Monday, March 19, 2012
GETTING BETTER
George Offerman
I want to thank all of you who have sent prayers and support during my time of illness. I am hoping to be back in the saddle shortly. This downtime has been eye opening in the sense that one does not really know what the next day brings and the challenges presented when our plans change on a dime. It also gives me a better appreciation of what I have in my life, and who is in it.
May God continue to bless you all and hope to be back very soon.
Monday, February 6, 2012
THE CHURCH (ESPECIALLY THE BISHOPS) DOESN'T KNOW THEIR ENEMY
George Offerman
Bishops Loverde of Arlington and DiLorenzo of Richmond put out a joint letter that was read from every pulpit at every mass in Virginia this past weekend decrying the Obama administration’s ‘mandating’ that all faith based organizations cover sterilization, birth control and abortifacients regardless of conscience and moral belief systems. In this letter, both bishops spell out the problem, and somewhat address the underlying issue, but the action steps suggested in the letter seemed to be vague and weak, and seemed to encourage the laity to do the bulk of the work, as it left out what the bishops themselves were going to do about this.
The more time that goes by without precise and decisive action by the bishops only plays to Obama’s favor. Since the bishops seemed to have had ‘no moral objections’ to the initial healthcare passed two years ago, and seemed to have had ‘no moral objections’ to the secular insurance companies being forced to provide sterilization, birth control, abortifacients and funding legalized child killing, Obama most likely presumed that the Church didn’t really mean what they claimed to believe, by seeing all of the above ‘services’ as intrinsically evil, due to the complicit support given by the bishops silence on the matter. The bishops cut a ‘deal with the devil’ and looked aside when given the assurance from a man who has a crystal clear record of lying to get what he wants of giving them an ‘exemption’ based upon faith and conscience.
There were many of us that openly warned the hierarchy, and specifically Bishop Loverde and Archbishop Wuerl about the evil nature of Obama and how he would break his word to the Church. We asked and pleaded with these two Bishops to do something about the wayward ‘Catholic’ politicians who continually mocked and openly rebelled against established Church teachings on matters of legalized child killing and homosexual marriage, and were derided, and some of us arrested on orders by these prelates themselves because of our strong stance and subsequent actions. For those who were paying any kind of attention, this move by Obama came as no surprise, and we are not ‘shocked’ over this turn of events. This was in full view four years ago when this man came onto the scene, and openly discussed keeping the ‘rule of law’ of abortion, taking over health care, and expanding healthcare services to include ‘reproductive rights’. That the Church believed Obama would not target them is irresponsible and nearly delusional thinking.
As has been proven by the ‘cave in’ by the Susan G. Komen fund, these people do not believe in ‘incrementalism’. The enemies of life mercilessly went after this organization with all guns firing, and WITHIN TWO DAYS, the Komen fund did a 180 and reversed their position in totality. The enemies of life focused on TOTAL VICTORY, they used every weapon they have, AND THEY WON. No equivocation, no apologies, no taking prisoners and no placating the enemy. Whether we like it or not, believe it or not or saw it or not, these people in two days handed us our rear ends, and this is the way it’s been for decades now. What we call tolerance is seen as weakness by these people, and they play for blood. Until we get that, we are going to get creamed every time.
The bishops need to understand the nature of the fight they are in. And the first step is to admit they have been ‘played’ by Obama and his ilk, and have by their complacent attitudes, allowed for unchecked murder of the unborn and use of birth control to go on unchecked as long as it did not violate the “Not In My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) syndrome. Because the Bishops showed little to no faith in the core church teachings, Obama gave them, and to us, in effect what we deserve, and is making us do what we have turned a blind eye to for decades (sins of omission). Yes, Obama is the man in charge who is implementing this hellish stance, but the ones who are ultimately responsible for GIVING OBAMA THE PLATFORM OF PRESIDENCY TO BEGIN WITH was derelict in duty four years ago when this man ran on a campaign promising these changes, and the Bishops stayed silent, and put out a very confusing voting guide that basically permitted 54% of Catholics to vote for this man in supposed ‘good consciousness’.
The ultimate enemy is not Obama. The ultimate enemy is not the Bishops either. The real and ultimate enemy is FEAR. Fear of offending others, fear of fickle Catholics leaving the pews if the Word of God is actually preached, fear of the loss of money if the church ‘teaches too zealously’, fear of losing ‘status’, fear of taking the message to the streets and to the enemy, fear of persecution, fear of being disliked, fear of losing the coveted 501 c 3 status, and ultimately the fear of possibly having to stand alone in faith. John the Baptist lead by example and lead with great authority. John the Baptist had the Spirit of God in him, and as such could not fail. Our Church has the same promise given by God. We simply need to believe it’s true, and then act on it.
I had a mentor back about twenty years ago challenge me on my fears, and what he told me is something I will never forget. His response to me when I made an excuse as to why I did not act on what I knew to be right due to fear was: “George, I hear you are afraid to act, but think about this. You can be afraid and do nothing, or you can be afraid and do something. Now that we established you will be afraid no matter what, the real question is, will you do something or not?” Courage is not waiting until one is no longer fearful, courage is when one does what is right, despite the fear. Courage is the answer to the greatest enemy we have, and courage is what we must strive and pray for in this very real and bloody war.
Friday, February 3, 2012
WHAT WOULD JOHN THE BAPTIST DO?
George Offerman
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for Baptism, he said to them “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire”
Matt 3:7-10
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Code of Cannon Law, Cannon 915.
Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”
Excommunication. She said it herself, and by their own words, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius excommunicated themselves, and as such, are in grave sin and have disqualified themselves from participating in receiving Holy Communion. It’s not even an issue of the Bishops doing their jobs on this one; it’s simply a matter of complying with the wishes of both fallen away Catholics Pelosi and Sebelius. Now if the bishops only have the intestinal fortitude of one of the greatest Prophets who ever walked the earth, this charade would end before it begins.
John the Baptist was described by Jesus himself as being the ‘greatest man ever born’ of a woman, and it was this last Old Testament prophet who ushered in the messianic age with great authority. John garnered a large number of followers and preached with such authority that even the Jewish religious leaders inquired as to whether John was the prophesied Messiah. John’s preaching was pure truth, and cut like the sword of truth does; straight and true. There was no equivocation, no apologies, no taking prisoners and NO PLACATING THE ENEMY anywhere or in any place in either word or deed. John went directly to the palace (White House) and condemned the King’s (president’s) behavior and called on the king (president) to repent. John continued until he was imprisoned and executed by the king, due to the king’s insistence that he live his life in the ways as he saw fit (Obama, Pelosi, and Sebelius).
The Bishops know this in the depths of their hearts and the Bishops are crystal clear on what they need to do in this matter. So are the faithful who truly hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. And the faithful are watching the Bishops VERY CAREFULLY. If the Bishops do not carry through on their MANDATE TO PREACH AND PROTECT THE GOSPEL AND UNVARNISHED TRUTH, THEY HAVE SET THIS COUNTRY ON THE PATH TO HELL. There is no other way to put this, and no other outcome will suffice. If the Bishops choose to placate the enemy and sell the Church down the road, they will bring judgment upon themselves and will themselves experience personal persecution to levels they cannot even begin to imagine.
John the Baptist WOULDN’T BE CAUGHT DEAD giving the invocation at the democratic convention. Quite to the contrary, John the Baptist would be outside the convention center preaching repentance and giving the real and harsh consequences of policies that murder the most innocent of society. John the Baptist also would not wait until the ‘last two weeks before the election’ to preach his message. No, John the Baptist would PHYSICALLY BE PRESENT at the seat of power and would engage the lead perpetrator (Obama) face to face. No equivocation, no apologies, no taking prisoners and no placating the enemy.
The Bishops must be willing to imitate John the Baptist. And I will give the Bishops my word as a Catholic, that I will be willing to stand with them in any situation, anywhere in this country and would be willing to be arrested WITH THEM, if they stand against this rogue government, but I want to be clear I WILL NOT STAND IN THEIR STEAD. I am willing to risk all I have to defend this line, but the Bishops have to be willing to go to jail with me as a witness against this evil regime. I know of multitudes of people who think and feel as I do, but they must speak for themselves on this matter.
This is the line in the sand. This is war, declared by the rogue Obama regime and implemented by fallen away 'Catholics' who appear to be proud to be "sticking it to the man" (hierarchy). This is the future of our church. Since the Bishops have not stood up for the church in the last forty years, they are not well versed in what civil disobedience looks like. Either way, they will learn this lesson soon, and will learn it well.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
ARE TV STATIONS ABUSING THE LAW?
Are TV Stations Abusing the Law?
By Randall A. Terry
Democrat Candidate for President
www.TerryForPresident.com
“We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state…Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.”
George Washington
The FCC is now making a determination whether or not I am a legally qualified candidate under the law, and am therefore afforded the right to buy TV advertising on FCC licensed stations, free of editing, censorship, etc., in order to reach the voters where I am on the ballot.
At the end of this debate, the foundational question before us is this: what is the bedrock of this republic? The Law, or the Party?
Or in other words, do the FCC laws and state laws regarding what constitutes a “legally qualified candidate” stand on their own, and reflect the will of “we the people,” or must the FCC and the laws of the several states fulfill the wishes of Party bosses?
Certain attorneys have put forth the argument that the wishes of a Party should be the ultimate force in determining what constitutes a “legally qualified candidate;” some attorneys go so far as to declare that my campaign is “an abuse of candidate access.” These arguments – if taken to its logical conclusion – would result in the end of citizen governance, the end of free elections, and the end of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” In its place an elite would create “government of the Party, by the Party, and for the Party.”
Allow me to make my case.
Georgia On My Mind
I begin with an ancillary situation that exists at this very moment in Georgia. The laws of the state of Georgia – through their elected officials, and enforced by the judges of that state – have brought into question whether or not Barack Obama is legally qualified to be on the ballot in Georgia. As of right now, he is not. This is a question of law. It does not address the issue of whether or not the DNC and the Democrat convention will nominate Obama as their candidate. It addresses the laws of ballot access in Georgia.
If the law is to be subservient to Party wishes – as some attorneys argue – then Barack Obama must be placed on the Georgia ballot – as the Party wishes – the people and the laws of Georgia be damned.
In this case, does the law trump the Party, or the Party trump the law? Which has more authority in a “nation of laws?” If we are to remain a free and self-governed people, it must be the law, not the party.
The Democrat Party Refuses to Seat My Delegates
At the 2012 Democrat Convention
In the letter issued by DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard on January 27, 2012, he states that the DNC has changed their rules for 2012 Delegates to the DNC convention, to the effect that should I win any delegates in the primaries, those delegates will not be seated at the 2012 convention. Therefore, Mr. Gaspard concludes that I am not a “bone fide Democrat candidate,” and that FCC licensed stations should not run my television ads.
Attorneys point out that a federal circuit court wrote an opinion (related to a case involving Lyndon Larouche) that a Party can in fact determine who is eligible to participate in their convention. By extension, they extrapolate that since the Democrat Party has declared that I am not a candidate to their liking, that I am not a legally qualified candidate as defined by the law.
The folly of such an argument is self-evident on its face.
But before I show the pernicious nature of this argument, let me declare the one point on which I agree with this argument: namely, the right of the DNC to preclude me from the convention. The DNC is essentially a “private club.” As a private club, it can dictate the terms of its members. It can include and preclude people from joining the club, based upon its own internal rules.
For example, the “private club” of the Democrat Party used to demand that its members support slavery. Later, they demanded that their members support the segregation of the races. The Democrats used the rules of their “private club” to promote and protect the evils of slavery and segregation, and to silence dissent in its meetings and proceedings for several lifetimes.
However, in the 1940s, the Democrat Party of South Carolina – which called itself a “club” – demanded that members of the “club” swear the following oath:
I further solemnly swear that I (understand) believe in and will support the principles of the Democratic Party of South Carolina, and that I believe in and will support the social (religious) and educational separation of races.
(Mandated Oath for Democrats of South Carolina Democrat Party, at http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=1948101178FSupp933_1801.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7)
The Democrat Party claimed it had the right to do this, but the court overturned their procedures and rules..
Likewise today, they use the rules of their club to protect the evil of child killing, and to silence dissent at the DNC convention – such as they did with Catholic Pennsylvania Governor Casey – when they forbade him from delivering a pro-life address at the Democrat National Convention in 1992.
In short, this is an open question.
Having affirmed in part the right of the Party to include and preclude, and to silence dissent, I now proceed to the very different issue at hand: Namely, the strength and validity of laws concerning ballot access, and what defines a “legally qualified candidate” under state law, as well as the laws governing FCC licensed stations regarding the mandatory sale of TV advertising time for “legally qualified candidates.”
The law is the law; the Party is the Party. They are not, nor should they be, synonymous. If they become so, by definition it means the end of the rule of law.
George Washington’s Warning
I turn to the Father of Our Country – George Washington – who in his Farewell Address forcefully and eloquently addressed the danger of party politics undermining the rule of law. He warned:
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. (George Washington’s Farewell Address, Emphasis Added.)
The question at hand with my small and insignificant campaign for President in the Democrat primary (why are they so afraid of me?) is not whether or not the DNC shall control its internal rules, but whether the DNC shall subvert and usurp the rule of law.
Perhaps the most fundamental right in a self governing people is the right to vote for someone who they deem best represents their political sentiments on any number of issues at a given point in history.
It is not the Party that determines who is a legally qualified candidate under the law; it is the law that decides it. It is the law – ostensibly created, delineated, and enforced by “we the people” through our various engines of representation – that is the master of the moment, not the Party.
If it were otherwise – as Washington said – then “a small but artful and enterprising minority” could “make the public administration the mirror of…cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men…to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”
Will The Rule of Law, or the Will of the Party Prevail?
If it were as some suggest it should be, then the states would have to approach the Party to confirm or deny every candidate that sought ballot access in a primary or general election. Imagine the bribes, the threats, and the unending corruption if this were the case. A small band of Party bosses would in effect control the government, by deciding who could be elected to government. Huey Long meets Al Capone.
That is not how a free Republic works.
What state ballots and the FCC do with me is for the law to decide.
What happens to me in the Missouri and Oklahoma primaries is for the voters to decide.
What the DNC does with me at the 2012 convention is for the cunning Party bosses to decide.
But let those lines never be blurred; let us never confuse those jurisdictions.
And if the voters speak with a loud enough voice – after hearing my campaign message on the FCC licensed stations that by law I am afforded the right to purchase advertising time in order to reach those voters – then the DNC might come to its senses, and embrace a platform that promotes and protects innocent human life.
That is part of what my campaign is about; to give Democrat voters in the states where I am legally on the ballot a voice in this election cycle…the voice of voters that can be heard inside the “private club” of the DNC. Catholic Democrats and Evangelical Democrats and conservative Democrats that are pro-life have the right to hear from and cast a vote for a candidate in this election that represents theirs views – inside their Party primary – in this election.
After all, the Democrat Party – that once used Party rules to silence dissent in the Party concerning slavery and segregation – eventually heard the voice of voters, and changed the rules of their “private club.” They now champion the inalienable rights of African Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have no doubt that in time the Party leaders in their “private club” will again hear the voice of voters, and champion the inalienable right to life of the unborn.
The will of voters, the rule of law, and the “power of the people” in this case trump the will of the Party, and the unprincipled men who seek to subvert the power of the people and the rule of law, in order to usurp for themselves the reins of government.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
THIS IS WHAT OFFENSE LOOKS LIKE
George Offerman
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson
It’s sometimes wondrous how ironic life situations can be, and here we are with what appears on the surface two very unrelated stories, but they are actually tied in very close with each other. The first story revolves around how scared the DNC and the political establishment are of Randall Terry’s ads depicting dead babies threatening to ‘invade’ the American households proper on Super Bowl Sunday. The second story is that of the Catholic Church being ‘mandated’ by the Obama administration to provide birth control, abortofacients and ‘reproductive rights’ care to employees, and the Churches ‘shock’ at this move.
As has been covered by the supposed ‘horrible and evil” MSM and a few responsible pro life bloggers and press, The DNC is using threats and coercion in stopping the LEGAL RIGHTS of Randall Terry, an acknowledged and certified Democratic Presidential Candidate from showing unedited graphic ads of dead babies on television. Because of the way the Federal law is written, these ads cannot be legally denied or turned away, yet the DNC and Democratic Party is doing what it normally does when it does not get its way: use threatening behaviors and if need be, break the law.
It’s a hoot to see what these people are doing and what they are saying. As mentioned in a previous post, one general manager of a television station actually stated “Regardless of what one believes about abortion, no one wants to EXPOSE THEIR FAMILY TO DISMEMBERED BODY PARTS during the Super Bowl”. Dismembered body parts! I thought it was a CHOICE! Interestingly, when the pro deathers are on the offensive, the word ‘choice’ is everywhere, and the words dismembered body parts and child are nowhere. However, now that the pro deathers are playing defense, they are actually forced to admit to what the average dunderhead would have figured out on his own when seeing these commercials: bloody, dismembered body parts of a small human being.
This is what offense looks like. It’s when those who need to see the truth actually are forced to use the language of the truth against their will and against everything they claim to believe in. This is the exact reaction these unedited graphic commercials are supposed to cause. When one plans action with intended consequences and the outcomes match the plans, it is called being on the offensive, or taking the war to the enemy. These ads are doing this in spades, and the fruits are undeniable (except for the mediocre pro life groups disavowing and trashing the efforts).
Then we have the REACTION (defense) of the Catholic Church of the (shocking!) ‘betrayal’ by the Obama administration pertaining to the mandatory funding of contraception, abortofacients and ‘reproductive rights’. (However, I guess it was permissible as long as it ‘exempted’ the Church and other ‘religious’ organizations due to the Church’s inaction prior to this ‘shocking’ announcement). Because the Church has been on the defensive for the past forty years, they did not have the battle hardness or insight into seeing that making nice with the enemy ultimately emboldens the enemy.
Then we have reactions such as Pat Buchanan, a Catholic who writes for World Net Daily, amongst other publications. Mr. Buchannan, like many other Catholics, writes with conviction pertaining to the problems, but like most of the writers, commentators and clergy, did not have the insight to see this coming, and as a result does not advocate for a strong and proper response to this matter. Here is Mr. Buchanan’s take on this issue: (for the full post, click link below)
Why did Obama do it?
Facing a close race for a second term, Obama chose not to antagonize his left. Yet he must have known that siding with them meant leaving Archbishop Dolan with egg all over his face. Obama, calculatedly, came down on the side of those he believes to be more crucial to his re-election.
This affront should tell the Catholic hierarchy, if they did not already know, where they stand in the party of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kathleen Sebilius. And where they sit – in the back of the bus.
Yet if the bishops will look upon this crisis of conscience, this insult, as an opportunity, they can effect its reversal and recapture a measure of the moral authority they have lately lost.
Not only should the bishops file suit in federal court against the president and Sebelius for violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, they should inform the White House that no bishop will give an invocation at the Democratic Convention.
Then, they should inform the White House that in the last two weeks of the 2012 campaign, priests in every parish will read from the pulpit at Sunday mass a letter denouncing Obama as anti-Catholic for denying the Church its right to live according to its beliefs.
If Obama loses the Catholic vote, he loses the election.
The White House will come around, fast. Rely upon it.
I am not sure where Mr. Buchanan is coming from, but if he, and any of the leaders contemplate what Obama just did, they would realize that this is a BRAZEN ACT OF WAR DECLARED AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Nice time is over, and the response by the hierarchy needs to be in direct proportion to the evil enacted against the Church. With all due respect to you, Mr. Buchanan, you would recommend the Bishops ‘Threaten’ to not give the invocation at the Democratic Convention? Wow! That will scare them into submission! Have every priest give homilies the last two weeks before the election ‘denouncing’ Obama as ‘Anti-Catholic for denying the church its right to live according to its beliefs? I’m sure the evil pro deathers lead by Obama will be shaking in their boots over that one. (Just like Obama’s getting an ‘honorary degree’ from our Lady’s University). If we follow the direction and advice given by Pat Buchanan, we WILL GET RUN OVER AND BE FODDER FOR THE CATTLE TO EAT.
No, what needs to happen is the USCCB IMMEDIATELY EXCOMMUNICATE ALL 'CATHOLIC' HOLDERS OF CABINET POSITIONS, SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN WHO HAVE SUPPORTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM HEALTH CARE AND ANTI LIFE LEGISLATION CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TEACHINGS. Then, inform the Obama administration that the church will be preaching against his war against the Church EVERY SUNDAY and will continue until either Obama: 1) renounce his war against the Church and the unborn, or 2) resign the presidency.
Obama is not the messiah or a messiah, and we do not bow down to him, nor need his permission to live moral and upright lives. We do not need his counsel, suggestions, laws or permission to do this. We don’t need to obey immoral laws, and we will openly resist any efforts by a rogue government and wayward individual who ‘dictates’ terms of how free men and free women are to live their lives. Until the Church is ready to make a stand like this, it will bow down and be subjected to abuse and humiliation from an egotistical and evil dictator who believes he has ‘divine’ rights to tell God’s institution how they will behave.
As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, maybe it’s time that the tree of liberty be watered again, and maybe it’s time to tell this rogue government where to go: to hell, where it came from and where it belongs. To the U. S. Bishops: the laity will follow if you simply lead.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
THE DNC HAS DECLARED WAR ON RANDALL TERRY'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
The DNC has circulated a letter decrying Randall Terry's 'campaign' and as such, has convinced several of the stations that had previously agreed to run teh campaign ads as required by law, have now turned tail and are using a letter sent by the DNC 'debunking' Mr. Terry's candidacy. Here is Mr. Terry's response. (To see a copy of the DNC letter, please go to http://www.jillstanek.com/)
The Letter We Just Sent to All 13 Stations in Oklahoma and Missouri
Demanding They Ignore the Obama Machine, and Run Our Super Bowl Ad
By Randall A. Terry
"Be advised and forewarned: should you refuse to run my ad, in the light of all the facts outlined in this letter (and the attempted deceit and strong-arming of the DNC) we will that request the FCC revoke your broadcast license, and grant it to someone more worthy than yourself, who takes his civic duty regarding free elections with more honor, respect, and gravity than you do.
"We both know that the DNC and Obama team are terrified of the political and electoral impact of my campaign ad. They fear the loss of votes of Catholic Democrats (of which I am one) that are appalled by the President’s policies. That is why they are calling on you to do their political bidding." Randall Terry
(Here is the text of the letter going to TV stations that are tempted to yield to Obama's pressure. Again, I beg your prayers that we prevail according to law, and that you give as generously as you can to these ads. Click here to give.)
Dear Sir or Madam.
I am Randall Terry, Democrat Candidate for President of the United States. My media rep, Kathy Offerman, has purchased airtime on your station to run a campaign ad during the Super Bowl, or in a pre-game show. As a legal candidate under the definition of FCC law [Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] we have no intention of allowing that ad purchase to be cancelled.
You are in receipt of a letter from Democrat National Committee (DNC) Executive Director Patrick Gaspard dated January 27, 2012. In that letter, Mr. Gaspard stated: “Mr. Terry is not a bona fide Democrat candidate or a representative of the Democrat National Committee.” He concluded the letter, “Mr. Terry’s claims to be a Democrat candidate for President are false. Accordingly, he should not be accorded the benefits of someone conducting a legitimate campaign for public office.” As these two statements deal with the essence of his letter, and your stations subsequent contemplated cancellation of my ad, I will deal with them both in turn.
First, I make no claim to represent the DNC. Such representation, or lack thereof, is meaningless in the issue at hand. No one has to be a representative of the DNC to be a legally qualified candidate for office.
Second, I am a registered Democrat in the State of West Virginia. The fact that I changed parties is again irrelevant. (Not to mention the fact that Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Winston Churchill changed parties; I follow in a long and proud tradition.)
Third, by every legal definition of the FEC and the FCC, I am a bona fide Candidate for the Office of the President of the United States.
Concerning the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we have filed – and continue to file – all required documents and financial records required by law from my campaign committee and me.
Concerning the FCC – and my right to run TV ads on an FCC licensed broadcast facility within the 45-day window of a primary – I am a legally qualified candidate. The law states [Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] in the germane sections:
(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who: (1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;
(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and
(3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
- I have publicly announced my intention to run for office;
- I am qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which I am a candidate;
- I have met the qualifications set forth in paragraph (b), which states:
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person:
(1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot;
I have qualified for a place on the ballot in both Missouri and Oklahoma.
For Missouri, see:
For Oklahoma, see:
In short, I am, by every definition, a legally qualified candidate for President, who has qualified for a place on the ballot.
And your station, therefore, is legally obligated by your FCC license to run my campaign ad without censorship, editing, etc.
I now turn to Mr. Gaspard’s closing statement: “Mr. Terry’s claims to be a Democrat candidate for President are false. Accordingly, he should not be accorded the benefits of someone conducting a legitimate campaign for public office.”
This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Mr. Gaspard is unethically suggesting a path for you to defy FCC law; he knows it, and you know it.
Or put another way, his letter seeks to give you “legal cover” or “plausible confusion” in order that you break the law, and refuse to run my campaign ad.
But should you willingly embrace such deceit, you will find that his cover has holes in it, and that you alone will bear the responsibility for “willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.” (Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.(a) (7) )
In case I am unclear on what I am saying, let me be more specific.
The administrative sanctions delineated in 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] define your “willful” and “repeated” refusal to run my campaign ads as follows:
(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States. [Emphasis added]
(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
Your station will not be able to hide behind the spurious and deceitful letter written by Mr. Gaspard, stating in effect: “We did not intend to violate the law! We did not intend to violate a provision of FCC regulations!’
If you deny me my rights as a federal candidate, you will be committing a willful violation of the law. And you know it.
Mr. Gaspard’s letter is not the law; it has NO BEARING on the law and the facts at hand regarding my candidacy, and your legal duty to run the ad of a legally qualified candidate.
Nowhere in the FCC code are the wishes or desires of any political party given any role regarding federal candidates, or their right to run TV ads according to law. If you try and introduce or hide behind the specious argument that the DNC should decide what ads you air, or who is a candidate under the law, you alone will bear the consequences.
Be advised and forewarned: should you refuse to run my ad, in the light of all the facts outlined in this letter (and the attempted deceit and strong-arming of the DNC) we will that request the FCC revoke your broadcast license, and grant it to someone more worthy than yourself, who takes his civic duty regarding free elections with more honor, respect, and gravity than you do.
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions of the FCC commission states “(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit – (7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational
broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.” In CBS, Inc. v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that §312(a)(7) guarantees a “legally qualified candidate” “reasonable access” and that even one failure to abide by this law can result in revocation of the station's license. We will pursue that rememedy.
We both know that the DNC and Obama team are terrified of the political and electoral impact of my campaign ad. They fear the loss of votes of Catholic Democrats (of which I am one) that are appalled by the President’s policies. That is why they are calling on you to do their political bidding.
But is it really worth risking your license to hinder free elections and do the bidding of the DNC? Do you really think the DNC/Obama team will take the heat and the blame when your license is revoked because you choose to willfully violated FCC law? Do you think they will step up and say: “We advised them to violate federal law?” They will wash their hands of you faster than a nurse dealing with leprosy. Look again at Mr. Gaspard’s letter. It was written in a way that they could deny any wrongdoing; you will be hung out to dry on your own.
Your station will be hearing from an Attorney this afternoon. If your station declares it will not run my ad, we will file for immediate relief from the FCC.
Therefore starting today, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, should your station delay in any way to run my campaign ad for “more than one day” as delineated in Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312], we will request that your broadcast license be revoked.
I hope this letter clarifies our position, and that we can proceed with our TV ad purchase(s) as ordered, in accordance with the law.
Sincerely,
Randall Terry
Democrat Candidate for President
Copyright © 2012 Randall Terry for President, All rights
Monday, January 30, 2012
"A LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED'
George Offerman
The above title is taken from Arlington Bishop Loverde’s piece that appeared last week in the Arlington Catholic Herald and it addresses the latest scandal perpetrated against Catholics by the rogue Obamination administration and enforced by Secretary of Health and Human Services and discalced Catholic Kathleen Sebelius. The HHS is requiring all employers to offer contraceptive and abortofacient coverage for employees of organizations, and the Catholic Church has until January 20, 2013 to comply or face ‘penalties’. Bishop Loverde, as like many members of the Catholic Hierarchy, has come out with strong statements against this horrific policy in the past week or so and it is reflecting the leading role the Catholic Hierarchy should be taking to begin with.
I was also heartened by the fact that our Parochial Vicar gave a strongly worded and politically laced homily last Sunday and was equally convicted of the vileness of this policy. Similar to the tone taken by Bishop Loverde, this homily focused on the need to act and if need be, to follow one’s conscience in the matter (civil disobedience without using the phrase). It is one of the first times I have heard in quite a while a more unified stance on any Church teaching and I hope this portends to greater action by the Church body as a whole.
That being said, my dominant reaction to both is: WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN ALL THESE YEARS? The Church has remained, with a few exceptions deafening quiet for the past 40 years or so concerning laws enacted in this country that are contrary to Church teachings. What is so difficult to fathom about this ‘new’ stand is the outright war on our Church has been going on for way more than a generation. Why this is now considered crossing a line seems to only indicate how far behind the Church is concerning these matters, and how much more the fight will require of all of us now that we need to retake ground that should have never been lost in the first place.
The Supreme Court threw out public prayer in the mid 60’s, and the Church remained silent. The Roe V. Wade decision occurred in 1973, ‘legalizing’ the slaughter of the most innocent among us and the Church remained silent. There was the homosexual scandals in both the Church and Seminaries in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s and the Church hid and denied the truth, and in effect remained silent. Various elected and /or appointed ‘Catholic’ officials elevated into places of power since the late 90’s to present have consistently violated clear Catholic teachings and tenets of the faith, and nary a peep from the Church.
The Church has consistently taken a passive “let’s love them, and change their hearts” approach instead of standing up as a John the Baptist or an apostle of Jesus as called by the Gospels, and we are now reaping the very deserving harvest of religious repression and persecution. It seems incredible, or nearly inconceivable that the Church will now take a hardened position on the matter of contraceptives and mandates to ‘pay’ for these items, when we as a nation have been funding legalized child killing through taxes for years. What has changed in the Catholic attitude that would lead one to believe things will be any different this time?
This is a Church that just a few short years ago put out a scandalous brochure “Faithful Citizenship” that equated the perceived ‘racism’ and legalized child killing as moral equivalents. This brochure did nothing but cause confusion among the laity, and equivocated on real Church teachings. As has been well documented, 54% of CATHOLICS voted for the most pro death president in the history of this country. Candidate Obama was CRYSTAL CLEAR on his intention of upholding the ‘rule of law’ protecting legalized child killing on demand, and intended to overhaul heath care as his number one mandate, which included REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. So there can be NO CREDIBLE CLAIM BY THE CHURCH that they did not see this coming, and in fact, they were active in having several people arrested for handing out guides that accurately reflected true Church teachings, and yours truly was one of those arrested for doing such activities.
The truth of the matter is, that we have no excuse and have no one else to blame except ourselves for this predicament. Obama is doing exactly as he promised, and is being true to his agenda, which was laid out before us at the onset of his campaign. How the vast majority of Clergy and laity did not (and some still do not) see this is beyond mystifying. However, they (the Church) had been warned by those who could see where this was going, and it landed on deaf ears. Now, it appears the bill is due, and the deadline is set for January 20, 2013 (Ironically, nearly 40 years to the day from Roe).
This is a spiritual battle, and spiritual techniques must be employed. The Bishops especially those close to the seat of power, Bishop Loverde of Arlington, Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, D.C. and Archbishop O’brien of Baltimore must lead the charge and take matters into their own hands, as if they were John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Peter and Paul all rolled into one. It needs to start by EXCOMMUNICATING EVERY ONE OF THESE CHARLATANS CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC, WITH NO APOLOGIES. Demand they publicly denounce their Anti Catholic positions before readmitting them to the sacraments. This message must be preached on every Sunday and the laity must be given clear and concise marching orders to effect change. These charlatan ‘Catholics’ must be told without any hesitation that their eternal souls are in jeopardy, and that their faith must guide their political decisions in that order. And there needs to be clear and concise consequences if these charlatans want to walk this fine line and be both 'self serving' politicians and ‘Catholics in good standing”. Take no prisoners, and make no apologies.
If the Bishops stand up and follow cannon law, especially Cannon 915, this matter will be cleared up within 12 months. Once again, the hierarchy would carry the moral grounds this Church once had some time ago, and these wayward and lying politicians would be fearful of violating God’s laws and would tremble at the thought of ‘legislating evil’. There wouldn’t even need to be a ‘debate’ about homosexual marriage, birth control and abortofacients, or legalized child killing because even the most daft among us would understand it would be legislating evil. Yes, the line has been crossed, but Bishop Loverde and the rest of the Bishops; it was crossed decades ago. Where have you been?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)