborn, but support killing others? For that matter, did you support the war in Iraq? That has killed a LOT of people, especially Iraqis. I wonder if you believe Iraqi lives count just as much as American lives? I'm veering off what was supposed to be my second question... Are you against illegal immigrants crossing our border? If you want to increase our population by attempting to outlaw abortion, what's wrong with increasing it via mass immigration? Just trying to figure things out here... I think I've spent enough time on it... thanks
Russell, throwing tomatoes at a person is not covered by the First Amendment, while protesting certainly is. In fact, in 2005 you said this on your blog re: Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the Iraq War:
Now I was not under the impression that the repeal of the First Amendment was on the table in the whole Cindy Sheehan controversy. Of course, Sheehan and MoveOn.org and George Soros and Ben and Jerry have the right to say whatever they want about the Iraq War, the government's tax policies, or fudge ripple. It is the content of what they are saying that is at issue. And public disagreement with that content is covered by the First Amendment as well.
Cindy Sheehan has the right to say whatever she wants. And I have the right to say she should shut up. Now that we're clear on our rights, perhaps the Associated Press will cease conducting and writing about irrelevancies designed to wrap in the hallowed Bill of Rights the ludicrous prattle of Cindy Sheehan.
You make my response easy re: your complaint about pro-lifers exercising their First Amendment rights to protest Barack Obama's anti-life position:
Now I was not under the impression that the repeal of the First Amendment was on the table in the whole pro-life/Obama controversy. Of course, Pro-Life Action League and Jill Stanek and Concerned Women for America have the have the right to say whatever they want about Barack Obama's extreme anti-life position to the point he is pro-infanticide. It is the timing and perhaps the content (graphic signs of photos of aborted babies) of what they are saying that is at issue. And public disagreement with those are covered by the First Amendment as well.
PLAL, Stanek, and CWA have the right to say whatever they want. And Russell, you have the right to say we should shut up. Now that we're clear on our rights, perhaps you will cease writing about irrelevancies designed to wrap in the hallowed Bill of Rights what you consider our inappropriate prattle.
Bob, we had "little impact"? You haven't read or watched the news.
You thought it was "disrespect[ing] the dead" to show photos of their massacre? You have a strange sense of logic. Actually, since you support their massacre, of course you don't want the evidence displayed.
Re: the Iraq War, at least soldiers have guns with which to defend themselves.
Re: the death penalty, let's discuss the moralty of putting to death 50 or so convicted murderers a year in the U. S. after we discuss the morality of murdering 1.3 million innocent children a year in the U. S.
Re: adoption, there is a waiting list to adopt babies, even handicapped. Even if there were no waiting list, your solution, which is to kill these children, is barbaric.
Re: illegal immigrants, the only reason there is a need for menial laborers in the U. S. is because the U. S.'s menial laborers have been aborted.
Jill,
Your attempt to be clever was magnificent, marred only by a fatal incoherence. My argument is not about rights. It is about pragmatism. Of course, everyone has a right to shout and yell and scream. It comes down to when the shouting and yelling and screaming becomes counterproductive in a campaign to convince people that we are right. For example, you could be yelling "F*** you" at Obama, with all the legal right in the world. But would this make pro-lifers more appealing or less appealing to the target audience? That is the crux of the issue. What I said about Cindy Sheehan in my blog is irrelevant to this discussion. Your argument, with all due respect, makes no sense. I don't know where to begin to respond to an argument with the intellectual coherence of "Arrgh!"
Russ, what makes it even more critical that pro-lifers exercise First Amendment rights re: abortion is the fact that the majority of Americans just don't want to hear it.
Americans are conflicted on the abortion issue. Polls show they believe abortion is murder yet believe a mother should have the right to commit it (with more and more limits as time goes on). Furthermore, at least 40% have actually been complicit in abortion. Not knowing how to handle this internal conflict, they shut down and go into denial. They don't want to talk about it.
As unpleasant as pro-life pickets are, they force people to think about what being "pro-choice" actually means. They force people to face what they believe by the photos.
BTW, I'm cross-posting this conversation on my blog, www.jillstanek.com.
Obama is really just a media creation. Everyone who likes him claims they like him because either he's good looking, wants change (whatever he means by this?) or a new face (OK but why him?). I really don't understand why so many people like him as a presidential candidate but cannot give good reasons why they like him.
The media gives Obama a free pass. Anyone who regularly visits Jill Stanek's website knows while in the IL Congress Obama voted against the Illinois Children's Protection Act. This Act made it illegal to kill babies born outside their mothers womb. Why doesn't the media talk about this vote? Why do we only get this information from only a select few websites on the internet.
It's one thing not standing up for babies in the womb but now its getting to a point politicians will not stand up for babies living outside of the womb. How can we expect Obama to protect us from harm when he merely cannot vote to protect born babies from harm outside the womb? Sorry but Obama in my book should not even be considered to run for any office.
Another thing I cannot stand are politicians who are afraid to go on talk shows which ask tough questions (like O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes). These are my thoughts!
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2006/07/new_stanek_colu_5.html#comments
Mike
I also took part in the Pro-Life Action League's Protest in Springfield last Saturday. In fact the protest against Barack Hussein Obama's EXTREME positions on killing innocent babies in and out of their mother's womb was also partly my idea. I was glad to be there to exercise my constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech because the other side of the "Obama story" needs to be told. It needs to be shouted from the housetops. Why this "Bambi" of a young senator is getting such an incredibly free ride completely baffles me. What is so good about him? He's only been in Washington a short time. But the main thing is that he doesn't understand the most basic thing about life: that you cannot support the killing of unborn babies and then go on and talk about other "rights" and the improvement of society. Nothing at all makes any sense if the most fragile, most helpless, most precious of all people, unborn children, cannot be guaranteed protection from the abortionists knife, currette, suction machine, or scissors in the back of their necks. Dear God, how can this have happened in our country for so many years??
Edmund Burke once said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
We will not be silent. At the very least we must let our voices be heard. And if that means shouting out loud during a speech "LIFE YES! OBAMA NO! LIFE YES! ABORTION NO!" to the consternation of a few thousand people, so be it. If we offended and disgusted the liberals with our giant photos of poor aborted children, so be it. I told several of them, "You're pro-choice, right? Well this is your choice!" It's blunt, but we have to be blunt at times. You won't get any apologies from me for speaking out about this issue.
And by the way, we did not really interrupt Bambi's speech. We only chanted for a minute or so at a time, and then would stop for several minutes. But it was enough to let him, the lemmings who follow him, and even the poor media people know that there are people -women, men, teenagers and children, who are against a man who supports the barbaric atrocity of the murder of innocent children, even if he has a huge grin on his face and a wife and kids of his own. P.S. Great blog, Jill.