Is the Obama campaign afraid of Randell Terry and his pro-life ads? Patrick Gaspard, Executive Director of the DNC, has written a letter on DNC letterhead suggesting to FCC licensed TV stations that they violate federal law, and refuse to run Presidential Candidate Randall Terry’s anti-Obama campaign ads.
Mr. Terry’s pro-life ads are protected by Federal Law. Mr. Terry’s graphic ads have already run (in conjunction with the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary) in eight states: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine.
The Terry Campaign Super Bowl Ad is scheduled to run in 13 cities in 6 states as of 1/30/12.
Mr. Terry has met all the legal qualifications to be on the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and as a write in candidate for Illinois. Mr. Terry’s attorney, Jason Craddock, affiliated with the Thomas More Society, states:
“The DNC’s action is sheer deceptive thuggery. They imagine themselves above the law and in their letter (which thinly veils their intent) they direct the media to break the law as well, all for the sake of hiding the gruesome, bloody reality of the President’s policies and promotion of abortion without limits.”
Mr. Terry States:
“I — unlike the President — can prove that I am a legally qualified candidate for President; that I am legally on the ballot in the states in question; that I have met every legal standard imposed on me by the FEC and the FCC.
“Which is more noteworthy: the arrogance, or the fear of the Obama/DNC team? We know that Obama does not want America to see an ad that shows his record of promoting child killing via unbridled abortion, but to openly call on stations to break the law shows a level of panic and folly that is surprising. Of course, if Obama would promote the murder of babies through abortion…why not promote the violation of FCC law? Pride goes before the fall, Mr. President.”
Gaspard was Obama’s White House Political Affairs director until January of 2011. He has ties to ACORN also. Discover the Networks notes:
In 2001 Gaspard served as political director for Bertha Lewis, who was, at that time, the head of ACORN‘s New York chapter. (Lewis would go on to become ACORN’s chief national organizer seven years later.) In the July 2, 2001 issue of The Nation, Gaspard and Lewis jointly published a letter defending the Working Families Party against its critics. In that letter, the authors described their extensive joint involvement in WFP activities; they signed their names as: “Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP”; and “Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP.”
The ACORN front group Working Families Party has been shown to be in on funding and organizing the Occupy movement from the beginning.
Carl Horowitz at NLPC points out that “Patrick Gaspard was serving as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. He would continue his work for its successor group, the Working Families Party, a New York City entity co-founded by ACORN activists, most of all, longtime New York ACORN boss Bertha Lewis, a hardcore radical who serves as party co-chair.”
Patrick Gaspard was the “Karl Rove” of the Obama White house helping to shape domestic policy issues.
Obama’s history with abortion is not pleasant. As a senator in Illinois he argued for a law that would allow survivors of abortion to die without medical treatment.
From ‘What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama‘ in a August 20, 2004 article at the Chicago Tribune:
Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:
The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
“10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
More recently Obama has raised the ire of Catholic groups. Cliff Kincaid wrote in a previous article about Obamacare rules violating religious conscience:
The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”
The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”
Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”
So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.
The Obama administration also put its abortion advocacy above sex trafficking victims. Lifesite News reported:
For over a decade, we have achieved an amazing left-right, religious-secular, bicameral, bipartisan consensus, unified in combating sex and labor trafficking at home and worldwide without promoting abortion.
In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power, the Obama Administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging; denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization—the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)—with an exemplary ten year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs that got the grant.
The Obama Administration’s discriminatory practice of funding NGOs that provide or refer for abortions even when they fail to win a competitive process is not only unjust, unethical and in violation of conscience laws (Weldon Amendment and Coats-Snowe), but it severely undermines public—and Congressional—confidence and support for what is an otherwise laudable program.
If you are a Catholic, or other faith-based NGO, or a secular organization of conscience, there is now clear proof that your grant application will not be considered under a fair, impartial, and transparent process by the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration’s bias against Catholics is an affront to religious freedom and a threat to all people of faith.
No wonder the DNC is using its left wing radical from Obama’s White House staff to coerce TV stations into refusing to run Randall Terr’ys graphic pro-life ads.
These ads tell the truth about abortion and Obama. Watch if you dare:
To see the DNC letter go here
By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com
Follow usACTIONnews on Twitter or on Facebook
Go to www.TerryForPresident.com to see Super Bowl Ad Obama campaign does not want voters to see.
Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere: