Pro-lifer heckles Obama at Coakley rally

UPDATE, 2p: While the 1st video posted focuses on Obama, this video focuses on the pro-life protester:

[HT: Newsmax.com]

11:03a: Yesterday President Obama was holding a rally for Democrat pro-abort MA Senate candidate Martha Coakley, and a pro-life protester interrupted him.

Obama didn't have a good response and lost control of the crowd...

"You, you, you need somebody...." That's right, Mr President, you do.

No justice, no peace. Amen and amen.

[HT: Tweeter landofdafree]


Comments:

I listened to the heckler but could not get what he was saying. I did not get the pro life from the headlines of the heckler that I saw but hope it is so.

Posted by: Maria at January 18, 2010 11:24 AM


Yeah, I couldn't make out what the heckler was saying, but it was funny to see the Narcissist-In-Chief so speechless!

Posted by: Peg at January 18, 2010 11:43 AM


MA has a broke experiment in healthcare insurance reform. They don't want it and hospitals are going broke and patients are rejected. Obama is focusing on his Teddycare offering and it is doing what Ipecac does.

Posted by: xppc at January 18, 2010 11:56 AM


Obama without his teleprompter! What's he to do?

Posted by: nfp4life at January 18, 2010 12:06 PM


Gerald, this is not the end, nor the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 12:22 PM


Hal,

You are deluding yourself.

Maria,

The protester yelled something to the effect of "Abortion kills innocent lives". What we saw was a pathetic response. Pathetic. Not one word in defense of abortion, just several condescending smirks

Did you catch the dig about "driving a truck around" (towards the end of the video) probably referring to the Truth Trucks? Among those led off was a boy maybe ten or twelve years old. He GETS IT. Thank God for the little ones.

Posted by: Janet at January 18, 2010 12:36 PM


I love love love to see our Campaigner in Chief so flustered. He gave up more than 2 and a half minutes. Shocking and fantastic. God bless that child and God help Obama.

Posted by: MamaMT at January 18, 2010 12:50 PM


Janet-
"The truck" refers to Scott Brown. Coakley's supporters accused him of being out of touch- do you believe that? He responded that he was just a plain old guy- he drives a truck.
Pray for a "BROWN OUT" in Massachusetts!

Posted by: nfp4life at January 18, 2010 12:58 PM


nfp4life,
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not following the Mass. campaign closely. Praying and praying though! If I could get there, I'd be helping the Brown supporters to get to the polls...

Posted by: Janet at January 18, 2010 1:06 PM


You can find the off-camera action here.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at January 18, 2010 1:10 PM


Fast forward to about 4:15 of the 2nd video on this page if you want to hear the truck comment in context.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/17/video-hecklers-interrupt-obamas-speech-for-coakley/

I'm praying with the rest of you guys for a Brown victory tomorrow. John Feeny has a great article about tomorrow's election posted at America's Right.

http://americasright.com/?p=2684

Posted by: Fed Up at January 18, 2010 1:22 PM


"Gerald, this is not the end, nor the beginning of the end. It is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 12:22 PM"

Huh?

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 18, 2010 1:24 PM


The saint's sign said, "Jesus loves all".

And what did these Obamanation idol worshippers do, they lifted up their Coakley signs?

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 18, 2010 1:29 PM


Jill, all....

Please go to this website:

http://www.churcheshelpingchurches.com

and at the bottom right hand corner click "Download this song"

"Who Will Rise Up"

It's one of the most heart rending songs I have ever listened to and should be the pro-life anthem.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 18, 2010 1:36 PM


Why is he getting removed, just because he's speaking against Obama and Coakley...why don't opponents have freedom of speech? He wasn't hurting or threatening anyone??

Posted by: @littlebytesnews at January 18, 2010 2:23 PM


Tee hee hee! I love seeing Obama so flustered too! I never was such a good pro-life witness as when I was a young child and told people who supported abortion "you're killing little kids like me." That used to fluster them too! Obama can't wrap his head around the idea that other people matter besides him and that not everyone is hopelessly inlove with him. That is a very foreign concept to his narcissistic brain.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 18, 2010 3:36 PM


Phil:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Sir Winston Churchill,
* speech at Lord Mayor’s Luncheon, Mansion House, London, November 10, 1942
* Referring to the British victory over the German Afrika Korps at the Second Battle of El Alamein in Egypt

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 3:38 PM


What was the little boy shouting? I want to pat those protesters on the back! It takes a lot of courage to do that. But its about time we use the tactics the liberals so fondly use on us.

That little boy knows 1/3 of his generation is dead and Obama supported it.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 18, 2010 3:51 PM


Obama is killing little kids like me? That poor kid has been completely brainwashed by his anti-choice parents.
Obama has absolutely no control over abortion.
He's not responsible for them happening. And even if he were to become anti-choice and issue an
official decree making abortion illegal(which would be totally unconstitutional anyway and make him deserving of impeachment,something he's never been guiltyof as president), he wouldn't be able to stop it.
No individual politician, pro or anti-choice,has any control over abortion.The only thing politicians can do is make laws which will make it safer or more dangerous, or common or less common.And the anti-choice ones will never make it less common.

Posted by: Robert Berger at January 18, 2010 4:41 PM


Sydney,

I heard that other person shouting, too, and wondered what was up there. I'm told it was another pro-lifer, a woman, but that's not confirmed.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at January 18, 2010 4:43 PM


Thanks Hal:

I.e., you were referring to the triump of good over evil then?

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 18, 2010 5:00 PM


xppc - what's really interesting is that Brown supports the MA healthcare plan, but not the national one. Now, the MA plan has a high approval rating (58-30), so it makes sense he would figure out a way to like the state plan but not the national plan - but just some interesting numbers.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 18, 2010 5:26 PM


"I'm praying with the rest of you guys for a Brown victory tomorrow. John Feeny has a great article about tomorrow's election posted at America's Right."

http://americasright.com/?p=2684

Posted by: Fed Up at January 18, 2010 1:22 PM

WOW. Amazing article and video. Thank you. A man quoted in the article said he was planning to pick his daughter up at college to make sure she votes. According to studyboston.com, there are 250,000 college students in the Boston area, which makes up close to 4% of the population of the state of Mass. (U.S. census bureau - 2008 estimate). Hopefully they cherish their personal freedom enough to vote for Brown tomorrow.


Posted by: Janet at January 18, 2010 5:38 PM


Praying that Brown gets the votes tomorrow!!

I thought Obama was hilarious. He might need notecards for such a time as this.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 18, 2010 6:27 PM


Brown's wording on his views on abortion from his site:

Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 18, 2010 6:39 PM


Oh. Looks like our friend Brown isn't really a republican. I guess it takes one to know one.

Posted by: xalisae at January 18, 2010 6:45 PM


Robert,

"No individual politician, pro or anti-choice,has any control over abortion.The only thing politicians can do is make laws which will make it safer or more dangerous, or common or less common. And the anti-choice ones will never make it less common."

That's a contradiction.

Furthermore, if we do not try to stop an action that does not contribute to the common good such as ABORTION, then WE are all culpable to a degree, IMHO.

Posted by: Janet at January 18, 2010 7:18 PM


The main reason a vote for Brown can be considered "pro-life" is that he has promised to vote against abortion funding in Obamacare. Killing the current bill (with its taxpayer funding of abortion) is the biggest issue right now.

And Coakley can in no way whatsoever pass for pro-life.

It was purists who said McCain wasn't pro-life enough who gave us the Obama fiasco. Don't let the troll "ex-GOP" make you think otherwise.

Posted by: Denise at January 18, 2010 7:20 PM


Phil, it takes time for good to triumph. Obama will get there, he's on the right track.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 7:20 PM


Denise -

What's the deal? I don't bow down to the standard logic of some of the folks on the board, so I'm some evil person? What bothers me is the complete regard of civil behavior. I've had great conversations with many, many people on this board, and found interesting common ground. Maybe you're an elitist or something, I'm not sure - but really, that was uncalled for. All I did was post directly off of Brown's website. No commentary from myself at all - just cut and paste.

So let me go on the attack then. You are the favorite type of person for the pro-choice crowd - one who will compromise your long term positions for the short term. Every single time a pro-choice GOP person gets elected, it helps the choice movement inside the GOP. And believe me, there's a lot of debate in regards to how far right the GOP should be these days. A lot of folks in this board have earned my respect - they have their viewpoint and they are stand by it.

You? What's with that view. He's "pro-life" because he's against health care reform. That's excellent - so he can be a pro-choice candidate, but can now get credit for being pro-life because of a single vote? Not quite sure what to make of that, and interested to see if any of the pro-lifers will pick up on that.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. We currently fund abortion with our tax payer dollars. Heath care premiums held out from taxes is one of the, if not biggest federal subsidy in the land. We fund it now. Heck, the GOP's plan itself funded abortion until just recently (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html).

What's interesting about this whole debate is that one of the top reasons women choose to get abortion is fear of finances. So now we have a bill that takes one of the biggest things squeezing the finances of the lower and middle class, and is attempting to control costs. Economists that I've read and trust believe that the bill will be a big step in controlling costs for lower and middle class families - which again, a big reason for abortion is finances.

So let's vote it down - let families continue to struggle - let most private plans continue to cover abortion - and let's all rejoice that abortion wasn't covered...because even if rates increase, heck, if we're not paying for it, it is a victory right? Well, I suppose not if you're the baby...

Sorry for going off folks - but come on Denise - wise up a little and show a little respect.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at January 18, 2010 9:39 PM


I'm all for free speech, but I'm also for letting someone finish his sentence.

I was in no way proud of that heckling moment. Rather rude, IMO.

Posted by: carder at January 18, 2010 10:41 PM


Robert Berger...WHERE in the Constitution does it guarantee a woman the right to kill her child born or unborn? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee ANYONE the right to kill another human being? WHERE? You show me, please! I really mean it. If its in the Constitution then please enlighten cause I have NEVER SEEN IT.

I do however find the right to life in the founding documents of our great nation.

Posted by: Sydney M. at January 18, 2010 11:13 PM


Spare your keyboard, Sydney.

Berger just likes to rant and leave. No source-citing. He pretty pontifical (if we can make up that word).

Posted by: carder at January 18, 2010 11:29 PM


Well said, Denise @ 7:20PM. It's hardly a newsflash that there are no solid prolife contenders in the race, but that doesn't stop the amateur concern troll from wanting to play, does it?

Posted by: Fed Up at January 18, 2010 11:47 PM


You remember Obama, went arround appoligising to the world? Well, I have to say sorry to some of the unborn babies. Dear Shanice, and to all the unborn babies, Our founders would have given you life, liberty, and the persute of happyness, but We as christians, have become just plain sorry, when it came to protecting your right to life, and please don't be mat at me, because as you know I have defended your right to life, but America in its quest to be "cool" and to be "with it," has elected a monster as president of the United states, and on be half of our Nation, I am so sorry. RJ

Posted by: RJ Sandefur at January 19, 2010 4:45 AM


It seems TOTUS was at a loss for words.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 19, 2010 8:47 AM


Alan Keyes said on facebook today "Once they know that we will accept the lesser of the two evils, that is all they will ever offer us.'

I actually agree with x-GOP. Coakley is no good..but Brown really isn't that much better. Its ben said before but its so true "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Posted by: Sydney M at January 19, 2010 9:01 AM


But then how do you program a machine recognize the 'truth' and know when to avoid or evade or agree?

[Just think of the complexity of that algorithm.]

Some flesh and blood 'person behind the curtain' has to be ever vigilant to know when to pull the appropriate lever or push the desired button to provide the suitable text and enable the smoke and mirrors.

Poor TOTUS, it must be sufferring from some sort technilogical whip lash.

Look for TOTUS to be sporting a cervical collar and applying for a work related disability or perhaps even retaining a slip and fall ambulance chaser to file a personal injury law suit.

yor broken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 19, 2010 9:01 AM


Posted by: carder at January 18, 2010 10:41 PM

I'm all for free speech, but I'm also for letting someone finish his sentence.

I was in no way proud of that heckling moment. Rather rude, IMO.

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

Carder,

I agree with you in some respects.

B.O. should have instructed the crowd not to interupt and allow the heckler to be heard.

The 'Boston Tea Party' was not about tea or a party. It was an in your face public and political statement to an overeaching tyrant.

Confrontation makes me uncomfortable, even when I am an uninvolved spectator in the crowd.

If B.O. were just another politician advocating for her/his personal pet projects then I would say civility should control.

But B.O. is advancing an agenda that is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation and destructive to human life.

At some point, and I believe we have been well beyond that point for some time, it is inappropriate to sit silently and passively while barbarians like B.O. mislead and deceive.

Silence is equated with assent.

Bigots like B.O. have a right to speak and even to be heard, but they also have to be held accountable for what they speak.

The 'lie' and the 'liar'cannot go unchallenged.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 19, 2010 9:23 AM


Ken, I understand you have some policy differences with the President. Fine. So do it.

However, do you really think you need to use words like "bigot," "Tyrant," and "barbarian?"

Posted by: Hal at January 19, 2010 9:36 AM


HAL,

I will leave it to you to provide us with synonyms
that are more pleasing to your eyes and ears.

bigot -a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance\.

(Prenatal children would be the primary subjects/objects of B.O.'s intolerance.)

barbarian
1 : of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2 : lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture.

(2. Is particularly applicable)

Let me be clear. B.O.'s barabarism is in no way related to his ethnicity or the circumstances surrounding his conception or his place of birth but to his attitudes and his iedology as reflected in his politics and his policies.

"A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

tyrant
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power [aka-the Chicago way].

(1a B.O. has no repsect for the constitution except where it serves his purposes. It is no more sacred to him than the truth. If it is useful to him it has value, if not, then he will discard it like a soiled menstrual rag. 2b is also applicable.)

"No person shall be...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[It takes considerable mental gymnastics and intellecutal dishonesty to separate 'human' from 'person'. See Dred Scott decision.]

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

[See Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who as a U.S. Senator voted to increase the compensation/'Emoluments' of the Secretary of State. B.O. claims to be a constitutional scholar so this has to be a clear violation of his oathe of office to support and defend the constitution.]

"No Person except

a natural born Citizen,

or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

B.O. has yet to provide proof that he is a 'natural born citizen' of the United States of America which would be a relatively simple and inexpensive act, but instead has spent millions of dollars in attorneys fees avoiding doing so.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 19, 2010 10:33 AM


Where in the constitution does it say that all women who are pregnant must give birth to those children or else?
A fetus is NOT a born human being.Abortion is NOT murder. The founding fathers would be astonished at any one trying to claim that all pregnant women must remain pregnant and give birth. That kind of thinking was totally foreign to them.
And abortion was NOT illegal at the time. It happened then,just as it always has and always will. It was a non-issue to the founding fathers.

Posted by: Robert Berger at January 19, 2010 10:42 AM


Robert,

"Where in the constitution does it say that all women who are pregnant must give birth to those children or else? "

ok..where does it say in the CONSTITUTION it does not?

Posted by: RSD at January 19, 2010 12:11 PM


"That kind of thinking was totally foreign to them."


Yeah, because it was taken for granted that a woman would deliver a live baby, because delivering a live baby is the natural course of being pregnant. Duh.

Posted by: xalisae at January 19, 2010 2:37 PM


Please cite some sources Robert on what our founding fathers believed about abortion. Thx.

Dang. I wasn't going to respond to Mr. Berger!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at January 19, 2010 3:33 PM


Phil, it takes time for good to triumph. Obama will get there, he's on the right track.

Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 7:20 PM


Obama could get us out of the wars, but doesn't make a move to do it? Hmm, yeah all those Dems who voted for the war. Obama wasn't elected till after the votes, so he pretends he was against the wars, but clearly he isn't. The press says nothing about his policies that are identical to Bush's.

Posted by: hippie at January 19, 2010 3:52 PM


"And abortion was NOT illegal at the time. It happened then,just as it always has and always will. It was a non-issue to the founding fathers."

Posted by: Robert Berger at January 19, 2010 10:42 AM


Are you high? Abortion sure was illegal. Also, it was dangerous, so it was not much of an issue, because few women were stupid enough to try it. Also most people married their daughters off young, so that is another reason not too many women were seeking abortions. Sure it happened, just like all other murders, rapes and crimes happened. How much did the founding fathers write on murder and rape? Also, the founders were by and large religious zealots, so the idea that they would find abortion acceptable is ridiculous.

Posted by: hippie at January 19, 2010 4:02 PM


Where does it say in the constitution that we may or may not do anything? That's not what the constitution is for.
Any one who disapproves of virtually anything
could use the constitution as an excuse to advocate the government banning it.
And yes, abortion was only illegal at the time of the founding fathers until the time of"the quickening", that is late in a pregnancy. Early pregnancies were not illegal.
They may have been rare, but they happened.

Posted by: Robert Berger at January 19, 2010 5:09 PM


Robert, the reason abortion was restricted from quickening was because until that point there was no real way to know you were actually pregnant. Maybe you had a tumor. Maybe you had a thyroid problem. Hell, maybe you were having a hysterical pregnancy.

Thus, the only way you truely confirmed a pregnancy was when the child started moving. Hince, laws governing pregnancy started when pregnancy could actually be confirmed.

Posted by: Lauren at January 19, 2010 5:33 PM


God bless that protester! That was totally awesome. Barry didn't know what to think or say.

Posted by: Robyn at January 20, 2010 5:26 PM


Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2010 7:20 PM


Phil, it takes time for good to triumph. Obama will get there, he's on the right track.

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

HAL,

I suggest you get a new set of chicken entrails to consult. The current pile of avian intestines
is suspect or you are focused on the fecal matter.

If you check a map you will not the 'track' B.O. has us on is NOT the 'yellow brick road', but the well worn path that leads to either a dead end, a cliff or a head on coure with a rapidly approaching freight train fully laden with Jew hating mass murderers armed with nuclear weapons.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 23, 2010 8:01 AM


Obama's desire to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" can actually help to fulfill the "days of Lot" (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Related Google articles include "Obama Supports Public Depravity" and "Obama Avoids Bible Verses" - required reading for the "Obama 101" course.

(Saw above on web. Also saw a new pro-life slogan which says "Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!" Arthur)

Posted by: Arthur at January 29, 2010 1:06 AM