2012 Election | Barack Obama | Cincinnati | News | Ohio

BigGayDeal.com

Anti-Abortion Heckler Dragged from Obama Rally in Cincinnati: VIDEO

Cleveland

An anti-abortion heckler waving graphic images of fetuses was dragged from an Obama rally in Cincinnati on Sunday after a group of police pried his fingers off the stadium bars.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Politico writes:

Obama paused his remarks as the crowd drowned the man out while the crowd picked up the familiar a chant of “four year years.”

With the Obama campaign controlling the ticket distribution at its events, hecklers interrupting the president are extremely rare. Obama, not used to the disruption, did not appear to enjoy having to pause his remarks.

“Let’s try this again,” he offered, delving back to his now-standard riff about concern for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

If you didn't see the New Left Media video we posted yesterday of Ohio voters expressing their support for Romney, it's a must-watch. Check it out HERE.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I have a feeling they chanted "Four *more* years", not "Four year years"...

    Posted by: MikeKV | Nov 5, 2012 10:29:27 AM


  2. oh, look. a man. a man who went to heckle about abortion. an issue of choice that he will never, ever, be faced with having to make.

    so that makes sense.

    whenever i meet people who are against a woman's right to choose all i can think is "wow, so your mom didn't want to have you and was forced, eh? eek"

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 5, 2012 10:52:46 AM


  3. Too bad there isn't such a thing as a retroactive abortion. This guy would be a perfect candidate. I can't stand these moralizing assholes who want to make other peoples decisions for them, once he acquires a uterus he can have a personal vote on the matter, til then? STFU.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 5, 2012 10:56:55 AM


  4. can someone remind me again how the "we need federal amendments to ban abortions and gays from blah blah blah" is in any way compatible with Individual Liberties?

    ugh, the GOP and their two sets of rules.

    "don't ever insult the president!" - if he's white and republican. shame on the dixie chicks, but every anti-Obama hater is a true patriot, eh?

    freedom of religion! as long as it's right-wing conservative christianity.

    but yeah. men who think they have any say over a woman's right to choose.

    the best is when you get the anti-choice gay males. those losers deserve every ounce of anti-gay discrimination they'll ever face in life.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 5, 2012 11:04:09 AM


  5. Once again Politico has it wrong. If you look at his first term and even when he ran for president, he was heckled a few times and rather enjoyed it. he even allowed the hecklers to have their say before he answered them. The line in which Politico says, "Obama, not used to the disruption, did not appear to enjoy having to pause his remarks" is just simply bad reporting and not factually correct.

    Posted by: Paul Bashline | Nov 5, 2012 11:26:36 AM


  6. kick that creep out! abortion protesters are the worst.. especially males one.. ughh the worst!

    Posted by: R | Nov 5, 2012 3:06:49 PM


  7. I work at University of Cincinnati, the campus where this event was held, and was actually there. That protestor was also outside before the event and was repeatedly drowned out by the other attendees standing in line. Additionally, he had several teen girls in his entourage, all of whom had tape over their mouths while they held their anti-abortion/anti-government signs. They were quite the spectacle. Not sure how he got into the event. I spoke with the officers on duty and they moved him away from the venue twice due to other attendees complaining about the young girls with taped mouths.

    Posted by: Ben | Nov 5, 2012 5:24:59 PM


  8. Did you guys notice that he was doing some kind of flex moves or something? What was that? He's like "I'm Franz girly man, notice my protests' thickness, so strong like a python". WTF? This protest is here to pump you up?

    Posted by: PostPonyPhase | Nov 5, 2012 8:48:09 PM


  9. @PostPonyPhase: After he showed what appeared to be disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses, he sat down. When he thought he was going to be ejected, he grasped the railing with both hands first, before the traditional protester posture of going limp.

    @Little Kiwi: I don't agree with it, but... The argument about abortion is that many Christians believe that human life begins at conception. They are, therefore, dutifully attempting to uphold the law and prevent murder. Since the Religious Right has coopted the Republican party, anyone who believes differently is unwelcome. (Just like two other groups we know.) While I do have some sympathy for that position - becasue I understand how the Bible can be read that way - I think we must needs deal with the reality of religious (and non-religious) pluralism in this country. I'm a Christian. (Even if some do not consider Episcopalians Christians.) Not only do I believe that a female should exercise her well-formed conscience, but I also firmly believe that human life begins at the first unaided breath. I resent being told I could not possibly be Christian for holding these positions - just because I happen to dare to read the Bible differently from them. (It's ironic that some of the Religious Right started their denominations because they believed that no church has a right to impose its beliefs on others because all believers have the right (nay, the duty) to read the Bible for themselves.)

    I have been told that Roe decided in favor of "viability" because there was no consensus about religious or philosophical beliefs. I think the lack of consensus is even more true now than in 1973. Could some legal expert please clarify?

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Nov 6, 2012 3:35:47 AM


  10. What

    Posted by: Mark | Dec 26, 2012 8:28:32 PM


  11. What

    Posted by: Mark | Dec 26, 2012 8:28:33 PM


  12. One other thing. Someone mentioned viability. This is a very flimsy case to build your pro-abortion argument on. The courts have determined viability to be aided or unaided. Meaning life support equipment may be used to support the life of the child. What makes this argument weak is that technology is ever changing and improving. If the point of viability this year is 22 weeks, in 10 years viablity might be 18 weeks. So what would have been legal this year is now illegal 10 years from now? What happens when scientists are able to bring a child to term from conception without ever having been in it's mother's womb?

    Posted by: Mark | Dec 26, 2012 9:20:07 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Stunning Short Film Highlights Inequality of Gay Families: VIDEO« «