Thank heaven for young men like Tim Tebow
Thank heaven that there still are young men who “celebrate family and celebrate life.” And the fact that his Super Bowl ad is receiving so much resistance from the women at NOW speaks far more of their desires and their intolerance than it ever could about Tebow.
Nice to know that if your teenage daughter is ever raped or abused by an overbearing adult “boyfriend”, you can count on Planned Parenthood of Arizona to cover it up.
Note that there is some graphic language used in the video during the description of the abortion procedure
Remember folks, your tax dollars are paying for this “service” from the good people at Planned Parenthood.
Nice to see that free speech rights — and, ironically, the freedom to “choose” — no longer exist for those with pro-life views. Listen to this video and you’ll hear what is obviously a constitutional scholar from the pro-abortion side inform a group of pro-life demonstrators that they do not have a right to free speech.
(Update: Apparently embedding has been disabled on this video, but it is still viewable on YouTube)
Some of the more choice terms from this constitutional scholar’s mouth included,
Freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols!
[Abortion] is a right. You don’t have the right to challenge it. Write a paper. Do NOT! Do NOT put this in front of all of us. This is not your right
When speaking with a University security officer, the vandal/censor, Roderick King, made clear his lack of concern about the fact that the pro-life group had followed University procedures when setting up the display.
I don’t care if they have the university’s approval, … They’re actually making the worst statement here. …
King later explains his views that anyone who presents a pro-life position might cause someone having an abortion to think about what they’re actually doing and he will not allow this to happen.
If there is a student on this campus that has had an abortion or that might be having an abortion, might be going through this, you want this up in front of them? Are you crazy?
If you continue to watch, you’ll actually here King argue with the security guard that he is relying on his “freedom of speech” to trample the pro-life’s group freedom of speech. (Aside: Basic logic and critical thinking point here Roderick – you cannot claim a right to infringe on a right. In doing so, you make the concept of rights null and void.)
King then continues to brazenly deface and destroy the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point-approved display. A display that tries to give a visual conception of the number of abortions that are being performed in this country.
It’s also worthwhile to watch the security guard while King continues to destroy the display; he does absolutely nothing to stop him.
Of course you know that if a pro-life group had walked into the middle of a pro-abortion march, a feminist rally, a gay pride parade, or candle light vigil for some other left-wing cause and had started ripping down banners and placards, every media outlet in the country would be screeching about suppression of the left’s free speech rights. Such an attack would be front page news for weeks. You also know that if any pro-life student who had been involved in that disruption and confrontation would have been publicly drummed out of the school and had legal and civil charges placed against them.
What makes this censorship more grotesque is that King has apparently not been disciplined. Even worse, King — who was a member of the student government at the time of his actions — has actually been re-appointed to the UWSP Student Senate for another term.
Welcome to the new and improved version of the First Amendment, where you have the freedom to shut your mouth, until Roderick and his pro-abortion buddies allow you to speak.
What curses would spring to your fertile minds if I told you that a 69-year-old pro-choice demonstrator was violently attacked by 23-year-old man last month and that the demonstrator was pushed off of the roof of a car and slammed onto their back on pavement. And that, as a result of the attack, the demonstrator suffered,
multiple trauma, right subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the area between the brain and the tissues that cover the brain), compression fractures of four vertebrae (T3, T4, T5 and T10), right scapula fracture and fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs.” Before doctors were able to stop the bleeding in (the victim’s) head, they even feared (the victim) would die.
What might you say if I told you that the police hesitantly questioned the assailant and then let him go, not doing anything until the next day — after he brought himself to the police station?
What would you think of witnesses who refused to answer but yelled, “(They) got what (they) deserved! (They) earned what (They) got!” when the police asked them for statements?
What sort of biases would you see infecting journalism if I then told you that the story had been largely ignored by the media?
How would your thoughts on the issue then change if I told you that in the real story it was a 69-year-old pro-life demonstrator who was injured while standing outside of an abortion clinic? Or that it was the receptionist of the abortion clinic who refused to give a witness statement, choosing instead to yell that this man “earned what he got!!”?
Sadly, the remainder of the story is accurate. The assailant was actually allowed by the police to walk away — the police thought they would mail him a summons. Even worse, when other pro-life demonstrators demanded the police do something, they were threatened with arrest by the “law enforcement” officers.
Of course, I’m not trying to pretend that the victim was just some passerby. There’s no getting around the fact that Ed Snell — the victim of the attack — is a committed and unabashed pro-life demonstrator. He’s been a pro-life activist for about 20 years and has been reported to carry and post signs with pictures of aborted babies to shock people with the graphic nature of what goes on in abortion clinics. It’s safe to say that he’s well-known on both sides of the issue.
Snell may be extreme and you may or may not agree with his personal convictions, but a strong disagreement with someone’s views hardly justifies this type of unprovoked violent physical aggression. If you don’t like the guy’s opinions, tell him, write a pithy letter to the editor, or strike up your own counter protest. But shoving the guy off of the roof of a car and nearly killing him is way over the top.
It is therefore — but not at all surprising — to see how how the pro-abortion left responds to this type of violent physical attack against a pro-life demonstrator.
If this were a story about a pro-life protester getting too close to the door of an abortion provider, you could bet that people like the shaved ape and his pals would be twisting their panties into a knot over that. But they see no logical contradiction in joking about Snell’s injuries and justifying this attack. That type of refined logic can only be developed after years in the finest government-run Canadian arts faculties. No other educated, reasonable individual could stand to such profound internal contradictions.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, in the left’s politically correct world you have the right to speak, but only so long as what you say agrees with their limited world view. Step outside of those boundaries and “you’ll get what you deserve.”
The simple fact of the matter is that free speech is often a dirty and messy business. It’s sad to see the dimwits out there striving to silence their critics and to justify the repression and censorship of any politically incorrect or undesirable speech they encounter. It’s clear that they can’t comprehend the reality that their chosen values, pastimes, and rights could be the next ones on the chopping block.
You know what they say about those that refuse to learn from history…
Nice to see that this ex-cop, who was inappropriately using his position and training as a LEO, as well as radically overstepping his authority, got his comeuppance. This fellow was physically and verbally threatening a group of peaceful pro-life demonstrators and saying he would arrest them for engaging in civil discourse and practicing their rights to free speech and freedom to choose their religious beliefs. As the article noted, none of the women in the group prevented people from entering or leaving the abortion clinic.
Des Plaines, IL (LifeNews.com) — A police officer in this Illinois city has been fired over an incident in which he is accused of verbally and physically assaulting and harassing a group of women protesting outside a local abortion business. Dick V. Lalowski, 44, was suspended without pay in October 2006 while hearings on the matter moved forward.
While on duty in May 2006 as a security guard for a Des Plaines abortion business, Lalowski threatened a group of women and told them they could be arrested. …
After his shift ended, Lalowski returned to the abortion center in plainclothes and harassed the women despite requests from the next officer on duty to stop.
Lalowski is accused of cursing at the women, ridiculing their faith, and poking one woman hard on the shoulder. One of the women later told authorities she was “filled with fear” over his harassment.
Later in the article you can see that this ex-cop and his lawyer are trying to blame his violent and abusive behavior on post-traumatic stress. Apparently the reality of abortion was too much for this fellow as the graphic pictures some of the demonstrators were holding reminded him of a shooting he had been involved in a decade earlier, where he had killed someone. One would think that if pictures of a procedure that he was being paid to protect were so horribly disturbing, it might give the officer a moment’s pause to question whether he needed to ask for a different duty station. Instead, he chose to abuse, attack, and blame the messenger.
I’m sorry that this fellow had to deal with the emotions associated with a shooting incident from a decade ago, but having a tough past is no excuse for a police officer to engage in violent physical abuse and the infringement of our constitutional rights. If anyone else had done what Lalowski did, they would be thrown in jail. He should be thanking his lucky stars that he was only fired and that the ladies didn’t press charges or file a lawsuit against him and the city.