PRO-LIFE WOMAN FACES INDICTMENT FOR READING BIBLE [to abortionist]

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12.18.02

[Red Jones]

no, I didn't forget about president clinton. But a person's reputation should include what they do, not merely what they say on the campaign trail or what image is projected on tv of them. And we should not give anyone a pass because they aren't as bad as Clinton.

But you gotto give clinton credit. When he was president the growth rate in the federal budget was I understand 50-60% or so what it is under Bush. Bush has gone keynesian just like his father or like a 1930's democrat, he's pumping double digit growth in the federal budget so the larger economy doesn't die further. At the same time his tax cut was a baby step. The WSJ even said so and ridiculed it as did many other conservative journals, even tax accountant firms ridiculed it. That's a bad sign because the father also imposed tremendous regulations that killed jobs. You didn't see bill clinton imposing 200,000 pages of regulations like the father did. Whoever counted that stat measured only about 80,000 for clinton. Reagan of course had 55,000. So, clinton was reaganesque on that measurement. Bush has biggest growth rate in government since LBJ and only one third of it is for defence and homeland security increases combined. Bush didn't even increase defense spending until after 9/11. Bush is about as dishonest on his campaign promises as Jimmy Carter was. Even Clinton didn't campaign for smaller government and then deliver the opposite.

Clinton was as bad as the two Bush's though on trade policy. Bush/clinton/bush have allowed the chinese to set their currency value artificially low and not float it to the dollar. They've even devalued more than once in the last 10 years. Trading with a nation on a massive scale as we are with China when that nation has artificially low currency value that does not float is suicidal. Our manufacturers will not be able to compete under those conditions. Let their currency float and then we have a fighting chance. They would let their currency float to the dollar tomorrow if we told em to do it today or face a tariff of 100% tomorrow. Then we'd both benefit from trade more. I guess all three of them went to Yale didn't they, so I guess that explains why they can't figure out basic simple fundamental principals that effect the american welfare. But you like him on your wide-screen, that's nice.

Clinton's lewinsky image was bad, his traitorous behavior was absolutely unacceptable, but clinton scandals don't soil, nor protect the Bush' reputations.

Bush should have integrity and guts. He should get a different US Attorney in that district. Is he elected for the sake of being an image we look at on tv and cheer for or is he in the white house to be the authority who takes responsibility? Is it our new ethic that nobody is responsible after Clinton? Must we citizens simply give up in trying to get our government to do the right thing?

[Red Jones]

no, I didn't forget about president clinton. But a person's reputation should include what they do, not merely what they say on the campaign trail or what image is projected on tv of them. And we should not give anyone a pass because they aren't as bad as Clinton.

But you gotto give clinton credit. When he was president the growth rate in the federal budget was I understand 50-60% or so what it is under Bush. Bush has gone keynesian just like his father or like a 1930's democrat, he's pumping double digit growth in the federal budget so the larger economy doesn't die further. At the same time his tax cut was a baby step. The WSJ even said so and ridiculed it as did many other conservative journals, even tax accountant firms ridiculed it. That's a bad sign because the father also imposed tremendous regulations that killed jobs. You didn't see bill clinton imposing 200,000 pages of regulations like the father did. Whoever counted that stat measured only about 80,000 for clinton. Reagan of course had 55,000. So, clinton was reaganesque on that measurement. Bush has biggest growth rate in government since LBJ and only one third of it is for defence and homeland security increases combined. Bush didn't even increase defense spending until after 9/11. Bush is about as dishonest on his campaign promises as Jimmy Carter was. Even Clinton didn't campaign for smaller government and then deliver the opposite.

Clinton was as bad as the two Bush's though on trade policy. Bush/clinton/bush have allowed the chinese to set their currency value artificially low and not float it to the dollar. They've even devalued more than once in the last 10 years. Trading with a nation on a massive scale as we are with China when that nation has artificially low currency value that does not float is suicidal. Our manufacturers will not be able to compete under those conditions. Let their currency float and then we have a fighting chance. They would let their currency float to the dollar tomorrow if we told em to do it today or face a tariff of 100% tomorrow. Then we'd both benefit from trade more. I guess all three of them went to Yale didn't they, so I guess that explains why they can't figure out basic simple fundamental principals that effect the american welfare. But you like him on your wide-screen, that's nice.

Clinton's lewinsky image was bad, his traitorous behavior was absolutely unacceptable, but clinton scandals don't soil, nor protect the Bush' reputations.

Bush should have integrity and guts. He should get a different US Attorney in that district. Is he elected for the sake of being an image we look at on tv and cheer for or is he in the white house to be the authority who takes responsibility? Is it our new ethic that nobody is responsible after Clinton? Must we citizens simply give up in trying to get our government to do the right thing?

[victim soul]

You wrote: "Clinton fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with rabid commies, didn't he."

YES, INDEED HE DID!!!

Ah, you remembered (no thanks to the press)and SO HAVE I!!

grrrrrrr

[victim soul]

And what do you think about the lunch counter protests in the south in the battle for Civil Rights???

[victim soul]

So -- are you saying if I opppose the War in Iraq, I can't demonstrate on a public street in front of the decision makers and perpetrators to tell them to STOP THE KILLING while quoting from the same Bible that all our Founders read and understood?

[SwordofTruth]

On July 9, 2002, Mrs. Palmquist, who regularly leaflets and counsels at the Family Planning Alternatives abortuary, saw Wright entering the clinic and read to him passages from Ezekiel 33 concerning admonishing the evildoer to turn from his sins lest he die. Although Wright has seen Mrs. Palmquist at the clinic for years and did not appear concerned at the time, he reported the incident to police and the FBI as a death threat despite Mrs. Palmquist's explanation to him that she meant no threat.

You better believe it's not a threat. It's a promise from almighty God little butcher boy.

[victim soul]

You wrote: "Christianity will probably be illegal by the end of this century."

Over my dead body!!

[victim soul]

No woman who has borne a child needs to live in a "theocracy" to know that a self-proclaimed doctor should never be willing to kill at least one of his patients for a minimum $350.00!!

[victim soul]

What is considered "private property'?

The PUBLIC sidewalk outside your business??

Explain that to Micahel Moore and any labor union that goes out on strike.

[victim soul]

Because the abortionists -- the ultimate decision makers ---and their sycophants have convinced the FBI that they are in danger of pro-life terrorists -- when in fact, the REAL TERRORISTS and MASTERS of MASS DESTRUCTION are the above who are responsible for the deaths of over 45,000,000 American native borns -- since 1973 - aka in their lingo our "potential" sons and daughters,brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, grandsons and granddaughters and let's not forget for strictly utilitarian purposes:

"potential" consumers, producers, health care and Social Security payees, and never forget taxpayers!!

I must ask why are we so willing to kill our future?

"A NATION THAT KILLS ITS CHILDREN IS A NATION WIHOUT HOPE."

Pope John Paul II.

[chimera]

Let's put it this way: I'm pretty sure that's not ALL this woman actually did,

I don't know, the article as posted doesn't say. If she was in clear violation of existing laws and/or court orders, those bringing the charges will have to make their case on that basis. The article says the accuser filed the complaint on the basis of a perceived threat to his well-being, which in turn was based on the accused reading verses from the Bible. Again, absent any other compelling evidence or actual acts constituting a credible threat, that seems like a spurious basis upon which to pursue prosecution. My opinion is that if they do so it would be to punish the individual for being pro-life, to "teach them a lesson" for so being, holding what is perhaps an unpopular position or one in the minority in a political sense. If we prosecute on those terms, we're all in trouble.

... because the pro-aborts do not bring criminal charges of this nature just for jollies, and prosecutors don't seek indictments just for jollies.

You're right, they don't, and no where do I imply that in their own minds the pro-aborts think pushing this case is "just for jollies". No, indeed. In fact, I think the opposite is true. They are very serious about pursuing these charges. Why? Well, as I said, they are using this as a vehicle to harass and punish those who hold an opposing viewpoint. In actual fact, whatever this woman did, it is extremely unlikely that it posed a credible and specific threat against another individual. But dragging someone into court whose political views are in disagreement with one's own is a tried-and-true tactic of the left, because it places a personal and financial burden on those they so harass. As the lawyers say, it chills dissent. It sends a message: mess with us and you're going to court. Even if the case is laughed out of court (as it likely should be in this instance), you still have to go through the trouble of dealing with it. Knowing this, that alone may be sufficient to dissuade many from engaging in what otherwise should be open and free dissent done in the hopes of bringing about a non-violent change in public policy. The larger goal here seems to be quashing legitimate public protest of a barbaric and bloody practice, one which, if most of the public knew the realities of, would likely be outlawed. That is what the pro-aborts fear more than anything, and will use any means and do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

Well, anyway, I've made my points, and those reading the thread can do with them as they like. Unless there are other aspects of this to be discussed, you can have the last word, sir.

[FreeTally]

Thanks, that's all about you I need to know. Obviously you are against free speech if it involves any religion.

Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. I find is sad that many of you can not grasp that there are many who do not care about the Christian religion. I am not one, but there are many. When people constantly approach you in the street, at YOUR business to share with you something you have heard thousands of times before, at some point, it becomes harassment. I never said I agree with prosecuting any person who does so for "threatening" you, but I did say that the restraining order should have been allowed. In THIS case, the woman obviously had been a problem for some time.

Like I posted before, this has little to do with speech and a lot to do with harassment.

[FreeTally]

My sense is that this is a case that revolves around one person being offended by the 1) moral position, and 2) tactics

And my understanding is that this case revolves around a pattern of harassment of this doctor and his "patients" by the woman in question.

And again, a serious question. If someone persistantly came up to you on the street, reading to you what the Koran says about "infidels", would you possibly take that as a threat? Not one time, but constantly, outside your place of business. Knowing that radical muslims can be violent, as we have all seen, could that not be a threat? And this doctor in question, knowing that there have been acts perpetrated against doctors by the pro-lifers, could it not be seen as a threat?

I understand and totally agree with your opinion about how something should not be crimininalized based upon an individual's interpetation or feeling of one's thoughts, but that's why we have courts. Things have to be taken into context. Like I mentioned before, in Church, one would expect to hear such passages from the Bible and would not take that as a threat. But, being an abortion doctor, a person depsised by many pro-lifers - people who unfortunately have all been characterized as the same as the few who commit violent acts - has a reasonable belief that a person who constantly approaches them on the street to read such passages, could be a threat. Should the person automatically be prosecuted? No, as I said before. The restraining order should have been allowed. Then, if the woman was still stuborn, she should have been prosecuted for violating the restraining order.

I'm with you on the fact that being prosecuted first was not right. I think the doctor had every right o a restraining order.

[Marysecretary]

1948 signalled the beginning of the end times prophetically. People have not always accurately predicted it for sure, but the Jews had to go back to their land before the end times came and 1948 signalled that. Also, another interesting prophetic teaching that I listened to on the radio was that during these end times the Phillistines would again occupy the land. Well, the palestinians ARE the Phillistines they spoke of. It's all very interesting. Israel is of course the pivot point of all prophesy concerning the end times. Look at what's happening there. If they divide Jerusalem, we're in for tough times. Lots to learn and little time to learn it.

[chimera]

And again, a serious question. If someone persistantly came up to you on the street, reading to you what the Koran says about "infidels", would you possibly take that as a threat? Not one time, but constantly, outside your place of business. Knowing that radical muslims can be violent, as we have all seen, could that not be a threat? And this doctor in question, knowing that there have been acts perpetrated against doctors by the pro-lifers, could it not be seen as a threat?

I might take it as a threat, I might not. Many people take many otherwise innocuous things as threats. The question is whether the full weight of the legal system should be brought down on someone just because another takes their actions in the wrong way. Or, worse, if those legal actions are brought simply to harass or punish someone who happens to disagree with prevailing opinion and expresses these views in a non-harmful manner. And certainly, as my discussion with FReeper Poohbah alluded to, if one were to take harmful/lethal action in response to a perceived threat, there would likely be some burden of proof required on your part to support that. In some cases, that would be easy, in others, perhaps difficult or impossible.

People have a right not to be harrassed. That is true. And if a person is being harrassed to the point of, to a reasonable person, it becoming an undue burden or impairing their going about their (legal) business, then remedies are available. In this case the complaintant should be required to make his case on those grounds. Harrassment is one thing, but I think the accuser and the prosecutor in this case are engaging in a stretch to bring a criminal action based on a threat to one's life. My fear is that they are doing it for another reason, and that is intimidation and harrassment of this woman and those who may hold views similar to hers. They seem to be saying, we're sending you a message: as long as you hold these views we're coming after you with both barrels blazing, and we'll do everything in our power to take you down, including stretching the interpretation of laws or misuse of the legal system.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The shaming them approach has allowed the death of a hundred million babies and counting and no apparent embarrasment or human compassion budding among the abortion defending mob . I guess it is a prudent caution to pro-lifers though to treat encounters with pro-baby butchers, with the same caution they would use if jumping into a tank full of sharks. It should be no suprise to anyone that any and all who condone and defend abortion can be capable of any kind of violence.

Pro-lifers have more than a clue, they are aware that abortion stops a human heart-it is the abortion bunch who seem totally clueless.

[Poohbah]

The shaming them approach has allowed the death of a hundred million babies and counting and no apparent embarrasment or human compassion budding among the abortion defending mob .

And blocking clinic entrances hasn't worked, either.

What next, genius?

[F.J. Mitchell]

"What next, genius."

"There's never been a horse that can't be rode or a cowboy that can't be throwed." This too shall end.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"What next, genius."

"There's never been a horse that can't be rode or a cowboy that can't be throwed." This too shall end.

[MoGalahad]

Then I guess I will be illegal, Paul.

Be good and live free,

MoGahalad