End game: Obama machine tries to block graphic abortion Super Bowl ads
Six days from today graphic ads showing the reality of abortion will air before, during, or after the Super Bowl in at least 17 metropolitan areas across 10 states.
Those states shall at this point rename nameless, because the Obama machine is now trying to block the ads.
On January 27 NBC affiliates in four states as well as the City of Chicago (surprise) contacted pro-life activist Randall Terry, who is running for president on the Democrat ticket, and said they were cancelling his ads, which Terry had already paid for.
While federal law forces television stations to run ads submitted by federal candidates unedited, at issue is that Terry is a write-in or caucus candidate in the aforementioned locations.
NBC affiliates in those states told Terry the Democrat Party had contacted them and stated it did not think they had to air Terry’s ads under those conditions. Terry is now in communication with the FCC via the Thomas More Society law firm in Chicago to surmount this obstacle. Stay tuned.
In all, three activists will be running ads: Terry, Angela Michael, running unopposed on the Democrat ticket in Illinois’ 15th Congressional District, and David Lewis, also running for Congress but on the Republican ticket in Ohio’s 8th District.
Terry suggests donating to Michael, who is $2,000 short of purchasing ad time in a second major market.
Terry has a back-up plan, to use any refunded money to purchase ad time during the Sunday evening or Monday morning news programs in areas already green-lighted.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Why is the Obama administration so afraid on telling the TRUTH about abortion??
If it’s something “good” for all women, why stop it?
If it’s all up to “trusting” women, why stop women from getting the facts?
If it’s for “Choice”…surely, this is the “choice” they are supporting?
The Truth shall come out…sooner or later, in God’s time.
If the pictures of dead children killed in abortion weren’t effective, Obama and his lot wouldn’t be working to stop them. This is yet another reason that we have to show the truth.
I wonder why Obama doesn’t want people to see the end result of abortion. He should read up on the wounding to post-abortive women as well — Thanks for the article. Prayers for the triune of activists…
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/otoole/120125
Since you are endorsing Santorum, Jill, I hope it’s okay that I leave this link. I think you might like this tune. And if you like country-western, I’m almost certain you’ll like this tune …
“Rick Santorum feels we should stick to our core principles, constitutional as well as spiritual; we can’t do this without God! This song was written with these values in mind, echoing the unvarnished record and beliefs of a man of Faith, Rick Santorum.” -Jack Bond, 1-28-12, Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpF3IDcipCE
Why are we NOT surprised?! Father, stop this last-ditch effort of the enemy to block the truth from the American people!
Def. not surprised – if he’s cool with throwing people in jail without trail indefinetly – he’s for killing babies – and is destroying the economy – why wouldn’t he be into censoring the freedom of speech, press, etc…
:(
a tactical thought for the future – if a victory seems imminent, don’t give the enemy time to call for reinforcements by publicizing the victory before it is finished
Good point, Bryan, I’ve thought similarly about a few things in this movement.
Abortion does not kill babies, so who cares? LETS SHOW IT THEN! What do they have to hide?
I remember there used to be graphic anti-smoking commercials on TV when I was a teen. They were gross. Showing rotten teeth and smoke coming out of a hole in someone’s neck. Where was the backlash against that? If abortion only removes a clump of cells… then lets show it! Who cares?
Perhaps Randall Terry should have run as a Republican.
Sydney – they still show the smoking ad around here with the old guy on the wheel chair that can hardly breathe – they talk about the truth of smoking
Perhaps Randall Terry should have run as a Republican.
Nah. It gives me a chuckle that he’s doing it as a Dem. lulz!
Amen.
A good family values President – I don’t think just anything should be shown during the Super Bowl, when lots of families are watching. I already think a lot of the ads shown cross the line. We don’t need more ads crossing the line.
Great point about the anti-smoking ads, Sydney. I remember as a little girl seeing that commercial ALL the time with the Indian (oops Native American) man with tears streaming down his face because of all the pollution and littering everywhere! It used to make me cry!
Ex-GOP,
what lines do you mean? This is an ad campaign in which only the truth is spoken, and not to convince people to spend money they don’t have.
Do you really think children are that fragile? Do you think that parents are so incompetent as to be unable to rationally explain what this is about? What of all those people the world over, who saw livestock slaughtered for dinner? What of the countless children who have never been granted the option of averting their eyes during wars and genocides and simple domestic violence?
Perhaps seeing a dead human IS upsetting. Perhaps it should be, so that we not grow so fond of it. Apologies to General Lee.
Are you truly, be honest now, truly proud of a sitting President of the United States who is allowing (I’m being generous with the suspected source of the attacks) his own political party to suppress free speech? It is for very this purpose that the 1st Amendment was written; government does not have the right to decide what is legitimate speech; period. Obama should be ashamed that this is happening on his watch, and in his hometown.
I suppose you were first in line condeming the newspapers for publishing photos of Emmet Till, weren’t you?
You’re right, Ex-GOP, if you mean he is a good Manson Family values president.
Only they avoided the need for opposing a Born Alive Act by working more hands-on with Sharon Tate’s baby.
As a roadblock, will they require documents from Randall Terry to properly vet him as a viable candidate?
Oh, the irony!
BTW: it is lame to pull out the “free speech” argument. We don;t all have a right to broadcast whatever message we want on the Superbowl Game.
Go back to civics class. That is plain dumb.
Randall Terry has ben able to say everything he has ever wanted to say here in the United Sates. Sure, he might have had to move 10 feet over.
We don’t WANT the govt controlling and confirming access to various free speech venues. They are trying to control the interweb to “improve” the range of ‘free speech,’ and they have their eyes on – of all things – AM radio.
Kevin -
Till was murdered in ’55. I am in my mid-30’s, so no, I wasn’t first in line condemning the photos. Now, if the NAACP wanted to run an ad during the super bowl with graphic photos, I would be against that. Same if PETA got their wish to run graphic photos of slaughterhouses during the super bowl. I’d be against that as well.
Before I tackle the rest of your post – quick question (as I don’t believe we’ve talked before) – do you have children? If so, what ages are they?
Just as with the injustice and evils of slavery, the holocaust, and the children working in the mines, some are blinded are must visually witness the truth to acknowledge the evil and injustice of abortion. Let us pray that justice will prevail …
Please lets continue fighting no matter what!!!
Truth is hate to those who hate truth. Maybe the Dems are hoping to increase their dead people voter base?
TheLastDemocrat,
it would indeed be ironic if those opposing this ad campaign tried blocking Terry’s candidacy by demanding proof that he is legally able to run for office, on two counts;
1. It was worse than pulling teeth to get Obama to do that. I am no birther, but the simple amount of time it took to produce documents is suspicious.
2. Terry is a registered Democrat, and it is his own party who is opposing these ads. How silly indeed for them to try blocking his candidacy.
But I do not understand why you claim “free speech” is a lame argument. It is a God-given right to speak your mind. Civics class is fun, especially the ones I teach. And I do not believe that anyone is demanding the “right” to say anything at all during the Super Bowl. Terry is simply playing the game by the rules, exploiting a Federal election law, which apparently mandates that media outlets with FCC licenses air adverts from candidates in national elections. I do not know the reasoning of the Democrat Party on this, but decency laws likely do no apply (And they are pretty well eviscerated anyway), and there is no way to defend their actions on the basis of free speech.
So just how does this all jibe with the 1st Amendment?
Ex-GOP,
I have no children. I am also no hermit, and have had a good deal of experience with children of all ages in a wide range of circumstances.
I appreciate that you intend to respond to other points in my comment, but your implication about my lack of standing due to my childlessness does not itself stand. I am quite cognizant of the idea, the reality, that children are not adults and thus what they experience ought to be controlled/monitored by their parents (All this of course changes based on which ages are being referred to).
But the problem is that parents do always have control, when it comes to TV; Tipper Gore’s PMRC is a fine example of what happens when parents cede control to outside forces (Terry Rakolta was a pox on this nation). And as per that one station in Boston, many of these ads are being preceded with editorial warning; any parent who is currently unaware of all this can do something to keep their young ones’ minds protected.
The irony that this argument centers on a “game” which is more violent than anything on TV outside UFC or MMA simply screams.
In certain ways this discussion is a good deal larger, and hence more important, than Terry’s ads. Why is government involved in policing the airwaves in the first place? Many say they do not want government doing this, but they already do. So what if PETA, or Terry, or whomever else places such ads? If the truth hurts, then perhaps that is not the problem, nor is seeing it.
And if we don’t appreciate it, stop watching (Surveys seem to indicate that American toddlers already spend more time watching TV than any other waking activity). Simple, direct, but ultimately doomed because it also requires heaps of personal responsibility.
I apologize for making a few new points here. But that’s why I prefer coffee shops to the Intarweb.
-K
Kevin – why so touchy? I never made any statement regarding kids except for asking if you had any. It simply changes how I answer the question.
I think a lot of people simply think “well, show any smut or violence on tv and parents should be responsible. First, I’d say that parents have a lot to do in a house and can’t be by their kids side 24×7. Second, why do we need to keep pushing the bounds in regards to violence and smut? The super bowl is a late afternoon/early evening event with a lot of families watching. There’s no need for a lot of the commercials in it already – and certainly no need to be showing graphic images to 6 and 8 year olds (the age of my two oldest).
Back to your questions…
Do you really think children are that fragile?
—yes, they are precious as well, and we don’t need to be in a rush in this world to show them everything that’s bad and evil.
Do you think that parents are so incompetent as to be unable to rationally explain what this is about?
—Depends on the age – my kids are 8, 6, and almost 2. I’ll explain when I’m ready. Your suggestion that all kids are simply ready is pretty on par with those who say we should teach anything to kids in school at any time and they can just deal with. Let me be a parent.
What of all those people the world over, who saw livestock slaughtered for dinner?
What of the countless children who have never been granted the option of averting their eyes during wars and genocides and simple domestic violence?
—So maybe in your world, when a kid becomes 6 or 7, we’ll just have a day of shock where we show them all the evils in the world. Come on man, why are you so into making it tougher to be a parent in today’s world?
Perhaps seeing a dead human IS upsetting. Perhaps it should be, so that we not grow so fond of it. Apologies to General Lee.
—Fine – just don’t show it to kids. Are you truly, be honest now, truly proud of a sitting President of the United States who is allowing (I’m being generous with the suspected source of the attacks) his own political party to suppress free speech? It is for very this purpose that the 1st Amendment was written; government does not have the right to decide what is legitimate speech; period. Obama should be ashamed that this is happening on his watch, and in his hometown. I suppose you were first in line condeming the newspapers for publishing photos of Emmet Till, weren’t you?
—I adressed the Till situation. We have suppressions of free speech all over the place. This board limits speech – your employer limits speech – what’s wrong with trying to allow television programming that isn’t filled with violence and sex? Is that too much to ask?
I think I got everything. I just think there’s a time and a place for certain things – and in the middle of the super bowl isn’t the time and the place. I think the message will horribly backfire quite frankly.
They should be putting these pictures on condoms the way they do with cigarettes.
So if it is about showing women as sex objects-which renders our families motherless-it is OK! But if it is educational graphics depicting the greatest violence against innocence of our time, it is obscene.