# Dozens of FBI Agents Storm House, Arrest Well-Respected Pro-Life Author



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

If this story is as written, Garland and Wray need to resign/be fired/impeached immediately for this abuse of power. The government is using a show of force as a political weapon. 

Sources tell the Todd Starnes Radio Show that dozens of agents surrounded the home of Mark Houck with weapons drawn — terrifying the man’s wife and seven children.​​“They had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie Houck told LifeSiteNews.com. “The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic.”​​Agents said they were arresting Houck because he reportedly shoved a pro-abortion activist who had confronted his 12-year-old son outside an abortion clinic last October.​
Read more


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

_From the article-

"On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re dad’s a ***,” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.

Repeatedly, Mark would tell this pro-abortion man that he did not have permission to speak to his son and please refrain from doing so. And “he kept doing it and kind of came into [the son’s] personal space” obscenely ridiculing his father. At this point, “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back.”"

The alleged victim tried to sue Houck, but the case was thrown out of court. _


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

_"Houck was placed in shackles as agents had guns pointed at his face. His terrified children were reportedly watching from a staircase."_

This was 11 months later?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The FBI might have been waiting to make sure any surveilance video no longer exists. But it seems the 72 year old patient escort told a different story.

"The federal indictment says that Houck twice assaulted a 72-year-old man who was a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic at 1144 Locust St. in Philadelphia on Oct. 13, 2021. First, Houck shoved the escort, identified only with the initials B.L., to the ground as B.L was attempting to escort two patients, the indictment says. Houck also “verbally confronted” and “forcefully shoved” B.L. to the ground in front of Planned Parenthood the same day, the indictment says. The indictment says that B.L. was injured and needed medical attention."


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> The FBI might have been waiting to make sure any surveilance video no longer exists. But it seems the 72 year old patient escort told a different story.
> 
> "The federal indictment says that Houck twice assaulted a 72-year-old man who was a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic at 1144 Locust St. in Philadelphia on Oct. 13, 2021. First, Houck shoved the escort, identified only with the initials B.L., to the ground as B.L was attempting to escort two patients, the indictment says. Houck also “verbally confronted” and “forcefully shoved” B.L. to the ground in front of Planned Parenthood the same day, the indictment says. The indictment says that B.L. was injured and needed medical attention."


Even if that were true, there is no reason local police couldn't have been sent out to make the arrest (or whatever the proper procedure is). This is an out-and-out abuse of power.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> "On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re dad’s a ***,” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.
> 
> Repeatedly, Mark would tell this pro-abortion man that he did not have permission to speak to his son and please refrain from doing so. And “he kept doing it and kind of came into [the son’s] personal space” obscenely ridiculing his father. At this point, “Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back.”"


If that is indeed what happened, then yes...this person deserves an ass beating.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

How is this a federal offense?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Biden Blooper: I Sure in Hell Don't Think We Should Be Funding the FBI


President Joe Biden stumbled into a confusing discussion on Friday about supporting the idea of defunding the FBI.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


I don't have any experience of being arrested by the FBI, so I don't know. What is the normal course of business?

Lately, it seems to be arresting conservatives, Christians, and mothers.
Harmeet K. Dhillon
@pnjaban

This FBI:

Pushed Russia collusion hoax
Spied on law-abiding Americans
Lied to FISA court
Ignored Hillary's server escapades
Ignored Biden Family criminal activity
Persecutes journalists at Project Veritas
Treats J6 trespassers like terrorists
Goes after PTA moms


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Danaus29 said:


> The FBI might have been waiting to make sure any surveilance video no longer exists. But it seems the 72 year old patient escort told a different story.
> 
> "The federal indictment says that Houck twice assaulted a 72-year-old man who was a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic at 1144 Locust St. in Philadelphia on Oct. 13, 2021. First, Houck shoved the escort, identified only with the initials B.L., to the ground as B.L was attempting to escort two patients, the indictment says. Houck also “verbally confronted” and “forcefully shoved” B.L. to the ground in front of Planned Parenthood the same day, the indictment says. The indictment says that B.L. was injured and needed medical attention."


Just to note, for whatever weight any witnesses may have carried, his suit was thrown out of court.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


Recent history shows that it depends on the person.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't have any experience of being arrested by the FBI, so I don't know. What is the normal course of business?
> https://twitter.com/pnjaban
> Lately, it seems to be arresting conservatives, Christians, and mothers.
> Harmeet K. Dhillon
> ...


Federal charges, Federal agents not local cops.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> If that is indeed what happened, then yes...this person deserves an ass beating.


Well, telling a kid his dad is a fig is sort of an oxymoron, maybe hate speech these days.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't have any experience of being arrested by the FBI, so I don't know. What is the normal course of business?
> 
> Lately, it seems to be arresting conservatives, Christians, and mothers.
> Harmeet K. Dhillon
> ...


That is 'normal' for this administration and they use the FBI as their party's enforcement arm. They send their thugs heavily armed and in huge numbers to send a message. That is evident by this even being a federal charge. Apparently the other guy filed a lawsuit that was dismissed. If he had filed a complaint with the local police for assault, they could have easily investigated and talked to witnesses and decided whther to charge him. If they did decide to arrest someone like him, they would have sent 2 or 3 cops to knock on his door. But, the FBI has to put on a big show to teach others not to go against the wishes of this government.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

poppy said:


> If he had filed a complaint with the local police for assault, they could have easily investigated and talked to witnesses and decided whther to charge him. If they did decide to arrest someone like him, they would have sent 2 or 3 cops to knock on his door. But, the FBI has to put on a big show to teach others not to go against the wishes of this government.


Simplified-Your neighbor tells your 12 year old son you are a gay pejorative and you push the guy down. He falls down on the sidewalk. The police would advise everyone to stay away from eachother and that would be about the end of it. Most of the neighbors would agree it was uncalled for the speak to a boy like that. Some might say the dad shouldn't have pushed the guy.
This was within the area covered by federal law. The FBI, now well known as a political arm, reacts based on reasons other than fact and law. Do not expect to find a legitimate reason for a platoon of feds to draw weapons on a citizen, in front of their family, with no prior history of violence or threats against the government.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Federal charges, Federal agents not local cops.


Good grief. Do you actually believe something this trivial should even be a federal charge? Do you even realize how many people in this country are assaulted (if this story is even accurate) on a daily basis? The Feds do not charge anyone in 99% of those cases because it is handled locally, as it should be. How many damned FBI agents do we have? Must be a bunch to have that many available for something this small. Maybe they should be arresting drug smugglers at the border. I hear there is a Fentanyl problem. Or, perhaps a son of a leading politician who's own diary shows him to be a criminal breaking federal laws.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Good grief. Do you actually believe something this trivial should even be a federal charge? Do you even realize how many people in this country are assaulted (if this story is even accurate) on a daily basis? The Feds do not charge anyone in 99% of those cases because it is handled locally, as it should be. How many damned FBI agents do we have? Must be a bunch to have that many available for something this small. Maybe they should be arresting drug smugglers at the border. I hear there is a Fentanyl problem. Or, perhaps a son of a leading politician who's own diary shows him to be a criminal breaking federal laws.


 I have not discussed anything about the charges but there you go ranting about what I believe or not. Seems you have an agenda.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I have not discussed anything about the charges but there you go ranting about what I believe or not. Seems you have an agenda.


Indeed I do have an agenda. I want an honest government where everone is treated the same and the political party in office doesn't use supposedly neutral branches of government to enforce their political views. Apparently you have no such concerns, but you would if you didn't support everything and anything liberals do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Indeed I do have an agenda. I want an honest government where everone is treated the same and the political party in office doesn't use supposedly neutral branches of government to enforce their political views. Apparently you have no such concerns, but you would if you didn't support everything and anything liberals do.


Don't take your agenda out on others who did not do what you accuse them of. It makes you look as bad as those you are railing against. You are making up stories about others to suit your adgenda.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You have a pattern.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Others have patterns of reading things into a post that are not there.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> _From the article-
> 
> "On several occasions when Mark went to sidewalk counsel last year, he took his eldest son, who was only 12 at the time, she explained. For “weeks and weeks,” a “pro-abortion protester” would speak to the boy saying “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things,” such as “you’re dad’s a ***,” and other statements that were too vulgar for her to convey.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Thanks for posting the above information. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it.

I wonder why Houck was repeatedly taking his 12 year old boy with him for weeks and weeks to the Planned Parenthood location and exposing him to such sensitive issues and the alleged verbal vulgarities of other people there? And why be deliberately exposing his child as a witness to his own physical violence of pushing an out-spoken senior to the ground for the senior's out-spokeness? As a parent that doesn't make sense to me for a parent to get a child involved and subject the kid to being witness to so much anger and his own violent interactions with other adults. There appears to be a mental disconnect there.

After the second or third such incident with repeating verbal altercations if he didn't want any protestors directing unwanted comments to his boy for weeks and weeks I'd have expected him to have second thoughts about repeatedly taking any child of his with him to any kinds of protests.

I wonder why some parents are such bad parents that they will often get their children involved in their own adult crap and expose them to behaviours that can potentially turn violent and bring harm to the children? If they don't care about the safety of their own children then why should they care about what happens to the fetuses of other people in a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Do these kinds of people also believe that when military troops go into combat they take their children with them to be first hand witnesses to the brutal and bloody casualties of war?

.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


Uh no, actually, I don't think they do have a habit of arresting people at gunpoint over weak charges one year after local law enforcement and civil courts tossed the case aside. Not under an AG with any sensibilities. And if this story is true, word for word, then Merrick Garland should be removed from office and every member of that FBI team who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution should be fired without pension and black listed. And if Biden knew about it and didn't stop it he should be impeached.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Interesting. Thanks for posting the above information. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it.
> 
> I wonder why Houck was repeatedly taking his 12 year old boy with him for weeks and weeks to the Planned Parenthood location and exposing him to such sensitive issues and the alleged verbal vulgarities of other people there? And why be deliberately exposing his child as a witness to his own physical violence of pushing an out-spoken senior to the ground for the senior's out-spokeness? As a parent that doesn't make sense to me for a parent to get a child involved and subject the kid to being witness to so much anger and his own violent interactions with other adults. There appears to be a mental disconnect there.
> 
> ...


So you're saying that pro-abortion activists are violent military troops? They're endangering lives on public streets then? We can go arrest them all now?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Others have patterns of reading things into a post that are not there.


Your pattern is to imply and deny

You have played that game a thousand times here in HT. People are tired of it.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Don't take your agenda out on others who did not do what you accuse them of. It makes you look as bad as those you are railing against. You are making up stories about others to suit your adgenda.


Uummm - that's a common occurrence around here with 3 or 4 individuals habitually throwing their made up poo at people who won't toe the line to the poo throwers agendas.
LOL at the poo throwers.

.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

poppy said:


> Good grief. Do you actually believe something this trivial should even be a federal charge? Do you even realize how many people in this country are assaulted (if this story is even accurate) on a daily basis? The Feds do not charge anyone in 99% of those cases because it is handled locally, as it should be. How many damned FBI agents do we have? Must be a bunch to have that many available for something this small. Maybe they should be arresting drug smugglers at the border. I hear there is a Fentanyl problem. Or, perhaps a son of a leading politician who's own diary shows him to be a criminal breaking federal laws.


The Feds are looking at it as an abortion issue, not an assault.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

wiscto said:


> *So you're saying* that pro-abortion activists are violent military troops? They're endangering lives on public streets then? We can go arrest them all now?


Is that indeed what I said? Are you sure about that? Or are you just another one who makes up lies about what other people actually said? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or are the words I used too big for you? If I ask you to not speak lies about what is plain for all to see in my post will you comply or will you ignore the request the same way the old man did when Houck asked the old man to not direct vulgar comments at his child? If you ignore my request to not make up false stories about me then wouldn't that make you just as vulgar and offensive and foolish as the old man who ignored Houck's request?

 

.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


The main concern should be how come the federals got involved to make federal charges.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> The main concern should be how come the federals got involved to make federal charges.


 It looks to me because it was a federal law that they say he broke. That happens all the time.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> The main concern should be how come the federals got involved to make federal charges.


I agree. There appears to be far more on all 3 sides of this story that is being withheld by all parties than what is being divulged to the media, and what has been divulged ALL sounds fishy and contrived.

.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The court saw enough of the sides to throw out the lawsuit. The Fed decided they saw enough to find time a year later to assemble an armed team and converge on the defendant's house, shackle him and take him away.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Paumon said:


> Interesting. Thanks for posting the above information. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it.
> 
> I wonder why Houck was repeatedly taking his 12 year old boy with him for weeks and weeks to the Planned Parenthood location and exposing him to such sensitive issues and the alleged verbal vulgarities of other people there? And why be deliberately exposing his child as a witness to his own physical violence of pushing an out-spoken senior to the ground for the senior's out-spokeness? As a parent that doesn't make sense to me for a parent to get a child involved and subject the kid to being witness to so much anger and his own violent interactions with other adults. There appears to be a mental disconnect there.
> 
> ...


Dunno, some might consider walking a woman into a murder mill as being a bad parent and being harmful to children.
We live in an age when children are considered adults for some things and not for others. Go figure.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Like I said, it all sounds fishy to me and I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Is that indeed what I said? Are you sure about that? Or are you just another one who makes up lies about what other people actually said? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or are the words I used too big for you? If I ask you to not speak lies about what is plain for all to see in my post will you comply or will you ignore the request the same way the old man did when Houck asked the old man to not direct vulgar comments at his child? If you ignore my request to not make up false stories about me then wouldn't that make you just as vulgar and offensive and foolish as the old man who ignored Houck's request?
> 
> 
> 
> .


Oh yea, we know, we know, you're so clever. Your little rhetorical vice was so well designed, right? You really thought you had us in a pickle. You thought you had a clever little tangent to distract everyone from the actual issue at hand, which is _did the FBI have an actual reason to arrest him or not. _
It doesn't really matter why he brought the kid to the protests. But the rational consideration would be that maybe these were largely peaceful events, except for this one particular person who crossed the line. Either way, local law enforcement and a civil court tossed this case aside, yet the FBI pointed guns in his face. You know there's a problem with that, because if you didn't, you wouldn't have resorted to attacking his character, you would have simply argued that the FBI was justified.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Like I said, it all sounds fishy to me and I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.
> 
> .


Yea we saw you rattling off a bunch of baseless assumptions with no more evidence than what the rest of us have. If the story is inaccurate go find the proof.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Oh yea, we know, we know, you're so clever. Your little rhetorical vice was so well designed, right? You really thought you had us in a pickle. You thought you had a clever little tangent to distract everyone from the actual issue at hand, which is _did the FBI have an actual reason to arrest him or not. _
> It doesn't really matter why he brought the kid to the protests. But the rational consideration would be that maybe these were largely peaceful events, except for this one particular person who crossed the line. Either way, local law enforcement and a civil court tossed this case aside, yet the FBI pointed guns in his face. You know there's a problem with that, because if you didn't, you wouldn't have resorted to attacking his character, you would have simply argued that the FBI was justified.


I believe the Feds are going after him for interfering with a woman being able to enter an abortion clinic or something to that effect.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Stasi being Stasi.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

We should take this as a learning moment. Stay away from crowds, and don't go to rallies. And if you choose to go behind enemy lines, leave your kids at home.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> It looks to me because it was a federal law that they say he broke. That happens all the time.


Considering all the the cases they ignore I wonder why they decide to take action on this situation.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Considering all the the cases they ignore I wonder why they decide to take action on this situation.


Abortion.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> It looks to me because it was a federal law that they say he broke. That happens all the time.


Your comrades burn federal buildings and attack and murder federal officers, cops, judges etc and you support them 100% and back the FBI that turns a blind eye. But the FBI sends SWAT teams after a guy that pushes an insane maniac off his 12 year old son, and trespassers, and an assortment of old peaceful folks and their families, along with shooting a dog or two along the way. That really speaks to the content of your character as MLK would say. How do you look in the mirror?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Abortion.


Possibly. More likely it is just an intimidation campaign against a whole swath of "dissidents". To respond to @painterswife about how the Feds usually handle an indictment on Federal charges it normally goes like this:

1. If the indicted may have evidence of their crime they can destroy, they may execute a search warrant without notice.
2. If the indicted is a likely fugitive, they may may surprise him with a response team.
3. If the indicted has a violent past and moves around and has no ties to the community, they may surprise him with a response team.

More often, if you are indicted on Federal charges and none of the above apply, they tell you to show up for arraignment at x time at x courthouse. If you don't show up, see above.

But, these are the times that try men's souls and the FBI is literally the Stasi.

Pardon my use of pronouns above.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> Possibly. More likely it is just an intimidation campaign against a whole swath of "dissidents". To respond to @painterswife about how the Feds usually handle an indictment on Federal charges it normally goes like this:
> 
> 1. If the indicted may have evidence of their crime they can destroy, they may execute a search warrant without notice.
> 2. If the indicted is a likely fugitive, they may may surprise him with a response team.
> ...


Yes, it is meant as intimidation, but the only reason the FBI could become involved is if it is federal law.

At the federal level in the United States, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force – such as forming a blockade – in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship. wikipedia​
Abortion is also the main campaign issue for the Dems.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

muleskinner2 said:


> We should take this as a learning moment. Stay away from crowds, and don't go to rallies. And if you choose to go behind enemy lines, leave your kids at home.


The notion that anyone on the other side of such a controversial topic is going to “respect” your or your child’s perceived rights to not be called a name is flat out hilarious.

sounds like our man took the idiot bait and committed assault over words.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Is it not the normal course of business for the FBI to make arrests for federal charges?


It would seem that the normal course of business is for the FBI to be used as a political weapon. I am surprised that they didn't surround his house and set it on fire, or, perhaps shoot his wife while she was holding one of his children.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Yes, it is meant as intimidation, but the only reason the FBI could become involved is if it is federal law.
> 
> At the federal level in the United States, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force – such as forming a blockade – in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship. wikipedia​
> Abortion is also the main campaign issue for the Dems.


No doubt that abortion is a main campaign issue. No doubt that abortion access was a pretense for the Stasi. I have little doubt they are trying to provoke a response as a pretense now that the Wuflu seems to not get them where they want to go.

Yay, generic pronouns everywhere. 

Apparently, "they" are doing fine work identifying "their" opposition. I can identify "their" front men easily. Who or what is really pulling the strings in this clown world is yet to be revealed, at least to me.....definitively.

Ugh, the canner has just reached pressure. I mean, yay...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

MoonRiver said:


> Abortion.


Good chance your correct. Seems to me side of the isle had pretty much a guaranteed win at most of the polls. Then they get silly and bring abortion into the mix. Going to problems now that they could have avoided.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

Maybe it's just me, but: What exactly was this man DOING, endangering his 12 year old child by taking him to an abortion protest? He should be jailed just for putting a kid in danger like that, to further his own personal and political beliefs. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, that's sick.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

RJ2019 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but: What exactly was this man DOING, endangering his 12 year old child by taking him to an abortion protest? He should be jailed just for putting a kid in danger like that, to further his own personal and political beliefs. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, that's sick.


Possibly their was an all ages drag show going on at the time that the parent didn't want him to attend.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Hiro said:


> No doubt that abortion is a main campaign issue. No doubt that abortion access was a pretense for the Stasi. I have little doubt they are trying to provoke a response as a pretense now that the Wuflu seems to not get them where they want to go.
> 
> Yay, generic pronouns everywhere.
> 
> ...


I've said it for years. Soros is secretly funding the anti-abortion legislation PACs. That is why the Marxists won the 2018 midterms. Probably some election rigging to boot. But there is nothing to swing independents and moderate Cuckpublicans to vote Marxist than abortion laws.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> Good chance your correct. Seems to me side of the isle had pretty much a guaranteed win at most of the polls. Then they get silly and bring abortion into the mix. Going to problems now that they could have avoided.


Yep the GOP all but evaporated their chance to win the senate at this point and their assumed win of the house that was rock solid has been slipping steadily since the SCOTUS abortion ruling.

GA is looking more like a win for Stacy A. As Brian Kemp has just now gone on the record for supporting a ban on plan B contraception. Good timing there bro.

Nobody with a brain is going to trust them to do anything other than push for full bans of abortion at state levels. And where the population isn’t overwhelmingly GOP bound, that’s going to bite them.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Twins.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Abortion is the focal point that is going to plunge us into CWII, Like slavery in CWI, the reasons for the conflict will be many, but, that will be the flash point that starts the whole thing.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> Yep the GOP all but evaporated their chance to win the senate at this point and their assumed win of the house that was rock solid has been slipping steadily since the SCOTUS abortion ruling.
> 
> GA is looking more like a win for Stacy A. As Brian Kemp has just now gone on the record for supporting a ban on plan B contraception. Good timing there bro.
> 
> Nobody with a brain is going to trust them to do anything other than push for full bans of abortion at state levels. And where the population isn’t overwhelmingly GOP bound, that’s going to bite them.


You need better sources. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

*Polling Data*

PollDateSampleMoEKemp (R) *Abrams (D)SpreadRCP Average8/24 - 9/19----50.644.0Kemp +6.6CBS News/YouGov9/14 - 9/191178 LV4.05246Kemp +6Marist*9/12 - 9/15992 LV4.05342Kemp +11Atlanta Journal-Constitution*9/5 - 9/16861 LV3.35042Kemp +8Quinnipiac9/8 - 9/121287 LV2.75048Kemp +2FOX 5/InsiderAdvantage*9/6 - 9/7550 LV4.25042Kemp +8Emerson8/28 - 8/29600 LV3.94844Kemp +4Trafalgar Group (R)*8/24 - 8/271079 LV2.95144Kemp +7
All Georgia Governor - Kemp vs. Abrams Polling Data


DateSampleMoEWarnock (D) *Walker (R)SpreadRCP Average8/24 - 9/19----47.046.7Warnock +0.3CBS News/YouGov9/14 - 9/191178 LV4.05149Warnock +2Marist*9/12 - 9/15992 LV4.04745Warnock +2Atlanta Journal-Constitution*9/5 - 9/16861 LV3.34446Walker +2Quinnipiac9/8 - 9/121287 LV2.75246Warnock +6FOX 5/InsiderAdvantage*9/6 - 9/7550 LV4.24447Walker +3Emerson8/28 - 8/29600 LV3.94446Walker +2Trafalgar Group (R)*8/24 - 8/271079 LV2.94748Walker +1


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

RJ2019 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but: What exactly was this man DOING, endangering his 12 year old child by taking him to an abortion protest? He should be jailed just for putting a kid in danger like that, to further his own personal and political beliefs. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, that's sick.


I dropped off some firewood at a woman's house yesterday. She was in her living room with two preteen kids watching "Dahmer" on Netflix. That would be Jeffrey Dahmer, the homosexual cannibal murderer. Nudity, masturbation, violence, gore, bad language, etc.
I guess society is a little desensitized when it comes to exposing our children to television and the media, yet God forbid they hear bad words and experience the reality of life choices.
Even a few members of HT seem ok with a boy his age heading west to SF to get his penis snipped by doctors glad to do it. 
If folks are going to gasp and plead outrage, it is a little late.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Farmerga said:


> It would seem that the normal course of business is for the FBI to be used as a political weapon. I am surprised that they didn't surround his house and set it on fire, or, perhaps shoot his wife while she was holding one of his children.


He only fits the profile of someone to be used as an example. Put him in the public square, order the public to attend and give him a beating.
To get the responses they seek in order to "justify" their next levels of action would require situations where it is highly likely the defendant or like minded citizens will retaliate.
They will know when they are poking the bear.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Interesting. Thanks for posting the above information. That puts a bit of a different perspective on it.
> 
> I wonder why Houck was repeatedly taking his 12 year old boy with him for weeks and weeks to the Planned Parenthood location and exposing him to such sensitive issues and the alleged verbal vulgarities of other people there? And why be deliberately exposing his child as a witness to his own physical violence of pushing an out-spoken senior to the ground for the senior's out-spokeness? As a parent that doesn't make sense to me for a parent to get a child involved and subject the kid to being witness to so much anger and his own violent interactions with other adults. There appears to be a mental disconnect there.
> 
> ...


Should we teach our children to do what they feel is the right thing or should we teach them to hide in a closet with a blanket over their heads until the real nastiness blows over? Children have opinions, feelings and RIGHTS. We don't know if the child was dragged along to the protest or if it was something in which he wanted to participate. 

Where was the outrage when people were taking their children along to "mostly non-violent" BLM protests?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Should we teach our children to do what they feel is the right thing or should we teach them to hide in a closet with a blanket over their heads until the real nastiness blows over? Children have opinions, feelings and RIGHTS. We don't know if the child was dragged along to the protest or if it was something in which he wanted to participate.
> 
> Where was the outrage when people were taking their children along to "mostly non-violent" BLM protests?


Here is what I believe:

- Parents should not be taking their children to protests of _any_ kind.

- Parents should not be using their children as shields for themselves.

- Parents should not put their children in the position of potentially becoming collateral damage.

- Parents should not put their children in a position of potentially becoming a danger to other people. 

To do those things is irresponsible parenting.

.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Then parents should keep their children in a closet and not let them out until they turn 18? Imagine if Ruby Bridges and her mother had felt that way.









The road to school desegregation


For years, many public schools separated children based on their race. Here’s how that changed so that kids of all races could go to school together.




kids.nationalgeographic.com


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Then parents should keep their children in a closet and not let them out until they turn 18? Imagine if Ruby Bridges and her mother had felt that way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was little 6 year old Ruby an instrumental protestor in her own right and of her own volition? Or was she objectively used by her mother and other adults as a means of pursuing an aim or policy? Do you recognize the difference? Do you believe that little 6 year old Ruby knew the difference?

.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Then parents should keep their children in a closet and not let them out until they turn 18? Imagine if Ruby Bridges and her mother had felt that way.


No... parents should keep their children away from any situation involving unnecessary risk. One of a child's main "rights" is the right to be as safe as possible, and their main expectation should be that their parents safeguard _that _right to the best of their ability.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

SWTXRancher_1975 said:


> The notion that anyone on the other side of such a controversial topic is going to “respect” your or your child’s perceived rights to not be called a name is flat out hilarious.


I agree. But if anyone started screaming obscenities in my child's face, the notion that I would "respect" their rights to _not_ swallow their teeth is flat out hilarious.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> No... parents should keep their children away from any situation involving unnecessary risk. One of a child's main "rights" is the right to be as safe as possible, and their main expectation should be that their parents safeguard _that _right to the best of their ability.


Isn't that what is called helicopter parenting?

ETA: Helicopter Parent - a parent who takes an overprotective or excessive interest in the life of their child or children:


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

MoonRiver said:


> Isn't that what is called helicopter parenting?


No. You don't use your child as a tool to further your own political beliefs. Period. Helicopter parenting has nothing to do with having the sense to not endanger your child by bringing them to a protest of a topic that people have very strong and even violent feelings about. Abortion is about THE biggest hot-button topic I can think of and people (I've seen it on this forum and others) will happily resort to violence to support their beliefs.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

RJ2019 said:


> No. You don't use your child as a tool to further your own political beliefs. Period. Helicopter parenting has nothing to do with having the sense to not endanger your child by bringing them to a protest of a topic that people have very strong and even violent feelings about. Abortion is about THE biggest hot-button topic I can think of and people (I've seen it on this forum and others) will happily resort to violence to support their beliefs.


You might want to respond to @Homestead40.

I said absolutely nothing about anything you mentioned.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

It is good parenting to not expose your children to obvious risk. Attending a pro-Life protest is not an obvious risk. It is actually less risky than sending them to school. YMMV.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe the Feds are going after him for interfering with a woman being able to enter an abortion clinic or something to that effect.


A year later? And is that even a federal charge? And you really have to admit that there is a seriously weird set of priorities at the FBI if this guy is under arrest for that, but we had to let Seattle do whatever they wanted with their little separatist state even after they ignored 911 calls to the extent that their black female police chief quit. You get why would find that suspicious right? You can see why we might think that maybe the FBI have weaponized themselves on behalf of the DNC, right?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Hiro said:


> It is good parenting to not expose your children to obvious risk. Attending a pro-Life protest is not an obvious risk. It is actually less risky than sending them to school. YMMV.


I don't think your "no obvious risks" theory is applicable to what happened to the pro-life man and his child. He repeatedly took his child to his protest for several weeks and each time had his child subjected to being verbally abused by another adult, a stranger. For several WEEKS. The risks became obvious after the very first encounter.

Why did he subject his own child to being victimized, to having to endure abuse from a strange man for weeks? He knew the risk of it happening again and again was there each time he took his child there and yet he kept on taking the kid back for more repeated abuse. What kind of good parent makes his own kid go through that kind of abusive crap while the father stands back and witnesses it? No parent that I know would willingly do that to their kid. Maybe somebody who allows that kind of thing to happen to their kid is a bad parent just twisted enough to be getting some jollies out of watching a stranger abuse and victimize his kid.

Then finally after weeks of his child being repeatedly subjected to abuse from a stranger who did it in the father's presence, right under his own nose, the father finally resorted to physical violence and attacked the elderly man and knocked him to the ground. The consequences of his own lack of positive action for repeated weeks and then resorting to violence could have been a lot worse than they were but he was the one who decided to take all the obvious risks and consequences that he knew were going to happen. It was his choice.

Let me be clear about something - I don't care about what he was protesting over or about what the elderly man that was attacked was being abusive about. I don't care that the FBI came to his house with guns and scared his wife and kids. At least the wife and children could be assured that they weren't going to be abused or physically attacked by the FBI the same way the father forced his son to be a victim of and witness to such things.

The only thing I care about is that an incompetent and cowardly father who is also a bully deliberately and repeatedly exposed his child over and over to an obvious risk of abuse and he knew it would happen, he let it happen, he actually made it happen. He's a prolific breeder and he's a very bad, abusive dad who sets an extremely bad example to his children, to his wife, to his very cause, and to the world, regardless of whatever cause it is he's protesting about.

The father is a complete idiot and a sick bully who picks on women, including women who are complete strangers, and his own children. If the wife's report that was shown is anything to go by I'd be willing to bet his wife and all 7 of his children are actually very afraid of him.

I won't tell you what I think should happen to the dad.

.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Was little 6 year old Ruby an instrumental protestor in her own right and of her own volition? Or was she objectively used by her mother and other adults as a means of pursuing an aim or policy? Do you recognize the difference? Do you believe that little 6 year old Ruby knew the difference?
> 
> .


Ruby was used, as were the other black children that went to white schools early in the attempt at desegragation. They were used to improve the lives and access to education for countless millions of children that have followed in her footsteps. That child endured more hate and torment than any person should have to endure. Yet she still attended the white school.









Biography: Ruby Bridges


At the tender age of six, Ruby Bridges advanced the cause of civil rights in November 1960 when she became the first African American student to integrate an elementary school in the South.




www.womenshistory.org





Do you know if the abortion protest boy begged his father to let him stay home or if he begged to go with his father? At 12 years old, and having endured the screaming for _weeks_, he certainly knew what to expect.

Where was the outrage when the children of Westboro Baptist Church were drug along to protest at funerals? Where is the outrage for children who were forced to attend boarding schools without parents nearby to protect them?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Why did he subject his own child to being victimized, to having to endure abuse from a strange man for weeks? He knew the risk of it happening again and again was there each time he took his child there and yet he kept on taking the kid back for more repeated abuse.


In some instances we call that "sending children to public school".


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Paumon said:


> I won't tell you what I think should happen to the dad..


With so many assumptions I don't think anyone cares.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I had a family member that would protest 30 or so years ago along with all her pre teen kids on multiple subjects of protest.
They had no say in the matter.
She couldn’t have left them home alone, that would have been irresponsible…

I always thought if she had the time to spend protesting for an afternoon, the time could have been better spent doing something fun with her kids instead of wasting their time walking in circles on the sidewalk.

She thought she was teaching them something valuable.
There was no reasoning with her on the subject of taking her kids along.

As a side note, her now adult kids don’t even share her views on much of anything.

I feel sorry for his kid.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I agree. Witnessing the government descend on and into his home with automatic weapons will not be forgotten.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Yeah, I don’t recall ever seeing my parent shoving or pushing someone to the ground either.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> Isn't that what is called helicopter parenting?
> 
> ETA: Helicopter Parent - a parent who takes an overprotective or excessive interest in the life of their child or children:


There is a big difference between a helicopter parent and the average parent that simply protects their children from unnecessary risks or abuse.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

How does one protect one's family from federal law enforcement abuse?

A citizen calls the police because they need help. The police call in SWAT because they need help.

In the case of Mr. Houk, the FBI could have simply contacted him or his attorney and had him do what is commonly known as a "turn in". He would simply report in at the local office. This case is a strong example of the FBI overstepping their own protocols. One only needs to recall the number of arrests of BLM or Antifa's burning and looting of Federal buildings, the vandalism and damage done to pro life clinics, churches as well as the illegal protests against SCOTUS judges at their homes. Very few door knocks, interviews, or arrests.
The FBI would only, under past circumstances, bring in a large force of agents armed with automatic weapons and tactical gear when the POI is a known violent threat or a risk to flee. Mr. Houk is none of those.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wr said:


> There is a big difference between a helicopter parent and the average parent that simply protects their children from unnecessary risks or abuse.


What would be a necessary risk?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Judge for yourself.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> Isn't that what is called helicopter parenting?
> 
> ETA: Helicopter Parent - a parent who takes an overprotective or excessive interest in the life of their child or children:


No... if you don't know the difference, I don't know that anything I can say would help.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> It is good parenting to not expose your children to obvious risk. Attending a pro-Life protest is not an obvious risk. It is actually less risky than sending them to school. YMMV.


I would disagree. There's potential for violence almost everywhere but a protest, for or against anything, obviously has a higher risk than many other activities.

When I was a youngin' my dad would take me to his union hall for meetings and socializing. But he wouldn't take me to the picket line when they were on strike.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to respond to @Homestead40.
> 
> I said absolutely nothing about anything you mentioned.


As far as I know this is an open forum and people are free to respond to anything they have an opinion on. If you don't want people to respond to your post you might want to use private messages. BTW @RJ2019 answered very well.

As to what you said:

the word of the day is...

*Implication*

im·pli·ca·tion
/ˌimpləˈkāSH(ə)n/
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...2ahUKEwjgu4_j-7L6AhUZFFkFHWj0BBQQ3eEDegQIBBAK
_noun_

the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> What would be a necessary risk?


Riding in a motor vehicle (risk of accident)... playing on a playground (risk of falling)... playing baseball (risk of getting hit by ball or bat)... going swimming (risk of drowning)... etc.... etc. Almost everything has _some_ associated risk but people have to live their lives. Not everything has an elevated risk... but taking a child to a protest is not a necessary risk.

word of the day #2

*OBTUSE*
_adjective_

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Browsercat (Aug 2, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> If this story is as written, Garland and Wray need to resign/be fired/impeached immediately for this abuse of power. The government is using a show of force as a political weapon.
> 
> Sources tell the Todd Starnes Radio Show that dozens of agents surrounded the home of Mark Houck with weapons drawn — terrifying the man’s wife and seven children.​​“They had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,” Ryan-Marie Houck told LifeSiteNews.com. “The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic.”​​Agents said they were arresting Houck because he reportedly shoved a pro-abortion activist who had confronted his 12-year-old son outside an abortion clinic last October.​
> Read more


The person shoved was shoved to the ground and needed medical attention, and a federal law was broken in the process. Service of warrants can be scary, but to focus on the effect on his children to the exclusion of the effect of his actions on the person he hurt doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Browsercat (Aug 2, 2003)

One protest has the potential for violence against others, one is just a general protest. Not exactly the same.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Browsercat said:


> The person shoved was shoved to the ground and needed medical attention, and a federal law was broken in the process. Service of warrants can be scary, but to focus on the effect on his children to the exclusion of the effect of his actions on the person he hurt doesn't seem fair.


Why was he shoved in the first place?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Why was he shoved in the first place?


Because one thing led to another as usual with these kinds of protests. To summarize a convoluted story:

- The elderly man who was shoved was the escort who was escorting patients through the crowd of protesters into the clinic for their medical appointments.

- The pro-lifer with the 12 year old son was the protester who was physically blocking female patients from entering the door of the clinic (an illegal act).

- The escort tried to stop the pro-lifer from interfering with the women and the two men exchanged "words".

- The escort became verbally abusive towards the protester and the protester's son about his dad physically bullying and interfering with the women entering the clinic.

- According to the protester's wife the verbal haranguing between the escort and the protester and his son continued for several weeks.

- On the very last event the escort started yelling at the 12 y.o. boy about his father (the protester) being a bad man and he used obscene words to describe the protester and the boy.

- The protester then became physically violent, attacked the escort and knocked the escort down to the ground and injured him enough to require medical attention.

That is all in the reports on links that were provided in the beginning of this thread if you care to read them.

.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Browsercat said:


> The person shoved was shoved to the ground and needed medical attention, and a federal law was broken in the process. Service of warrants can be scary, but to focus on the effect on his children to the exclusion of the effect of his actions on the person he hurt doesn't seem fair.


Warrants don't have to be scary. As was previously posted, the attorney for the guy can be contacted and the defendant notified to voluntarily come in for processing. Simple as that and it happens all of the time.
What should not be happening is federal agencies selectively committing overuse of force. One only needs to read numerous examples in the media recently or to FBI whistleblowers pointing out the now common practice of being used as a bouncer for political parties.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

7 kids inside the home, 15 vehicles and 25-30 armored agents with weapons drawn pounding on the door, even while the defendant was agreeing to open it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Paumon said:


> Because one thing led to another as usual with these kinds of protests. To summarize a convoluted story:
> 
> - The elderly man who was shoved was the escort who was escorting patients through the crowd of protesters into the clinic for their medical appointments.
> 
> ...


Where in the link does it discuss the reasons for the District Court in Philadelphia throwing out the lawsuit against the defendant?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

No where in any of the articles I read, including the originally posted article, did it state that Houck was blocking the entrance to the clinic. He was charged with using force against a health care worker for shoving the escort on not one, but two occasions.

*"Mark Houck*, 48, of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, “is alleged to have twice assaulted a man because he was a volunteer reproductive health clinic escort,” the DOJ said in a press release. “The two-count indictment charges Houck with a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal crime to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate, and interfere with anyone because that person is a provider of reproductive health care.”"









Pro-Life Activist Caused Injuries That 'Required Medical Attention' When He 'Forcefully Shoved' Abortion Clinic Escort: DOJ


A Catholic pro-life activist has been indicted for allegedly assaulting a "reproductive health care clinic escort in Philadelphia."




lawandcrime.com





They were not attempting to enter the clinic, the escort and two patients were leaving the clinic when the escort reported being shoved the first time.

"In the first incident, the man was attempting to escort two patients exiting the clinic when Houck forcefully shoved him to the ground. In the second incident, Houck allegedly confronted the man and shoved him to the ground in front of the Planned Parenthood center, causing injuries that required medical attention."









Pennsylvania man charged with assaulting elderly Planned Parenthood volunteer


PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (WHTM) – A Pennsylvania man has been charged for allegedly assaulting an elderly Planned Parenthood volunteer. United States Attorney Jacqueline C. Romero announced Friday that Ma…




www.abc27.com


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Another perspective-

_"...new information from Houck’s attorney, Thomas More Society Vice President and Senior Counsel Peter Breen, indicates Houck agree months ago to turn himself in voluntarily.

In June 2022, Thomas More Society attorneys notified the Biden Department of Justice that the FACE Act does not cover one-on-one altercations like the one involving Houck, *which was initiated by the abortion proponent *who was harassing Houck’s son. The Department of Justice was also advised that if the decision was made to bring a charge against Houck despite lack of legal foundation, Houck would appear voluntarily.

“Rather than accepting Mark Houck’s offer to appear voluntarily, the Biden Department of Justice chose to make an unnecessary show of potentially deadly force, sending twenty heavily armed federal agents to the Houck residence at dawn this past Friday,” explained Breen. “In threatening form, after nearly breaking down the family’s front door, at least five agents pointed guns at Mark’s head and arrested him in front of his wife and seven young children,

the incident at the abortion center was so minor that local charges were never filed._


> _When both the city police and the district attorney declined to file charges against Houck, the escort filed a private criminal complaint in Philadelphia municipal court, Middleton said. The case was dismissed in July when the man repeatedly didn’t show up in court,..."_


Pro-Life Advocate Mark Houck Offered to Talk to FBI 3 Months Ago, It Raided His Family Anyway - LifeNews.com


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> Riding in a motor vehicle (risk of accident)... playing on a playground (risk of falling)... playing baseball (risk of getting hit by ball or bat)... going swimming (risk of drowning)... etc.... etc. Almost everything has _some_ associated risk but people have to live their lives. Not everything has an elevated risk... but taking a child to a protest is not a necessary risk.
> 
> word of the day #2
> 
> ...


I wouldn't want to be your 12-year-old son. It sure wouldn't be much fun if I couldn't do what 12-year-old boys do - which is stupid stuff. Kids learn by pushing their limits. Allowing the boy to go to the protest on his own would be reckless, but taking him with you to pray for women is perfectly acceptable for a 12-year-old.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> I wouldn't want to be your 12-year-old son. It sure wouldn't be much fun if I couldn't do what 12-year-old boys do - which is stupid stuff. Kids learn by pushing their limits. Allowing the boy to go to the protest on his own would be reckless, but taking him with you to pray for women is perfectly acceptable for a 12-year-old.


My kids, now grown, had their share of cuts and bruises and even a few broken bones. They had bikes, then dirt bikes and one raced go-carts. They ran around and played, often going off for hours on their own (those were the days).

My grandkids, who now live with me, go horseback riding or down to the swimming hole, or just run and climb around on the mountain side. One granddaughter got kinda banged up this summer when the wild grape vine they were swinging on broke. They were swinging from the top of a boulder and she fell about 10 feet. The two eldest (teens) will be doing some hunting with me again this year. In the winter they sled down a hill that most people won't walk down... or they go ice skating on the pond. They often hook their sled to a horse and go across the fields at full run. I'm hardly a "helicopter" grandpa... neither is my daughter a "helicopter" mom.

My point... which you so conveniently took out of context (actually you got it azz backwards as usual), is there are normal, accepted risks in most things we do.... either as children or as adults. Then there are unnecessary risks that adults, especially parents, should not put children into. Taking a 12 y.o. to a meeting or likely safe rally is one thing... taking that 12 y.o. a hot situation, where you know emotions are already high is just plain stupid and irresponsible.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Browsercat said:


> The person shoved was shoved to the ground and needed medical attention, and a federal law was broken in the process. Service of warrants can be scary, but to focus on the effect on his children to the exclusion of the effect of his actions on the person he hurt doesn't seem fair.


Do you think local police show up guns drawn over incidents like this? They really don't. No firearms were involved on the side of the defendant. Which federal law was broken?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I think if Biden's Poltical weapon tries him for a Federal crime, he should seek out lovers of the Constitution to fund his fight to the supreme court. There is no power granted the Federal government to enact laws such as this.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but: What exactly was this man DOING, endangering his 12 year old child by taking him to an abortion protest? He should be jailed just for putting a kid in danger like that, to further his own personal and political beliefs. I don't care what side of the fence you sit on, that's sick.


And shouldn't the boy be in school, unless it was a weekend?

Most 12-year-olds wouldn't be interested in something like that, to put it mildly. Imagine if a classmate or someone else he knew showed up, whether to have an abortion or not?


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> In some instances we call that "sending children to public school".


Just public school? You didn't see "The Keepers", have you?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

thesedays said:


> And shouldn't the boy be in school, unless it was a weekend?
> 
> Most 12-year-olds wouldn't be interested in something like that, to put it mildly. Imagine if a classmate or someone else he knew showed up, whether to have an abortion or not?


Yet some are. Seems there was another 12 year old from an old history book that became separated from his parents at a crowded festival, who turned up schooling the wise old timers of the area.
Don't underestimate your kids. They aren't all destined for the Xbox.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Do you think local police show up guns drawn over incidents like this? They really don't. No firearms were involved on the side of the defendant. Which federal law was broken?


The FACE Act









Protecting Patients and Health Care Providers







www.justice.gov


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

thesedays said:


> Just public school? You didn't see "The Keepers", have you?


No. I don't know anyone who went to private Catholic schools either.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Danaus29 said:


> The FACE Act
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"which prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage *intended to interfere with reproductive health care services*"

How does pushing a man away from his child interfere with reproductive health care services?

"The statute protects all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services "

Which one of those does the man who was pushed qualify as? 

Tell you what. If Merrick Garland didn't have anything more to go on here, forget impeachment, he belongs in prison. Anyone have an update on this that would satisfy Merrick Garland's oath of office?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A Michigan man has admitted to shooting an elderly pro-life woman who was canvassing homes to campaign against Proposal 3, which would legalize abortions up to birth in the state. Meanwhile, his wife is a radical leftist and abortion activist who regularly threatens conservatives in social media posts. 








Man Admits Shooting Elderly Pro-Life Woman, His Wife's a Leftist Who Threatens Conservatives - LifeNews.com


A Michigan man has admitted to shooting an elderly pro-life woman who was canvassing homes to campaign against Proposal 3, which would legalize abortions up to birth in the state. Meanwhile, his wife is a radical leftist and abortion activist who regularly threatens conservatives in social media...



www.lifenews.com


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

thesedays said:


> And shouldn't the boy be in school, unless it was a weekend?


Wild guess, but a father who protests abortion clinics and has seven kids, they're probably home schooled.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

HDRider said:


> A Michigan man has admitted to shooting an elderly pro-life woman who was canvassing homes to campaign against Proposal 3, which would legalize abortions up to birth in the state. Meanwhile, his wife is a radical leftist and abortion activist who regularly threatens conservatives in social media posts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the story from another viewpoint. While what he did was 100% wrong and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, they said they asked her to leave, and she wouldn't.









Man who shot Right to Life volunteer: ‘It was an accident’


The man who fired the shot that struck an anti-abortion rights canvasser in the shoulder last week called it an accident but also said the volunteer had been arguing with his wife, who supports abo…




www.woodtv.com


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

"He claims he accidentally shot her — even though she was shot in the back."

Not sure why being shot in the back is relevant. That doesn't contradict his claim at all.

(Also seems to be some question about whether she really was shot in the back, but still not relevant to whether it was intentional.)


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Seems the homeowner is well aware of his poor handling of the rifle. 
On the other hand once the woman was asked to leave and she remained she was trespassing. Husband coming out of the barn and worried about wife being assaulted should carry enough weight to end any investigation.
Yes I realize that with todays silly people the homeowner is likely to have problems.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wiscto said:


> "which prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage *intended to interfere with reproductive health care services*"
> 
> How does pushing a man away from his child interfere with reproductive health care services?
> 
> ...


The pushee was an escort for patients and was escorting 2 women from the clinic. Escorts are considered by law to be providers. 

However, if the pushee was the one doing the harassing the FACE Act should not be brought into play. An escort is supposed to be a buffer between activists and patients. By instigating the harassment the pushee stepped out of his line of duty.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Danaus29 said:


> The pushee was an escort for patients and was escorting 2 women from the clinic. Escorts are considered by law to be providers.
> 
> However, if the pushee was the one doing the harassing the FACE Act should not be brought into play. An escort is supposed to be a buffer between activists and patients. By instigating the harassment the pushee stepped out of his line of duty.


I am amused by the fact that you still think you're being rational, but not amused in the good way. Even if what you're saying is true, it still matters that the FBI showed up guns drawn in full SWAT team mode. It was intimidation. It was a show of force. Merrick Garland didn't like the decision of the local court, and he's flexing his despotic muscles. 

Thankfully the Republicans had the good sense to prevent him from being appointed to our nation's highest court... Turns out they had a good reason after all...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I am amused by the fact that you still think you're being rational, but not amused in the good way. Even if what you're saying is true, it still matters that the FBI showed up guns drawn in full SWAT team mode. It was intimidation. It was a show of force. Merrick Garland didn't like the decision of the local court, and he's flexing his despotic muscles.
> 
> Thankfully the Republicans had the good sense to prevent him from being appointed to our nation's highest court... Turns out they had a good reason after all...


I never said the FBI response was rational did I? You asked what law was broken. I responded with what he was charged with breaking. You are assuming I agree with the federal reaction.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

thesedays said:


> Here's the story from another viewpoint. While what he did was 100% wrong and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, they said they asked her to leave, and she wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The article HD posted included the detail that the home owners had asked her to leave. 



ryanthomas said:


> "He claims he accidentally shot her — even though she was shot in the back."
> 
> Not sure why being shot in the back is relevant. That doesn't contradict his claim at all.
> 
> (Also seems to be some question about whether she really was shot in the back, but still not relevant to whether it was intentional.)


Here’s an article that has more detail on the shooting, in the shooter’s words:





__





Michigan man says he accidentally shot elderly pro-life volunteer who was allegedly 'screaming' about abortion - 1010 WCSI


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!




1010wcsi.com






> Meanwhile, Richard Harvey was in a barn on the property when he heard “screaming” from the house. He said he grabbed his wife’s .22-caliber rifle and fired a warning shot.
> 
> “She [the volunteer] is still ranting and raving, and she’s got this clipboard. She’s waving it around. I’m thinking she’s going to smack Sharon with it. So without thinking, I went to club it away with the rifle and my finger was still in the trigger guard. It went off and hit her about in here,” he said, pointing to his right shoulder, according to News 8.


So, dude fires a “warning shot”, and then tried clubbing at a lady, with a rifle, and ends up shooting her. 

…and he’s still not in jail. 

Meanwhile, a pro-life man volunteered to come in for questioning, according to his lawyers, but the FBI decided they better go pick him up instead, with 24 rifles drawn and swinging around. 


I wonder what the (D)ifference is.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

"The Right to Life Of Michigan added that “no one should fear violence while peacefully exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.”"

I wonder what fantasy world the RTLM people live in. The 1st does not allow you to any rights on someone else's property.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The article HD posted included the detail that the home owners had asked her to leave.
> 
> 
> Here’s an article that has more detail on the shooting, in the shooter’s words:
> ...


I read that before I posted and none of it was relevant to my point. One could just as easily shoot someone in the back accidentally as in the front, so saying she was shot "in the back" doesn't contradict the claim that it was an accident.

And it sounds like it probably isn't correct anyway. Even the article saying she was shot in the back has this at the end: "The 84-year-old victim of the shooting said investigators have told her she was shot once, and the bullet passed through her shoulder to her back."

He'll probably be charged, as he should be. Defense of others doesn't give him a pass on negligent discharge of a firearm, which he admits to. He probably shouldn't be talking to the media. But he'll likely plead to a 93-day misdemeanor and get no jail time, just a fine and forfeit the rifle (which has already been seized by police).

My wife is from that area. It's quite conservative and religious, so I very much doubt they're giving him a pass because they're on his side. Charges for these things take weeks if not months, and it's only been a few days. If he had killed her, it'd be another story, but fortunately that didn't happen.

The pro-lifer wasn't arrested by the FBI until almost a year after that incident.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Which one of those does the man who was pushed qualify as?


 From the link provided:

"...the Act's protections extend not only to physicians but also to clerical workers and *escorts at reproductive health facilities*."

(_bold added for emphasis_)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575524157931999233


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> No. I don't know anyone who went to private Catholic schools either.


What kind of rock do you live under? Pretty much any town big enough to have a Catholic church also has a parochial school, or there's one in the area. I realize the majority of Catholic priests are NOT abusive, to children or anyone else.

You do know people who went to Catholic school; they've just never told you.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

thesedays said:


> What kind of rock do you live under? Pretty much any town big enough to have a Catholic church also has a parochial school, or there's one in the area. I realize the majority of Catholic priests are NOT abusive, to children or anyone else.
> 
> You do know people who went to Catholic school; they've just never told you.


There's a Catholic Church right across the street from where I sit. There is a Catholic run hospital just up the hill. The closest Catholic school is 60 miles away. Around here everyone knows what church you go to or if you don't go. In the case of children everybody knows what school they go to and what grade they're in.

Your post almost comes across as your having a big town chip on your shoulder.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

thesedays said:


> What kind of rock do you live under? Pretty much any town big enough to have a Catholic church also has a parochial school, or there's one in the area. I realize the majority of Catholic priests are NOT abusive, to children or anyone else.
> 
> You do know people who went to Catholic school; they've just never told you.


Insults add nothing to conversation.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

thesedays said:


> What kind of rock do you live under? Pretty much any town big enough to have a Catholic church also has a parochial school, or there's one in the area. I realize the majority of Catholic priests are NOT abusive, to children or anyone else.
> 
> You do know people who went to Catholic school; they've just never told you.


Way out in farm country in an area inhabited by quite a few Dunkards. The other city where I went to school was run by a Catholic school board, many years before their current Catholic school opened. 

I know more Dunkards than Catholics.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

thesedays said:


> What kind of rock do you live under? Pretty much any town big enough to have a Catholic church also has a parochial school, or there's one in the area. I realize the majority of Catholic priests are NOT abusive, to children or anyone else.
> 
> You do know people who went to Catholic school; they've just never told you.


I got to thinking, I know way more Muslims and Jews than Catholics. 

And I never said Catholic priests were abusive. NEVER, ANYWHERE did I ever say that. You need to stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The article HD posted included the detail that the home owners had asked her to leave.
> 
> 
> Here’s an article that has more detail on the shooting, in the shooter’s words:
> ...


Fixed this line for you:
The article HD posted included the detail that the home owners SAID THEY had asked her to leave.
Re: Meanwhile, a pro-life man volunteered to come in for questioning, according to his lawyers, but the FBI decided they better go pick him up instead, with 24 rifles drawn and swinging around.:
Sounds like Waco eh. At least they didn't kill his kids and burn their house down.


----------

