Posted on 02/18/2012 1:37:04 AM PST by Marguerite
February 16, 2012
General Manager/Station Manager/Vice President
Re: False and Misleading Advertisements Produced by the “Restore Our Future” Super PAC
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter issues on behalf of Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “House”), Republican candidate for President of the United States, and his principal campaign committee, Newt 2012, Inc.
It has recently come to our attention that your station has either been asked to run, or may soon be asked to run, various advertising spots produced by the Mitt Romney aligned Super PAC, Restore Our Future, Inc. (“ROF”). Included among the Romney advertisements submitted to your station for broadcast are likely to be various spots that specifically mention Speaker Gingrich and assert that he partnered with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in support of legislation providing financial support for China’s “one-child policy.”
The content of these advertisements state and/or suggest that Speaker Gingrich “co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.” This statement is fundamentally NOT TRUE, or as PolitiFact.org put it – a “Pants on Fire” lie. In fact, as clearly shown by the language of the actual legislation at issue and the false ratings given to these ROF ads by various media and fact-check organizations, ANY statement, suggestion, or innuendo that Speaker Gingrich supported China’s one-child policy or worked with Congresswoman Pelosi to provide funds for such a policy is fundamentally false and misleading. If published after your receipt of this letter, it will be a knowing publication of a false statement. As such, it represents a defamatory communication, which exposes this station to potential civil liability.
In turn, we do hereby DEMAND that your station immediately REFUSE, and if started, CEASE airing any such advertisements and refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the libelous statements have been removed.
FALSITY OF CONTENT
Any statement or suggestion that Speaker Gingrich worked with Speaker Pelosi to provide funding for a U.N. program supporting China’s “one-child policy” is unequivocally false. A basic review of the piece of legislation referenced in ROF’s advertisements undeniably establishes the invalidity of such an accusation.
The statement of concern in ROF’s advertisements relates to a piece of legislation known as House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on February 22, 1989 but never passed. That bill, labeled as the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, primarily set national goals for the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and encouraged countries around the world to forge agreements addressing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the legislation required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor various environmental problems associated with greenhouse gases and develop plans for a future administrative response to such problems.
As part of these efforts, the bill also called for the federal government to provide financial support to certain developing countries that endeavored to pursue economic growth in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. In conjunction with this financial aid effort, the language of H.R. 1078 specifically called for monetary support of the United Nations Population Fund (“UNPF”), an international development agency focused on helping developing countries and their citizens tackle various problems associated with population growth, migration, aging, climate change, urbanization, gender inequality, poverty, and disease.
The language in the ROF advertisements at issue specifically contends that H.R. 1078 would have provided $60 million a year to UNPF, which may or may not have been involved in supporting family planning activities in China. According to ROF, this would have included financial support for the nation’s one-child policy, the Chinese government’s effort to limit internal population growth to one child per couple through methods such as forced sterilization and abortion. As set forth below, however, this ROF contention regarding H.R. 1078 is fundamentally and absolutely FALSE.
The claim is false because the explicit language of H.R. 1078, Section 1102, Part C specifically prohibits any funding provided under the bill to be used for “the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning.” (See Attachment #1, p. 2). Based upon this provision in the legislation, no funding (let alone 60 million dollars) could have been provided to UNPF if it in any way participated in activities associated with, supporting or promoting China’s one-child policy. And no matter what ROF claims to the contrary, H.R. 1078 clearly prohibits the federal government from providing a single dollar of assistance to any public health or aid organization supporting sterilization, abortion, or coerced family planning in China or any other country.
....................................................
Beyond these facts, however, it is also important to note that the veracity of ROF’s one-child policy claims has been openly called into question by a variety of impartial observers since the Super PAC first began producing television spots attacking Gingrich’s co-sponsorship of H.R. 1078. When ROF ran similar spots in Florida leading up to the state’s January 31st presidential preference primary, PolitiFact Florida openly criticized the claim and characterized it as “Pants on Fire”, its lowest “Truth-O-Meter” rating and a brand of abject falsity. (See Attachment #2). In light of ROF’s recent decision to run ads making the same statements in Georgia, PolitiFact Georgia has also reached the same conclusion – rating ROF’s one-child policy claim a “Pants on Fire” lie. (See Attachment #3). Other members of the news media have also picked up on PolitiFact’s analysis and/or independently reported on the falsity of ROF’s one-child policy claims, including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and WZVN-TV in Florida. (See Attachment #4, pg. 2 & Attachments #5-7).
In sum, there is absolutely no support for the one-child policy claims made by ROF in its latest Georgia advertisements. Not only does the language of the legislation itself stand in direct contradiction to ROF’s statements about Speaker Gingrich, but various neutral parties have independently assessed the one-child policy claims and judged them to be fundamentally untrue. As such, this station should consider statements attempting to link Speaker Gingrich to support for China’s one-child policy in any ROF advertising as patently false, misleading, and defamatory. And, given the fact that the language of H.R. 1078 is abundantly clear and part of the general public record, we are left with no other conclusion but to assume that such communications by ROF are made with either knowledge or reckless disregard of their inherent falsity.
DEMAND
Through the above repudiation of the falsities contained within ROF’s present Georgia television spots regarding Speaker Gingrich and H.R. 1078, your station has been given notice and absolute knowledge of the defamatory nature of such advertisements. As a result, any further attempt to broadcast or communicate such advertisements or any of their inaccurate content to the general public will expose your station to potential liability for both libel and false light invasion of privacy. In turn, and as previously stated above, we do hereby request that your station immediately cease airing any such false advertisements and completely refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the aforementioned defamatory statements have been removed.
Please govern your actions accordingly. We look forward to receiving your prompt reply to this correspondence and request that any questions regarding its contents be directed to my attention.
Sincerely,
HALL, BOOTH, SMITH & SLOVER, P.C.
PATRICK N. MILLSAPS Deputy General Counsel, Newt 2012
“And what would Michael Reagan know?”
Michael Reagan was 35-year-old when his father became president in 1980. So he well knows about EVERYTHING which happened during Reagan’s two term presidency.
I’ve just posted it on THIS thread.
Post #38
Thank you for the confirmation of what I posted way back up the thread. Nancy didn’t pass the torch just to Newt, she passed it to ALL the Republican members of Congress. Santorum was one of those members, so Ronnie passed the torch to Rick Santorum.
I strongly doubt that Ronald Reagan was ever aware of Santorum’s existence.
I hope you are fully aware of Santorum’s vicious attacks against Newt, while Newt has never attacked him.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-campaign-launches-gingrich-radio-attack-ad/
Jan 31, 2012
“The Santorum campaign is out with a new radio ad attacking Newt Gingrich, ABC News has learned.
The negative ad says Gingrich is not a “true conservative” and that is why he lost Tuesday evening to Mitt Romney in the Florida primary.
“The Florida results are in, and despite spending millions, Newt Gingrich went from a big lead to a big defeat. Why? Because voters discovered Gingrich wasn’t a true conservative,” the voice over reads.”
February 3, 2012
“Pro-Santorum Super PAC Ad Takes First Negative Shot at Gingrich
The Red, White and Blue Fund’s latest television commercial, called “The Only One,” will air in the Minneapolis market comparing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to President Obama. The state’s caucuses are Feb. 7.
The 30-second spot shows images of Obama, Romney and Gingrich while the announcer says, “They’re not so different.””
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-santorum-attack-gingrich-half-trillion-dollar-lunar-221400819.html
February 3, 2012
“Santorum’s ad, which is running on satellite radio, according to the Hill newspaper, states that, “Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt. And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.” The ad goes on to provide a quote of Gingrich proposing the lunar base. Then it describes the idea as “fiscal insanity.””
It will be a chilly day in hell, when Gingrich chooses Santorum as VP
My comment was asking the poster to whom the question was addressed for a source or link to his statement that “reports are” that Nancy Reagan herself had pointed out something that validates his (the poster’s) inference that Ms. Reagan’s comment about Newt meant something other than what she said. Your #38 is not responsive to my question. Thanks for trying, though.
You replied to me with a blog post that purports to quote Andrea Mitchell (okay...) purporting to cite anonymous "sources close to Nancy Reagan (seriously?) that she was referring generally to Congress.
Do you have a source or link to a legitimate or recognized news source that says specifically what you contend, which is that Nancy Reagan herself has pointed out that she was NOT referring specifically to Newt in the video clip where she says Ronnie has passed the torch to Newt and the Republican members of Congress? Or, maybe even a source/link that verifies that Nancy Reagan has ever clarified or expanded upon in any way the comments she made in 1995 at the Goldwater Institute?
I suspect that you’re right. But, now that I’ve seen Wayne’s reply to you in his #45, the only conclusion is that he’s being deliberately obtuse, as is his wont. There’s probably no point in discussing it with him any further.
Santorum’s ad:”“Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt. And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars ($500 billion) on a moon colony.”
FACTCHECK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFdr81Uttgg
Gingrich did not give a cost analysis of his lunar base proposal. The only figure he has given was $5 billion out of the actual NASA budget, as prize to be given to the first private group to establish a lunar base.
The Constellation program, which would have involved a human return to the moon by 2020, a lunar base thereafter, and eventually expeditions to Mars and to Earth approaching asteroids was estimated by NASA, according to a General Accounting Office report, to cost $97 billion through 2020. However the report suggested that NASA did not actually know how much Constellation would have ultimately cost. The GAO made some recommendations for NASA to refine the Constellation program to arrive at a more accurate cost estimate.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies suggested that the cost of a lunar base would be $35 billion under the Constellation program, including the development of the Altair lander, lunar habitation modules, and the costs of two Ares V launches to deploy the base. Operation costs of the base, which would have four people, would be just over $7 billion a year, to be shared by international partners.
Atlanta, GA — Newt 2012 National Security Advisor Stephen Yates shared the following statement in response to Senator Rick Santorum’s criticism of Newt Gingrich’s American space policy:
“I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.
“American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.
“We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.”
Santorum never served under Reagan administration, so it safe to assume Reagan never knew who he was.
“Millions of dollars have been spent in negative ads against him. But let’s discuss the real Newt Gingrich. . . Newt became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership Congress also limited the welfare state. . . As a leader in the Reagan Revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for their cozy insider deals. . . Gingrich led the most reform-minded Congress in America. . . He has helped keep my father’s legacy alive.” - Michael Reagan (Ronald Reagan’s son)
Have you seen this video? It will revive the happiest memories.
“This documentary, that I made myself shows Gingrich’s ties to Reagan and gives a few examples why I think Gingrich should be our next president despite what other people want you to believe.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POMIw3cp138
Bud McFarlane, National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, explains why Newt has the right experience and knowledge to be the Commander in Chief.
“He also brings to the presidency a knowledge of how to move the U.S. Congress, how to have the courage to go against conventional wisdom, how to balance a budget, and at home and abroad show the kind of leadership that President Reagan did only 25 years ago.
Nobody else in this race has those qualities of knowledge and experience. I’m here because I believe in Newt Gingrich. He can do this. He’s the only one who can do this.” — Bud McFarlane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epqCtkiknyA
Bud McFarlane, National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, explains why Newt has the right experience and knowledge to be the Commander in Chief.
Gingrich On Rules Of War:
“If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be— let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There’s a huge gap here that— that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVml1MQwKMs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Very, VERY good video, especially the last half. Thanks.
Newt gave this incredible 46 min. talk in Michigan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyi5JsYeY6E
Easy to follow - goes very fast.
2 + 2 = 4
DOES THE CAT CATCH THE MOUSE OR NOT?
Thank you, Marguerite.
Is this Presidential or what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVml1MQwKMs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Let there be Peace on Earth and let it begin with
NEWT!
“Ricky would be “lucky” to have the opportunity to be tutored by Newt Gingrich ... “
He WAS tutored by Gingrich when ,an elected freshman in the House of Representatives, welcomed by Newt ... and now he dares attacking Newt with despicable negative ads ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.