Worse than Roe / National Catholic Register

 https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/worse-than-roe

A NOTE FROM OUR PUBLISHER: Congress must reject the Orwellian ‘Women’s Health Protection Act.’

Michael Warsaw is the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the EWTN Global Catholic Network, and the Publisher of the National Catholic Register.

Michael Warsaw Publisher's Note February 25, 2022

With the demise of Roe v. Wade — the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy nearly 50 years ago — seemingly within reach, efforts are underway by both the pro-life community and the radical abortion lobby to prepare for a post-Roe world.  

While much of the action being taken so far is at the state level, the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on the misleadingly named “Women’s Health Protection Act.” If truth in advertising was a requirement in naming bills, it would be called “The Abortion On Demand Until Birth Act.” 

Supporters of this legislation have characterized it as an attempt to simply enshrine Roe into federal law. As tragic as that would be, the stark reality is that this bill would go way beyond that, gutting even the most basic protections for women and their unborn babies.  

Bluntly, this is far worse than Roe.  

This is the most extreme piece of abortion legislation to ever receive a vote in the U.S. Senate.  

What would it do? This bill would nullify every single state law regulating abortion. That includes state laws that limit painful late-term abortions and laws that prohibit abortions from being performed because of the race, sex or condition of the child. It would even end basic informed-consent laws that ensure that mothers have all the relevant information before choosing an abortion.  

Despite public polls consistently showing strong support — 71% of Americans and nearly half of Democrats — for limits on abortion, particularly during the second and third trimesters, the Senate is moving full steam ahead.  

But the truth about the grave evil of abortion and the consequences for both the child and the mother are undeniable. Every abortion ends at least one life and wounds another.  

Catholic politicians who willingly and enthusiastically champion the availability and practice of abortion are living contrary to the teaching of the Church.  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear about the necessity to preserve the dignity of life (2270): “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” 

The Catechism later describes that it is not just the procurement of abortion that is a grave offense, but, indeed, as explained in 2273, “[t]he inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. … The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”  

Could it be any clearer? Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, has been unequivocal about the evil of abortion, likening it to the “white-glove” equivalent of Nazi eugenics programs and to people who hire a hitman “in order to solve a problem.” It couldn’t be clearer. 

Yet, despite strong rebukes of the “throwaway culture” by Pope Francis himself, far too many Catholic politicians — and others — continue to pursue policy and political agendas that offend the basic dignity of the human person.  

In a stirring message to the United Nations less than two years ago, Pope Francis said that, “[a]t the origin of this ‘throwaway culture’ is a gross lack of respect for human dignity, the promotion of ideologies with reductive understandings of the human person, a denial of the universality of fundamental human rights, and a craving for absolute power and control that is widespread in today’s society. Let us name this for what it is: an attack against humanity itself.” Amen.  

The crux of the abortion lobby’s agenda is not just a total devaluation of the dignity of every human life, it is the pitting of mothers against their children — flipping the understanding of the most fundamental human relationship on its head. It is utterly false to claim that children are an impediment to women’s flourishing, that the only solution to an unexpected pregnancy is abortion, and that “unwanted” babies are better off dead. Catholics and pro-life people must unite to forcefully dispel these myths.   

So where do we go from here? For starters, we must resist this specific bill and any of its subsequent iterations, and we must hold politicians accountable when they claim to be Catholic but then support such horrific legislation.  

But building a culture of life is not just about opposing deadly policies. It’s about showing how the Church supports women and their babies from conception with the resources and tools needed to help mothers take care of their babies — and thrive.  

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, and Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the USCCB’s Pro-Life Activities Committee, sent a letter to senators this week ahead of the vote that I believe provides a road map for American Catholics looking for bold leadership. 

In one particularly memorable section, they write, “Answering the needs of women by promoting taxpayer-funded elective abortion, as this bill would do, is a failure to love and serve women. Offering free or low-cost abortions, instead of the resources needed to care for her child, is not ‘choice’ but coercion. It communicates to a mother in need that there is no hope for her or her child and perpetuates injustices that drive mothers to end the lives of their children. As a nation built on the recognition that every human being is endowed by its Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we must reject this bill and embrace public policy that fully respects and facilitates these rights and needs of both mother and child.” Again, I say amen.  

We are at a critical turning point in our struggle to protect life. We cannot falter. We cannot allow all our progress to be wiped out. This legislation must be defeated — for the good of humanity.

A Massive Betrayal - Brian Holdsworth

PART THREE

LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

ARTICLE 1
THE PERSON AND SOCIETY

I. THE COMMUNAL CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN VOCATION

1878 All men are called to the same end: God himself. There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men are to establish among themselves in truth and love.¹ Love of neighbor is inseparable from love for God.

1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.²

1880 A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an "heir" and receives certain "talents" that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop.³ He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."⁴

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."⁵ This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.⁶

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."⁷

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

II. CONVERSION AND SOCIETY

1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:"⁸

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed.⁹

1887 The inversion of means and ends,¹⁰ which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."¹¹

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.¹²

1889 Without the help of grace, men would not know how "to discern the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse."¹³ This is the path of charity, that is, of the love of God and of neighbor. Charity is the greatest social commandment. It respects others and their rights. It requires the practice of justice, and it alone makes us capable of it. Charity inspires a life of self-giving: "Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it."¹⁴

1890 There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men ought to establish among themselves.

1891 The human person needs life in society in order to develop in accordance with his nature. Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man.

1892 "The human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject, and the object of every social organization" (GS 25 § 1).

1893 Widespread participation in voluntary associations and institutions is to be encouraged.

1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.

1896 Where sin has perverted the social climate, it is necessary to call for the conversion of hearts and appeal to the grace of God. Charity urges just reforms. There is no solution to the social question apart from the Gospel (cf. CA 3, 5).

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY

ARTICLE 2
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE

I. AUTHORITY

1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."¹⁵

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.¹⁶ The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."¹⁷

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:¹⁸ "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."¹⁹

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."²⁰

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":²¹

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.²²

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."²³

1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."²⁴

II. THE COMMON GOOD

1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.²⁵

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."²⁶ The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."²⁷

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.²⁸

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."²⁹

1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."³⁰ This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

III. RESPONSIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION

1913 "Participation" is the voluntary and generous engagement of a person in social interchange. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person.

1914 Participation is achieved first of all by taking charge of the areas for which one assumes personal responsibility: by the care taken for the education of his family, by conscientious work, and so forth, man participates in the good of others and of society.³¹

1915 As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life. The manner of this participation may vary from one country or culture to another. "One must pay tribute to those nations whose systems permit the largest possible number of the citizens to take part in public life in a climate of genuine freedom."³²

1916 As with any ethical obligation, the participation of all in realizing the common good calls for a continually renewed conversion of the social partners. Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of justice. Much care should be taken to promote institutions that improve the conditions of human life.³³

1917 It is incumbent on those who exercise authority to strengthen the values that inspire the confidence of the members of the group and encourage them to put themselves at the service of others. Participation begins with education and culture. "One is entitled to think that the future of humanity is in the hands of those who are capable of providing the generations to come with reasons for life and optimism."³⁴

IN BRIEF

1918 "There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1).

1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop.

1920 "The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore . . . belong to an order established by God" (GS 74 § 3).

1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.

1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.

1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom.

1924 The common good comprises "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (GS 26 1).

1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.

1926 The dignity of the human person requires the pursuit of the common good. Everyone should be concerned to create and support institutions that improve the conditions of human life.

1927 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.

Yippee I just quit Twitter!

Bye bye Twitter!

I'm so sick of the hatred and lies and demonizing of people.

I just quit Facebook Yippee!

The lies, the calumny, the slander the demonization of people: it's all sickening. Now I'm going to try to do the same on Twitter. I tried last week but I wasn't able to figure out how to do it,  ha ha

Thank you to the Freedom Convoy. You have inspired the World

Cops In France Finally Join The People 

Ottawans are such big babies and you won't believe this. I have heard the stupidest reasons why many people in our city hate the truckers and this takes the cake. It has been reported that members of the Freedom Convoy have "raised their voices" at some individuals to take off their masks. Scary stuff eh?  

It doesn't matter to them that finally after two years of ridiculously forced mandates

that violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including Freedom of worship, and has caused so much havoc to the economy, to mental health, and just about everything else, that a courageous group of Canadian Citizens decided to say "enough is enough" and stand up against this tyranny. 

So they come to Ottawa to meet with their "supposed" prime minister to express their views but does he care?  Of course not because they are, according to him, "a fringe minority of racist, misogynist, white supremacist, Nazi supporters with hatred towards people.  

So instead of meeting them, he goes into hiding the entire time and echoes this message over and over and over again, and blames every negative occurrence that happens in the city during that time on the truckers. And it gets even better. You can't even turn on the TV or listen to the radio for the entire three weeks without Mayor Watson, and most members of the legacy media (Evan Soloman is one of the big players) echo the same lies over and over and over and over and you want to take your TV set and smash it over your head. 

There I feel better now

 

Police Brutality in Ottawa and Media Bias

I sent this letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , a few more politicians as well as the Ottawa Police and some members of the Legacy media in response to a video from True North depicting horrible acts of violence by the Ottawa Police over the weekend. I was stunned that I heard not a word about it from the legacy media

February 24, 2022 

To whom it may concern,  

I am not sure who to address my outrage to in this matter because the people who should be concerned are the guilty parties.  

The horrific scenes in this video; the disgusting acts of violence against numerous peaceful protestors including an 80-year-old woman as well as Andrew Lawton, of True North and Alexandra Lavoie, of the Rebel disgusted me to my very soul and not a word of concern do I hear from our Prime Minister, the Mayor of Ottawa our mainstream media, CBC, and CTV, Global TV etc. Nothing! 

I transcribed the portion of the video that depicts some of the disgusting and violent actions of the Ottawa Police on the weekend. It begins around 10 minutes into the video, and I ask that you watch and listen to the entire video. Please take the time to watch it to the end to see the absolute hypocrisy of the legacy media spinning the events to suit their own untruthful agenda. It is absolutely hateful to demonize once again the protestors and ignore the truth and spin everything to suit an agenda. I can't even think of a word to describe such a web of lies surrounding the Freedom Convoy since the beginning including the demonizing of everyone involved with the protest along with their supporters. You know what I mean,

And I thank Candice Malcolm from True North for her truthful and honest presentation. What a breath of fresh air

Maureen Ward 

Ottawa Ontario 
 

 
Transcript of a small portion of the video beginning  at around 10 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23RdwjBsiew&t=132s Unreal use of propaganda in Canada from True North 

What is happening in Canada? Great question. What is happening in Canada? Well, what is happening in Canada? It's a Great question. Well, over the weekend, what did we see? We saw a militarized police zone using undue force using over-the-top force and completely disproportionate force against a group of unarmed and peaceful protesters just by virtue of them being in Ottawa meant that they were the target of the police and the Trudeau government efforts. 

And unsurprisingly, It devolved into a very chaotic, very dangerous situation, so I'll show you some of the low lights from the weekend of police brutality. And let me just make this point. If this was happening at any other circumstance in recent history. If this is happening at any other point in the last two years against any other group, if this was not a group of working-class truckers, of people who said we've had enough of this government overreach of this medical tyranny that we've been living under. If it was any other group and you saw images like this of the police, the left would be on the complete other side. There would be over the top calls for these cops to be fired, to be reprimanded, defund the police, any small act of police using force, not even disproportionate force, just police using force in their job over the past two years has been completely blown out of proportion as an instance of police brutality and why we ought to defund the police, OK? I see people who spent the last two years yelling about that issue are now either completely silent or they're cheering on the police brutality because they are cracking down on a group of conservative adjacent or conservative align protesters. People who come from a working-class background. It is so stark. It is so hypocritical. It is unbelievable.  

• Regardless, here are a couple instances of what it looked like. So first we have a veteran who is manhandled by police officers: knee him several times in the kidney. Here's what that looked like.  

• Next, we have a protester who is hauled away by cops. Watch for the end of the clip because a police officer takes his rifle, takes his gun, and uses it to beat a protester with the stock of his gun and you can see him do two solid blows there with a stock of his gun. This is police brutality. This is totally unacceptable. Here is what that looked like.  

• Next, here is a police officer rushing a protestor and hitting him once he's already on the ground.  ( you can hear people crying for the police to stop)
• And so, as the police were using increasingly violent tactics in order to crack down on these peaceful protesters, they at some point decided to bring in horses for what? To do some kind of crowd control? I don't even understand. This is right outside the Chateau Laurier hotel and upscale hotel, right in the heart of Parliament, right in the center of Ottawa. They bring out the police and as you can see in the kerfuffle in the excitement of police going through a crowd trampled 2 individuals and knocked them over, stepped on one of the women, including an 80 year old First Nations woman.. This is tough to watch, but here is what this looks like.  Just in case you want to see how bad it was Here Is the aerial view and still you can see the horses trampling on two individuals who just failed to get out of the way, you could see from the footage there that it wasn't like people knew that these horses were coming. They kind of came out of nowhere. They whipped around the corner. These two individuals clearly didn't see what was going on. The woman who was knocked over, the 80 year old woman was on a mobility scooter and from the aerial picture you can see the scooter on the ground. So its not like this is an agile woman who could easily get out of the way. She obviously had no idea this was coming, and I don't know what was worse the fact that this was the way the police were behaving and acting or the fact that there were a lot of people cheering them on cheering this kind of thing on and that the media didn't really bat an eye, didn't really bat an eye over the use if anything they were out there saying, oh, this isn't trampling. These people weren't trampled.  

And we had something new that I'd never seen before. The Ottawa police were tweeting in real-time pushing out their own propaganda, their own version of events. So they weren't really taking questions. They weren't really responding.  

Journalists at one point I was on the phone trying to confirm whether or not anyone had been killed in the protests. No response, no replies. I left messages. I called multiple lines. I emailed. I sent the messages on Twitter. No response. Whatsoever, the only response you get from the Ottawa police the're tweeting their own timeline of events in their own perspective, twisting and spinning the facts to fit their narrative of what was going on.  

So here is an example of that, Ottawa police wrote. We hear your concern for people on the ground after the horses dispersed the crowd, anyone who fell got up and walked away. We're unaware of any injuries. A bicycle was thrown at a horse further down the line and caused the horse to trip. The horse was uninjured. OK, so a lot of people on Twitter were really upset about this because the idea that everyone who was hurt got up and walked away. Well, it just simply isn't true. Here is a woman who was trampled. Her name is Candy, and she wrote this.  I dare to correct the "no injury" statement of the Ottawa Police. I was nearly killed. Again, 80 year Old First Nations woman. Usually, this would be the kind of woman that the left would hold up as a victim of police brutality and they would be on her side and they would be there demanding the resignation of the officers of whoever ordered that, the police chief or the local politicians, but instead, because of the backdrop of this freedom convoy. Nothing. Nothing. No. No, you don't hear anything from the left in support of this woman.  

It is absolutely wild and his whole nonsense about a bicycle being thrown at the horse again. I tried to verify that I looked at a lot of footage over the weekend. A lot of people were saying that the bicycle was actually the mobility scooter. So we go back to that aerial photo. You can see how the horse knocked over the woman with the mobility scooter. And that is lying on the ground. So people were like, is that where you're talking about throwing a bicycle is actually just a mobility scooter. Someone did send me footage of a man with a bicycle. But In no way did he throw this at the police. He used a bicycle to pull himself back, if anything, to stop the police from beating him. He kind of had the bike in front of him. And then you could see him leave. So this whole idea that he threw at a horse and was causing the horse to trip. Is is just completely, completely untrue.  

• OK, there is more. so, here is the police hauling away a protester and kneeing him once he's on the ground so here, that's what that looked like.  

• And so it wasn't just this kind of force in kneeing people and hitting people with guns that we saw. We also saw the police start using pepper spray or some kind of a chemical irritant. And you can see it in this clip, the Ottawa police are just sort of wildly spraying this pepper spray, it's not targeted at any individual. It's not an individual in a crowd who is ruckus and who is causing chaos and you want to target that one individual. Presumably, that is what pepper spray is for. No, in this case, you're just sort of willy nilly just spraying the crowd, getting anybody who's there sort of punishing them for being there. Here's what that looked like.  

So caught up in all of this chaos was our own Andrew Lawton, journalist Andrew Lawton was on the ground for True North throughout the entire weekend. He was doing live streams. He was reporting he was talking to people. He was trying to keep an eye on what was happening in the same way as many journalists. There was lots and lots of journalists from lots of outlets who were right there, sort of on the front lines or a few steps back from the front lines filming this whole thing, taking pictures, relaying the information to Canadians and to people all over the world because people all over the world were watching, so Andrew Lawton was in there he was doing that and for the crime of committing journalism,

• Andrew Lawton was pepper-sprayed in the face by a cop. It seemed to be targeted. It seemed to be aimed directly at him. So here is what Andrew looked like afterwards. Not a pleasant feeling to be sprayed in the face pretty much point-blank, or at least at close range with pepper spray.  

He got it really bad and because of that we, here at True North, I decided to retain a lawyer. So we hired a lawyer we're now working with a lawyer here at True North. We are suing the police for assault and for targeting a working journalist. Andrew was just there doing his job trying to cover this event, trying to relay the information to Canadians. So we want to send a message to the police and Justin Trudeau and his emergency order. You don't get to beat up on journalists in this country. This is Canada. You do not get to do that and we will see you in court.  

Unfortunately, Andrew Lawton was not the only journalist to be the victim of police brutality.

• Over the weekend. Alexa Lavoie over at the Rebel was beat up by a police officer. This is unbelievable footage. She was pushed, she was hit multiple times with the baton from a large male police officer on the line. She's sprayed with pepper spray and finally, she was shot in the leg at point-blank from a few feet away with some kind of a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister. This woman was brutalized and beat up by a cop, all caught on camera. Here is what that looked like and just to warn you, this is pretty gruesome. It is pretty hard to watch, but I think it's important to show you what was happening to a working journalist in our country over the weekend. Here's that clip.  

So with a journalist sprayed in the face with pepper spray, another one brutalized and hit with a baton multiple times, you would think that the mainstream media, the legacy media there would be some kind of solidarity with journalists in this country that you would hear from legacy media saying, hey, that kind of force against journalists is absolutely not acceptable in this country. So did we hear that? No, no, we didn't hear that. What did we hear instead? Well, that the journalists thought it was disgusting? No, it wasn't disgusting that Andrew Lawton was sprayed with pepper spray. It wasn't disgusting that Alexa Levar was beaten with a baton.  What was disgusting? Well, there was this clip that was circulating of a Quebec TV journalist who got pushed on air by a protester. Here's what that looked like.  Incredibly stupid stuff. OK. Whoever pushes whoever pushed a journalist on air is just completely stupid. There's no reason to do this. It is mean. It is stupid. It doesn't help anyone. If anything, all it does is galvanizes people. against you, it proves legacy media point correct that the protesters are just a violent group of thugs and that they're here to harass, intimidate the media and the legacy media did exactly what you would expect and milk every last ounce of that clip that that footage of one guy getting pushed, that is the big story for the journalist out of the news.  Forget about all the police brutality that I just showed you. Forget about a guy getting hit with a stock of a gun. Forget about a woman getting trampled by a horse. Forget about a young female journalist getting beat up with a police baton. They didn't cover any of that. They don't care about any of that. What do they care about? A push? The guy getting shoved on air. That is the main focus.

This is what happens when you have brains scrambled by misinformation,

Well, the propaganda continues, Please watch the video to the end

Maureen Ward

Ottawa Ontario