Values Voter News

Update 03/30/2009: Now over 1,106,033 red envelopes have been sent and/or will be sent to Obama on 03/31/2009.

Update 03/26/2009: Now over 929,000 red envelopes have been sent and/or will be sent to Obama on 03/31/2009.

Update 03/25/2009: I originally posted this on 03/06/2009 with 265,000 envelopes at the time but wanted to bump it up here since we are only 6 days away from the deadline.

Update 03/25/2009: Now over 799,000 red envelopes have been sent to Obama.

Update 03/21/2009: Now over 727,000 red envelopes have been sent to Obama.

Update 03/16/2009: Now over 620,000 red envelopes have been sent to Obama.

Psalm 110:3, “Many will volunteer in the day of your power.”



From The Red Envelope Project. If you decide to do this click on link and let them know you did!!!

The Story...

Below is a letter that has been circulating with a great idea. The message began in silent prayer from a faithful follower who was spending quiet time with God.

Dear Friends and Intercessors:

This afternoon I was praying about a number of things, and my mind began to wander. I was deeply distressed at the symbolic actions that President Obama took as he began his presidency. Namely, that he signed executive orders releasing funds to pay for abortions, permission to fund human stem cell research, and federal funding for contraception. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years, and it pained my heart to see a man and a political party committed to the shedding of innocent blood. This man, and this party lead our country, but they do not represent me or the 54% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong and should no longer be legal.

As I was praying, I believe that God gave me an interesting idea. Out in the garage I have a box of red envelopes. Like the powerful image of the red LIFE tape, an empty red envelope will send a message to Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It will be quiet, but clear.

Here is what I would like you to do:

Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington , D.C. 20500

On the back, write the following message.

This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

Put it in the mail on March 31st, and send it. Then send this website to every one of your friends who you think would send one too. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who died before having a a chance to live. Maybe it will change the heart of the president.

Warmly, Christ Otto

Let's Send 50 Million red envelopes (and Counting) to the President!

Big Media has thus far missed a huge story for obvious political reasons. See Commercialism and Capitalism are not the cause to Big Media bias. Only Big Media would have you conclude that way....Do your own test!!!

Related: Sign petition with over 150,000 others and counting concerning Obama's invitation to deliver a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame

Rush Limbaugh: Obama vs. Notre Dame's Touchdown Jesus

My Mom told me Rush spoke on his show Friday about President Abortion's votes against Born Alive while state senator in conjunction with Notre Dame inviting him to speak at its commencement.

Thankfully, reader Jeff G. sent me the transcript. Rush got the concept right, although Obama voted 4x against Born Alive, not 3...

The Most Anti-Life President in US History to Speak at Notre Dame

March 27, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This Notre Dame business, I have to admit that I'm perplexed. Notre Dame is what? Notre Dame is the only university that I know of that has a giant mosaic of Jesus overlooking the football field, with arms up-spread as though Jesus is signaling touchdown. That's why they call it Touchdown Jesus at Notre Dame. They're a Catholic school.

They have a tradition of inviting new presidents to deliver the commencement address -- and so they invited, in the spirit of this tradition, President Obama. Now, as we know, the Catholic Church's official position on life is...LIFE. The official position on life is not abortion or "choice" or anything of the sort.

I know this is going to perhaps be offensive to some of you who are new to the program, but the truth is the truth, and this program is about truth. We attempt to find the truth. We secure the truth on this program, and the truth is, that President Obama -- by virtue of his votes, as a member of the Illinois Senate, and as a member of the United States Senate - is perhaps the most anti-life president.

Well, there's no question. He is the most anti-life president we have had in American history. This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times, that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother's original intent to abort it.

If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times. I don't care what your position on abortion is, but now we're not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide....

The pro-abort crowd is a militant ideological group of people to whom abortion is a political advancement. It's a political achievement. It's rooted in feminism and liberalism, which is also inexorably linked. He has taken steps every chance he's gotten to make abortion easier.

His nomination of Kathleen Sebelius... Well, his whole administration is made up of these people. I'm not Catholic, but I look at this and say, "This doesn't make any sense. This does not pass the common sense test." I understand the tradition of inviting newly elected presidents. I understand the historical nature of President Obama's election. I understand all of that. But do none of our institutions value their principles anymore or their core beliefs or their religious foundations? Are they so easily discarded for public relations or political correctness? You know what's even more stunning to me? This is -- and I say this happily. What's even more stunning is the degree to which this is being protested there, by students.

Now, some students are just upset that the whole commencement is going to become a circus because of this, but some of them are upset over the substance of it. There are a lot of Catholics who are upset about this. There are also a lot of Catholics who voted for Obama, knowing full-well everything that I just told you. But in an era where principles, core believes, and the essence of one's being are so casually discarded, it is a shock to me to see something as venerable at Notre Dame University cast theirs aside for reasons of comparatively no substance. Political correctness, tradition. Does not the tradition of having the newly elected president do your commencement address pale in comparison to the foundational building blocks of the university and the church on which it's founded? Are they going to have to cover up Touchdown Jesus the day Obama makes his speech? How could they not?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more thing about this Notre Dame business. You know, ladies and gentlemen, it's not just that Obama has the most outrageous anti-life record and agenda of any president in history, it is that they're going to give him an honorary degree. There are some people who wouldn't really care about the commencement, but the honorary degree, that's sending other people over the top. Of course, the honorary degree is automatic for a president showing up to do the commencement address. There's a lot going on behind the scenes at Notre Dame. Protests are being planned. Some faculty and former faculty are really mad about it, but they're not going public yet. Notre Dame is not backing down on any of this. The times when people stand to assert their principles just boggles my mind. Now, here's something else. For those of you -- Protestants and Catholics alike, and even you Jewish people, I mean everybody, while all this is going on, you need to know that the Obama administration is now thinking of rescinding what's called the "conscious clause."

Right now 15% of American hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Rescinding the conscious clause, this is currently under comment period 'til April 9th, of all days, that's Good Friday, or close to, bad Thursday, whatever. The comment period here going on until April 9th, if they rescind the conscious clause, if you've never heard of it, you'll understand what it is here in mere moments -- rescinding the conscious clause would force Catholic and religious pro-life health professionals to seek other careers, possibly shut down Catholic hospitals that would refuse to provide abortion services. Rescinding the clause would require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Now, we wonder how this fits with the universal health care message. So while the Obama administration is actually thinking of rescinding the conscious clause -- the conscious clause means that I can't willingly perform an abortion because of my conscience, I'm Catholic. Catholic doctors have an exemption right now, federally funded places. That's going to be taken away, they're thinking of taking it away forcing Catholic and religious pro-life health professionals, people, to seek other careers and maybe shut down some Catholic hospitals. All this and Notre Dame is not backing down. Notre Dame is holding firm to their invitation.

END TRANSCRIPT"

Study: Abortions Cause Future Relationship Problems, More Domestic Violence

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Some women decide to have abortions because they think having a baby will contribute to problems in their relationship with their husband or boyfriend. However, a new national study finds abortion causes more future relationship problems than carrying the pregnancy to term and parenting.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University headed up the study with Vincent Rue of the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss and post-abortion researcher Catherine Coyle.

"For both men and women the experience of an abortion in a previous relationship was related to negative outcomes in the current relationship: perceptions of improved quality of life if this relationship also ended and intimate partner violence," they write.

Published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed medical journal Public Health, the study finds an abortion within a current relationship causes more arguing when discussing future children and more domestic violence -- respective increased risks of 116% and 196%.

After an abortion, partners are 75% more likely to argue about money than when having the baby, argue about the man's relatives 80% more, and there is a 99% increased risk of arguing about the woman's relatives compared to couples who give birth.



"Men whose current partners had an abortion were more likely to report jealousy (96% greater risk) and conflict about drugs (385% greater risk). These results suggest that abortion may play a vital role in understanding the etiology of some relationship problems," the authors explain.

The study also finds abortion increases women's risk of various forms of sexual dysfunction anywhere from 122% to 182%.

The study also found an increased level of domestic violence following an abortion compared with giving birth.

"Male and female respondents who experienced an abortion within the current partnership reported engaging in significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence compared with those who had never experienced an abortion," the study found.

Coleman talked with LifeNews.com about why abortion causes more relationship problems for men and women compared with giving birth.

"Although the precise mechanisms explaining associations between abortion history and relationship difficulties were not examined in this study, there are a number of logical reasons for the associations detected," she said.

"Relationship conflicts arising from an abortion experience may emerge during the decision-making process, adding to earlier conflicts, or new relationship problems may emerge after the procedure," Dr. Coleman explained.

She said that psychological distress taking the form of anxiety, depression, sleep difficulties, or substance abuse and guilt for terminating the pregnancy or not wanting/feeling ready to assume the responsibilities of parenting cause relationship problems after the abortion.

Coleman said belief that the relationship is not strong enough to endure raising children, lack of confidence in the other’s ability to parent, and moral or religious objections to abortion also cause future relationship problems following an abortion.

The study's results are strengthened by the use of a large, diverse sample, professional data collection, inclusion of men, and controls for a wide range of demographic and personal history variables predictive of the choice to abort.

Citation: P.K. Coleman et al., Induced abortion and intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey, Public Health (2009), doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2009.01.005

For contrast and how it should be done see opposingviews.com. I don't know if you can find this exact subject but notice that at opposingviews.com you not only get to read two sides and sometimes more on an issue in debate but you get to read it from confirmed experts on both sides which is not at all what ABC did on this subject. Keep trying ABC it can't be that hard. After the moderator said he has been following the evangelical community for some time now. He should know who is some what reputable. There is no excuse for this.

From Culture and Media Institute....

Devil in the Details
ABC hosts debate about the existence of Satan, but fails to find Christian authority on the topic.

By Colleen Raezler
Culture & Media Institute
March 27, 2009

ABC explored the existence of Satan during the March 26 “Nightline” but stacked the deck in favor of those who do not believe the devil exists.

Harris invited internationally known, and in some circles, renowned New Age guru Deepak Chopra to argue that Satan does not exist. Bishop Carlton Pearson, hailed as a “former fundamentalist preacher who says he used to cast demons out his followers,” joined Chopra.

Mark Driscoll, labeled a “hip yet hard-line preacher,” and Annie Lobert, a former prostitute and leader of the “Hookers for Jesus” outreach program in Las Vegas, represented the view that the devil does exist. Lobert herself noted her lack of intellectual credentials, “I don't have a theologian background, but I have 16 years of experience of walking with the Devil so I know he's real for sure.”

“Nightline” gave audiences a balanced look at the issue. Chopra argued it’s the unhealthy people in the world who need Satan: “Healthy people do not have any need for Satan. Healthy people need to confront their own issues and that all the trouble in the world today is between religious ideologies. So I would say be done with Satan, and confront your own issues.”

Lobert testified about her own experience with what she believed was the devil:

I am a former escort/prostitute/stripper, what have you. And a night came in my life where I faced death. I O.D.'d on cocaine because I hated myself. And I kept hearing voices to tell me to kill myself. There was no reason to go on. And I know that wasn't coming from inside of me. There was a diabolical force speaking to me. And I truly believe it was the devil and his demons.

Driscoll argued that the world can’t have goodness without evil as a counterpoint. He stated, “I think [God] created angels and people and he gave us the capacity to have free will for there to be virtue, there must be the possibility of vice … I think if you don’t allow choice, the theologians will say you don’t have love. And so the argument is made that if God were not allowing choice, then you wouldn’t have evil, but you also would not have love.”

“It’s awkward for me to be here tonight because I'm from four generations of Demon caster-outers and I think that the best way to get people free is to get them to stop believing so much in this hairy, horny, freaky, scary, omnipresent entity and it will not manifest the way we have believed it to,” stated Pearson.

So yes, each was allowed to present their argument for or against the existence of the devil, but the fact remains the most notable authority in the debate was a non-Christian scholar who called those that believe in the devil and God, “primitive.” Chopra responded to Driscoll’s argument with:

It's actually a little difficult for me to respond because everything he says is in contradiction to what we know about the physical universe, that began about 13.8 billion years ago, in something called the Big Bang. I have been hearing all the terminology. How come you're all so convinced that god is a he or satan is a he when she be a black woman, you know? The point is, And how come we have the ideas that are so primitive. Why don't we understand that so far evil is a part of ourselves.

Harris appeared on the March 26 “O’Reilly Factor” to promote his “Nightline segment and told host Bill O’Reilly, “I've been covering evangelicals for years now.” With experience like that, Harris should have been able to find a Christian theologian to defend the idea that Satan exists. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary most likely could have effectively argued the position that the devil is real.

While Harris appeared relatively neutral as moderator of this debate, his heavy promotion Pearson’s arguments in this exchange with “O’Reilly” appearance indicated that he gave more weight to the argument that Satan does not exist:

O’REILLY: But here's what's interesting about the scientific part of it. I did about 15 years ago an investigation of exorcisms out of Rome. OK? And the Vatican to this day has kept it very quiet, because it can be exploited in hysteria.

They have priests that go in and -- to people who have unexplained maladies, much like the movie. And a priest played for me a woman in Sicily's testimony where she was speaking in Etruscan, the language Etruscan. And they had it on tape. And the woman was a peasant and didn't know anything, could not have known Etruscan. And that -- those were the kinds of things that really, I went, whoa, unexplained, this, that, and the other thing. Did you get into any of that stuff?

HARRIS: You know, one of the guys on the panel is this guy. His name is Bishop Carlton Pierson. And he is a former fundamentalist preacher. He used to cast demons out of people for a living. He had a change of heart. He now believes that Satan does not exist.

O'REILLY: Did he refund the money of the other people that he cast them out?

HARRIS: Unclear, but he's clearly apologetic.

O'REILLY: Apologetic.

HARRIS: And he is now saying that he made a big mistake. And his theology was wrong. He was leading people in the wrong direction and that...

O'REILLY: And what does he say? The devil made him do it?

HARRIS: He doesn't go quite that far. But...

O'REILLY: You have got to get him on that.

HARRIS: He does say that it's a dangerous myth, that if you externalize all of our evil tendencies, as opposed to looking inside for what may be wrong about us, you can set up a straw man.

O'REILLY: Well, you can. I mean, you can make an excuse, “It's not my fault. I was possessed by a demon on Tuesday and that's why I did X, Y, and Z.”

Good for ABC for including all viewpoints in this debate. But CMI suggests next time reporters should look for scholarly authorities from both sides of the aisle.

Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center."

Related: Dow Jones has bounced back last week and some reasons why that points to the need to fix our banking problem...

Geithner's "Toxic" Assets Plan

The financial system in the Unites States (and globally, really) is a complex ball-under-the-shell game, with about a couple thousand shells involved. This allows any given official to say, “We’re fixing the problem,” when in reality they’ve simply moved it out of sight once again. By the time you catch up (or think you’ve caught up) they’ve moved it three times more. The public, and most of the financial press, takes the official’s word for it. They’re too confused to do much else.

The switch-a-roo continues with the latest revealing of a plan to remove “toxic assets” from bank books. Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner laid out details that would effect a transfer of as much as $1 trillion in assets, using a combination of public and private investing along with FDIC insurance. The stock markets jolted upwards, signaling what some see as a reversal of the economic crisis. But what is really happening here? While not confident that I understand every detail in this melee (does anyone?), I have a some firm suspicions about the big picture.

Perhaps the greatest immediate woe hanging over the heads of the publically traded big banks and financial institutions is that the laws require them to publically report their earnings at the end of each quarter. Reports of huge losses move investors to sell their stocks in these institutions, tanking values even further, and beginning a deadly downward tailspin. The end of the current quarter approaches rapidly—a few days away—and it promises to be the bloodiest loss yet for banks holding “toxic” debts on their books. Without some kind of deus ex machina the immediate future looks very dim.

Last month talk had already begun about how to help these banks improve their balance sheets. While the honest thing to have done all along would have been simply to enforce the contracts—and thus allow the banks to fail for making ultra-risky loans to begin with—serious talk ensued about how to change the accounting laws that require reporting the bad earnings. At issue here was Federal Accounting Standards Board Rule 157 (FAS 157) popularly known as the “Mark-to-Market” or “Fair Value” rule. This rule requires institutions that hold “illiquid” (and thus, mortgage-backed) assets to report the value of those assets according to current market values—in other words, according to what they could be sold for today (as opposed to what the houses sold for back when the banks loaned the money). Since real-estate markets have slumped and millions of homes have fallen into foreclosure, prices have fallen drastically, and thus “market value” today sits far below what the banks have loaned out. This has already forced banks to show massive losses when reporting earnings because these “toxic” debts have so significantly weighed down their books. In light of the looming problem, many experts and non-experts have called for the rule-makers to temporarily suspend FAS 157 (which had only taken effect early last year anyway).

I cannot tell why the bureaucrats did not take this route. I suppose that it would have been too openly dishonest to just change the rules so abruptly (the public would have seen the ball under the shell here!), or perhaps such a drastic about-face remains in the works but (like all things bureaucratic) will take quite some time to bring to pass. And yet, balances must be reported at the end of March. What do the big banks do? After all, foreclosures have not slowed, but rather increased; many who avoided foreclosure by renegotiating with their lenders have nevertheless failed on their payments within the year, and now face foreclosure again. Worst of all, commercial real estate foreclosures have barely begun, and many experts predict the round of commercial failures to eclipse the residential mortgage problem in both size and effects. So what do they do? What for the end of March, and what for the next year or two of earnings reports?

I think this is primarily, if not all, that Geithner’s plan is designed to do: give these failing institutions a “legal” way to transfer that debt off of their books so that they can then turn to the public with “positive” balance sheets, “positive” earnings and say “We’ve recovered. We’re solvent, sound, strong. Invest in us!” Instead of trying to change or suspend FAS 157, Geithner has simply given the banks a way to bypass it. Instead of not reporting bad assets, the banks hope to not have bad assets to report. They hope some other investor—backed by the government—will come and purchase the toxic loans.

Of course, the question remains, “Where will the toxic debts go”? Who picks up the bill? The plan outlines that the U.S. Treasury will match private investments 50/50, and the FDIC (the same government agency that insures your local bank accounts) will essentially loan up to 84% of the money. So private investors who wish to participate will only have to put up a tiny fraction of the money, yet stand to reap half of the profits. Yet the real problem remains, as I see it. The assets up for bid are exactly what they’ve been labeled: toxic. Unless foreclosures stop soon and property values rise steeply—and these are BIG ifs—these assets are still about the riskiest bet in the financial world. What investor will dare buy these things?

This last question rings particularly loudly as I write because news just hit of the Treasury’s latest auction of debt. Demand was markedly low, which means that investors do not care even to buy these particularly safe (though low-return) investments. (Further, this means that the government is having trouble raising money for its trillion dollar deficit-funded projects.) If investors are wary of buying the safest of government-backed investments, what can we presume about the market for buying toxic assets even with government insurance?

I have to say, I am certainly skeptical about whether Geithner’s plan will even prop up the banks. I am very skeptical it will turn the economy upward in the long run. I am, however, certain that the plan is merely moving the ball under one more shell. The question is, how long until that shell turns out to be the final bombshell?"

Below is article from JillStanek.com in its entirety. Interesting read and revealing of the importance of Attorney Generals. Providentially, the first video released in Arizona proving Planned Parenthood's cover-up of underage rape was released on the very day that AZ's Attorney General Terry Goddard was to give a speech at a Planned Parenthood event. Then second video is released that reveals contradictory statements between Goddard's office and Pima County's Attorney office. For videos see: Video number 4 exposing two new Planned Parenthood Clinics covering up statuatory rape violations....

Don't worry, AZ Planned Parenthood has investigated itself

When last we left Planned Parenthood of Arizona , Lila Rose and LiveActionFilms.org had released a 2nd video of employees at a 2nd and 3rd PP in the Grand Canyon state showing a willingness to cover-up underage rape.
The 1st video showing the 1st cover-up, released February 3, resulted in a whole bunch of nothing happening.
This likely had to do with the fact that AZ Attorney General Terry Goddard was coincidentally scheduled to give the keynote address at a PP event that night, obviously in the bag for the US's largest chain of chop shops.



The 2nd video released resulted in an interesting denial by Goddard to the Arizona Republic that his office was investigating PP despite a letter from the Pima Co. attorney to the contrary (click to enlarge)...


Goddard must have decided not to worry because, as AR reported, PP AZ has conducted an investigation of itself, and things amiss are now fine...

The organization initially released a statement about the videos.
PP AZ said it "takes allegations of this nature very seriously."
"We are conducting an internal review and will come to a conclusion that is fact based and not based on edited propaganda video," the agency said.

After the review, Cynde Cerf [left], director of communication and marketing for PP AZ, said that, at the first facility, the young women were talking to a front-desk worker and not a medical professional.
At the second meeting, the women, still posing as 15-year-old girls, met not with a counselor but a clinician, who may have been more practiced at providing medical care than counseling.
"I think she was clumsy in explaining how the practice works," Cerf said. "At the same time, she was still following the procedures that were set up at the time."
The worker in the tape from the second facility no longer works for PP. She left of her own accord months before PP knew about the recordings.
Procedures have changed since the video was recorded last July. The changes were put into place before Live Action started posting their videos. Now, clinicians are trained in how to talk to all patients.
Also, young women or girls who appear to possibly be victims of a crime are told upfront that PP has a legal obligation to share any suspicions to law-enforcement authorities.
These clinicians are also responsible for the reporting of any suspicions. Previously, that was likely to be a counselor's role.
Cerf said that, from Feb. 1 to March 20, PP AZ reported 24 cases of suspicions of abuse.
Those reports came from the organization's 20 facilities in the state.

Nevertheless, one US Congressman, Trent Franks, is not taking PP's word that things are a-ok. As Fox News reported March 26, Franks is the 1st AZ public official to call for an investigation:

... Franks lambasted the organization for its "flagrant violation of the law."
"These video clips are the most recent in a series of recorded incidents in which PP clinics have blatantly disregarded the law and failed to protect children by refusing to report potential cases of statutory rape," Franks said in a press release....
"It is a travesty that even though PP has been repeatedly shown to conceal the sexual abuse of children, state and federal officials have nevertheless refused to involve themselves in drawing attention to these crimes, seemingly because of their desire to avoid the abortion issue altogether," Franks said.
He cited the allegations against PP as another reason for his support of the Title X Abortion Provider Act, which would prohibit the use of federal funds for family planning centers that adminster abortions.

Back to our PP friend Cynde Cerf, I found this interesting tweet on her :

Normally I would consider it bizarre to make mention of the plastic maccabre. But considering Cynde makes her living from an organization that rips real heads off of real babies' torsos, I'm not surprised."

Amazing Omissions in Times Interview of Barney Frank

A Times writer manages to talk to Barney Frank about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and an SNL skit without bringing up a single challenging question.

Posted by: Clay Waters
3/26/2009 7:03:05 PM

The Times' special Deal Book section on Thursday featured a Q&A with Rep. Barney Frank by Times contributing writer Cyrus Sanati, "Rep. Barney Frank's To-Do List for Changing Wall Street."

Wall Street is bracing for a regulatory tsunami to make its way up from Washington. Lawmakers are considering sweeping changes to the Depression-era securities laws and regulatory agencies that failed to prevent the economic downturn.

As these new proposals gain momentum, Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, will have a central role in influencing the size and scope of these new regulations.

That's the lead-in to an extremely friendly interview (described as "edited and condensed excerpts from the discussion") with the liberal Democrat Frank, who heads up the House Financial Services Committee and will have a hand in creating new regulations and laws on executive compensation.

Not one of Sanati's 10 questions were critical of Frank, and none delved into his controversial ties and strong defense in the past of the corruption-plagued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage lending companies, in their quest to ease up requirements for mortgage loans in the name of "affordable housing," which many experts think contributed to the mortgage crisis.

Sanati even asked Frank a question about Fannie and Freddie, but ignored Frank's previous support of the entities, captured by the Times itself in September 2003. At a hearing, Frank lectured that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis....The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Oops.

But Sanati ignored all that and painted Franks as some kind of Freddie and Fannie reformer:

Sanati: Subprime mortgages played a large part in the downturn, as well as the need for the government to rescue the mortgage financing giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In an op-ed in the Financial Times in 2007, you said, “The subprime crisis demonstrates the serious negative economic and social consequences that result from too little regulation.” What have you done since to tighten regulation of that market?

In Frank's answer, Sanati let the congressman get away with passing the buck to the Bush administration:

Frank: We passed shortly thereafter a bill that would prevent the type of subprime mortgages that went bad. Unfortunately, it never passed the Senate. I am returning to that now. Earlier in 2007 we passed legislation to improve the regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Senate didn’t get on to passing it until July 2008 and by that time it was too late. The problem was with George Bush in power. It was hard to get the approval we needed for the degree of regulation that we thought was necessary.

Saturday Night Live mocked Frank in a skit that aired on the network on the night of October 4, 2008, specifically fixing blame on Frank for part of the banking crisis. But the official online version of the skit was later controversially redacted by NBC in a way that removed all mention of Frank. Bizarrely, Sanati brought up another Frank impression on SNL -- one featuring a Frank impressionist chairing the Big 3 auto hearings, which aired on November 22, 2008 and didn't attract nearly as much attention as the banking skit. Sanati even pushed the Big 3 skit as proof of Frank's popularity.

Sanati: Many Americans have been following your committee’s hearings -- so much so that even “Saturday Night Live” did a skit about them, featuring you grilling the Big Three automakers. How do you think they did in impersonating you?

Frank: I am impressed with Fred Armisen’s range given that he impersonates me and Barack Obama, so I guess that’s, um, sort of interesting. The only time I was upset was when they had someone doing me that was really fat."

First Jill Stanek reports that Tiller was found not guilty in recent trial and many comments from a number of sources at Epilogue: Tiller found not guilty-"UPDATE, 3/28, 10:15a: Although written a few hours before the Tiller verdict, this post by National Review Online's Denis Boyles in The Corner, which should be read in its entirety, sums up what happened:

I've spoken to several people who are very close to this case, and the expectation is that Tiller will be acquitted......"

But it may not ending there. See Breaking news: KS Board of Healing Arts charges Tiller with 11 disciplinary counts

"....So, as the New York Times noted:

The trial is not the end of Dr. Tiller's legal problems. The state Board of Healing Arts is investigating a complaint that mirrors the accusations made in the trial.

KSBHA's timing is obviously noteworthy. KSBHA actually filed its complaint in December but held off the announcement until mere moments after the Tiller verdict. It appears someone(s) told KSBHA to sit on it so as not to risk accusations of tainting the jury, and in the subsequent event of a criminal conviction, give cause for an appeal.

What jurors didn't get, KSBHA does, arguing in its petition:

Licensee [Tiller] and Dr. Neuhaus had a symbiotic relationship. Without the second opinion referral from Dr. Neuhaus, Licensee would not be able to provide the service of pregnancy termination to any patient beyond 22 weeks gestation. Dr. Neuhaus was dependent on referrals from Licensee as a source of her practice. Dr. Neuhaus did not have any patients except for those provided by Licensee. There was a legal or financial affiliation between the physician performing or inducing the abortion and the referring physician. Dr. Neuhaus' referral was not independent.

The 11 specific cases KSBHA cites are awful:

• 14-year-old girl who was 26 weeks pregnant, July 2003
  
• 10-year-old girl who was 28 weeks pregnant, July 2003
  
• 15-year-old girl who was 26 weeks pregnant, August 2003
  
• 15-year-old girl who was 28 weeks pregnant, August 2003
  
• 15-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, August 2003
  
• 14-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, August 2003
  
• 15-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, September 2003
  
• 13-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, November 2003
  
• 15-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, November 2003
  
• 18-year-old girl who was 25 weeks pregnant, November 2003
  
• 16-year-old girl who was 29 weeks pregnant, November 2003

KSBHA is charging Tiller "has committed acts likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public."....."

Update 04/17/2009 Now over 303,000

Update 04/17/2009 Click on www.BoycottPepsico.com to sign with over 284,000 others and counting. Besides reasons given below to add to that reason a new update on the boycott is quoted here:

"PepsiCo, one of the leading corporate promoters of the homosexual agenda, is opposing a shareholder resolution that requires it provide more information concerning its charitable contributions. The resolution will be voted on at the shareholders meeting May 6. The resolution reads:

"Resolved: That the shareholders request the Company to provide a semiannual report...disclosing: the Company's standards for choosing which organizations receive the Company's assets in the form of charitable contributions; business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions; personnel who participated in making the decisions to contribute; the benefits to the Company and beneficiaries produced by Company contributions; and a follow-up confirming that the organization actually used the contributions for the purpose stated."

As expected, PepsiCo opposes the resolution. AFA asked Pepsi to remain neutral in the culture war, but the company refused - choosing to support the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

The resolution was filed after it was discovered that PepsiCo gave a combined $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (the nation’s largest homosexual organization) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace."

Related for more reasons to boycott Pepsico at: Pepsi is on the Obama bandwagon giving more reason to boycott Pepsi
Pepsico, HRC, Obama, Rick Warren, James Dobson, Boycott and more in an email I sent to friends and family...
Boycott of Pepsico becoming more and more justified...

Pepsi Continues To Sponsor Homosexual Agenda: Boycott Continues

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

March 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American Family Association (AFA) is calling for a boycott of soft drink giant PepsiCo over its support of pro-homosexual groups, in particular the homosexualist group known as Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

PFLAG has recently begun a campaign against an organization that helps ex-homosexuals to return to a normal lifestyle, called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). Donald E. Wildmon, founder and Chairman of the AFA, said in a press release that, "By issuing national press releases against PFOX, by organizing protests at ex-gay conferences, by publishing anti-ex-gay literature, and by opposing ex-gays equal access to public venues, Pepsi-supported Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) contributes to the intolerance of the ex-gay community, stereotypes former homosexuals, and continually misrepresents PFOX's mission."

In January LifeSiteNews reported on the one million dollars Pepsi gave to PFLAG and another homosexual group known as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a group that describes itself as "America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality."

This money was used in part to support HRC and PFLAG efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"PFLAG is a vocal and activist homosexual group that calls those who oppose homosexual marriage 'the forces of prejudice and discrimination,'" noted Wildmon. "PFLAG not only cheered the California Supreme Court's ruling on May 15 which legalized same-sex marriage, it was also vociferous in its opposition to Proposition 8, the ballot initiative which restored traditional marriage in California on Election Day."

"By funding PFLAG, PepsiCo and its shareholders help promote fear and hostility against the ex-gay community and other heterosexuals. PepsiCo is the leading corporate sponsor of PFLAG."

Wildmon explained that the AFA wrote Pepsi two times (on October 14 and October 29) requesting a meeting to discuss Pepsi's support of homosexual groups, and asking that the company remain neutral, neither supporting nor opposing the homosexual agenda.

Subsequently the AFA received what it described as a "condescending letter" from Paul Boykas, Pepsi's director of public policy, in which Boykas acknowledged Pepsi's support of the homosexual movement.

"Clearly, PepsiCo has no intentions of being neutral in the culture war. Instead, PepsiCo has thrown their entire influence behind the homosexual movement. Some shareholders will introduce a resolution in the upcoming PepsiCo meeting, asking it to be neutral in the culture war," Mr. Wildmon concluded.

"We're asking people, number one, not to buy these products; and number two, and more importantly, to let Pepsi know that they're joining the boycott by going [online] and signing the boycott pledge."

Pepsi products include Pepsi cola, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Mug Root Beer, Frito Lay chips, Tropicana orange juice, Gatorade, Quaker oatmeal, Lipton Green Tea, Dole juices, and Aquafina bottled water.

Link to the AFA online boycott pledge: http://www.boycottpepsico.com/

Link to printable Boycott Pepsi petition: http://www.afa.net/pdfs/pepsico_paper_petition.pdf

Read previous LSN coverage:

Pepsi Gives $1,000,000 to Advance Homosexualist Agenda
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09011208.html"

Pro-life pastor who was jailed for extending help in the name of Christ to women has led one man to Christ while in jail...

Plan B pill is now available to teens....

Time Magazines lists Calvinism as the third of the top 10 ideas changing the world right now

The devil has been baptized changing generations to come. The true story of the Hatfield-McCoy family feud as told by Hatfield family descendent.

Purchase

Baby in the UK dies as he is denied ventilator at parents request against London's High Court...

Petitions/Boycotts

Sign petition with over 150,000 others and counting concerning Obama's invitation to deliver a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame-Now over 200,000 in a little over a week!!!

Taxed Enough Already!!! Sign up for the National TEA Party Day

Send Obama a Red Envelope along with 929,000 others and counting....

Pro-Life Boycott of NBC and CNN in the working as both networks refuse to air a paid prolife ad viewed by over 1.6 million and running on YouTube-"Update 03/24/2009 More reason to boycott CNN and NBC. See CNN listeners come away thinking "embryos aren't fertilized" or so says ex-President Clinton with no correction from Obama's surgeon general bidder... and Did Obama really condemn cloning and who is really restricting the successes in stem cell research? and Obama sponsored a pro-cloning bill in Illinois in 2003?."

Videos

YouTube videos of Ray Comfort open-air preaching and preaching the gospel with everyday people at Huntington Beach.

YouTubed evidence that Planned Parenthood is underreporting the amount of abortions they do each day

YouTube videos exposing the UNFPA to skepticism from the Populatin Research Institute



ProLife

Abortion pride day. Wow!!!

USA Today asks Jill Stanek to write a short piece on the regulations of fertility clinics. She does and it gets rejected... Find out why

Abortionist who has aborted 60,000 babies 2,000 more then the vietnam war trial began yesterday...

California

Orange County Suprvisor who rejected tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood responds to encouraging emails...

Utah

Utah passes and Governor signs 3 pro-life bills into law, one being a fund set up to defend a future bill to ban abortions!!!

Illinois

FOCA bill being introduced in Obama's home state of Illinois that would allow non-physicians to commit abortions without malpractice lawsuites or....

Breast cancer linked to abortion denied by Avon and Susan B Komen Breast Cancer Foundation who gives money to Planned Parenthood.

Florida

Alleged forced born alive infant abortion in Florida by mother. Mother's bail raised from $14,000 to $200,000....

Providence vs Coincidence

Family members of the owner of the nation's largest privately owned abortion chain dies in Montana plane crash near the 'Tomb of the Unborn'...

Same Sex Marriage

Legalization of civil unions stopped by values voters rally of over 10,000 at Hawaii's state capitol and 2 days later 100's stay till 3 A.M.

Obama Watch

ProLife

Read Senators open letter to Obama concerning conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals and link to make public comment to HHS...

Further evidence that Obama is no where close to the middle on abortion with Dawn Johnsen nominee for US Justice Department....

Global Warming

Global Warming and don't forget about it's cost..Obama said electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket...

Economy

In 1991 conservatives were pushing for the full privatization of Fannie and Freddie and warned of what is happening now if we didn't and here we are..

Seven point jump in the polls from a month ago of citizens worried the government is doing to much to help the economy...

Two YouTube videos explaining exactly how AIG employees got their bonus' despite democrats assurances and Obama promises...

Further evidence that the mortgage crisis is the crisis of the economy as the Dow responds...

Weekly Address

Weekly Address, Reports and updates

Liberal Media Bias

Party affiliation mysteriously disappears when democrats are in the hot seat but are always present when Republicans are. hmmm...

Other News

ACLU, teachers unions and an Arizona court strike down a state approved voucher program for the disabled

FEMA accused of religious discrimination of churches that helped ice storm clean up in Arkansas. You decide...

If you oppose abortion, tend to support a 3rd party or possess subversive literature , you may be a member of a domestic paramilitary group...

YouTube video of John 3:16 sign being snatched away at NCAA tournament and remember Tim Tebow

International

France

Pro-lifers are labeled "far-right militants" in France....

UK

"Mr. Bean" wants protection of free speech to remain in "anti-homophobia" law....

Brazil

"Mr. Bean" wants protection of free speech to remain in "anti-homophobia" law....

Africa

Sudan's "Machine Gun Preacher" has the only organization willing to risk entering the war zone for orphans and has saved 1000 so far...

Guatemala

More then 400,000 people heard the gospel with the help of 25,000 volunteers, 3,000 churches and Guatemala's president, first lady and vice president

Religious Freedom

77 First Amendment case victories since 06/2008. Pastor awarded $11,700. 800 churches win tax exempt settlement. "Under God" declared constitutional.

Another article below of 300,000 in Brazil that gave their lives to Christ thru Billy Grahan Evangelistic Association.



25,000 heed the Great Commission

More than 400,000 people heard the gospel recently during one of the largest evangelistic festivals in Guatemala.

The two-night Guatemala Festival at Parque de la Democracia (March 13-14) was the culmination of a ten-day campaign by the Luis Palau Association in that Central American nation. The meetings were attended by the country's president, first lady, and vice president.



Also, the festival resulted in the largest community service campaign ever in Guatemala. More than 25,000 volunteers were trained to take part in outreach events. Kevin Palau, the ministry's executive vice president, says now that his dad has wrapped up the festival, the real work begins.

"It really is preparing God's people to share the gospel," he points out. "So these 25,000 people who have been trained, those are the people and those are the churches that will be active in discipling new believers or believers who have maybe drifted away from their faith."

More than 3,000 churches helped organize the festival."

Local 'crusades' drawing thousands to Christ

More than 300,000 people in Brazil gave their lives to Christ as part of a recent evangelistic campaign by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

The campaign is known as "My Hope" and works like a mini-crusade, but without mass meetings. Bill Conard, vice president of international ministries with the BGEA, explains how My Hope works.

"We work with thousands of pastors and train them how to teach their people to invite friends, family, and neighbors into their homes to watch three evangelistic television programs," he says.

Those programs feature a message by either Billy Graham or his son, Franklin Graham. The host then gives a personal testimony and an opportunity for others to accept Christ.

Conard says the biggest challenge is finding and contacting all of the evangelical churches in an area. But the outreaches, he says, have a far-reaching and lasting impact.

"In Mexico we had the My Hope project, and the national leaders decided to have a national day of baptism on Easter Sunday," he shares. "And as best we could contact thousands of churches and find out what happened, have record of over 37,000 people who were baptized on that Easter Sunday two years ago."

The My Hope outreach takes place this year in Thailand and also in a closed country in Asia."

Update 12/4/2009: Since this post another 81 First Amendment case victories have been reported totalling 158 since 06/2008. See label First Amendment Case Victories for most recent to later.

Now back to original post...

Below are 4 more First Amendment Case victories bringing us now to 77 victories since 06/2008 and that is just the cases that have been won and only those reported on at Values Voter News. See trail of all cases beginning at 73 First Amendment case victories since 06/2008. Why no media attention?. Most of these cases you will find links to the actual opinion by the courts. Why won't Big Media report on even one? See Commercialism and Capitalism are not the cause to Big Media bias. Only Big Media would have you conclude that way....Do your own test!!!

Minnesota

ADF: Tax-exempt status safe for Ramsey County church

Tax-exempt status safe for Ramsey County church

ADF-allied attorneys obtain settlement on behalf of church originally under threat with nearly 800 other ‘church organizations’
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Two Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys have succeeded in obtaining a settlement on behalf of a Ramsey County church once under threat of losing its tax-exempt status along with nearly 800 other churches and related organizations in the county. County officials had originally demanded that 784 “church organizations” submit forms and information or else risk loss of tax-exempt status, despite Minnesota law that exempts churches from such requirements.
“Government officials have no right to harass churches in violation of state law,” said ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco. “The county’s threat to revoke the property tax exemptions of hundreds of churches unless they submitted a pile of documents was arbitrary and violated Minnesota law. Some of the documents sought were not required for churches and did not exist, but the county demanded them regardless. We’re pleased that, in the case of this church, the county has decided to do the right thing. We hope they will do the right thing by the other churches as well.”



Ramsey County sent letters to all of the “church organizations,” including Advent Evangelical Lutheran Church, questioning property tax exemptions for various reasons. The letters demanded the churches submit tax exemption forms, incorporation documents, bylaws, financial statements, and other information or else face the loss of tax-exempt status, even though Minnesota law does not require churches to file such documentation. Advent risked losing its property tax exemption on undeveloped land the church has owned since 1957. ADF-allied attorneys Lynn Basich and Valerie LeMaster came to the church’s aid.
Basich filed two motions for waiver of tax payments on behalf of the church so that the church would not be subject to property taxes while its lawsuit, Advent Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Ramsey, moved forward in the Minnesota Tax Court. The chief judge of the tax court signed the order in May 2008. Now the county has agreed to settlement of the lawsuit and has agreed that all parcels of land the church owns will be considered tax-exempt. The county will correct their records to show the properties were also exempt during the tax years 2007 and 2008.
“The pastors and lay people of Advent Lutheran Church are relieved and satisfied with the outcome of this case,” Basich said. “The congregation is now free from the fear of losing its beloved church and having its property taken away from it.”
Missouri
Open road for Mo. ‘Choose Life’ plates after 8th Circuit clears detour
ADF attorneys win victory in decision that upholds ruling against state’s unconstitutional license plate approval process
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys secured a victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit over Missouri Department of Revenue officials Thursday, clearing the way for the creation of “Choose Life” specialty license plates. In the lawsuit, ADF attorneys alleged the state violated Choose Life of Missouri’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination when it refused to approve the specialty plate based on its objection to the pro-life message while allowing the messages of other organizations on other specialty plates.
“The state shouldn’t discriminate against pro-life organizations for their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster, who argued before the 8th Circuit in October of last year. “We are pleased with the 8th Circuit’s decision to recognize the unconstitutionality of the state’s approval process and look forward to the inclusion of Choose Life in Missouri’s specialty license plate program.”
ADF attorneys filed suit in federal court against Missouri Department of Revenue officials in June 2006 after two Missouri senators–both responsible for reviewing the specialty plate applications–objected to the viewpoint of the message on a license plate proposed by Choose Life of Missouri. ADF attorneys argued that the state’s approval process, contained in Missouri Revised Statutes section 21.795(6), failed to provide sufficient decision-making criteria and therefore unconstitutionally allowed the approval committee too much of their own discretion in considering specialty plate applications. The 8th Circuit agreed.
“Because section 21.795(6) allows the Joint Committee unbridled discretion to determine who may speak based on the viewpoint of the speaker, we find that section 21.795(6) allows for viewpoint discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional,” the court wrote. “The Joint Committee can still review and approve or deny specialty plate applications based on the criteria provided [elsewhere in the law]; it simply cannot deny an application based on the viewpoint of the speaker….”
In January 2008, a federal court ruled in favor of Choose Life, determining that the state’s statute outlining the approval process for specialty plates was unconstitutional. The state appealed the ruling to the 8th Circuit, which refused to stay the district court’s decision while the case was on appeal. Last week, the state began to issue the plates, which Missouri motorists can order via the Internet.
An ADF ally, the National Legal Foundation, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in support of Choose Life.
* Opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in Roach v. Stouffer"
Texas

Federal Judge Upholds Texas Pledge Containing Phrase “Under God”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott reports: “A Dallas federal judge has ruled that the phrase ‘under God’ in the Texas Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. The court’s decision rejected a lawsuit filed by a Dallas couple, who unsuccessfully argued that the state pledge violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.”
Opinion: Croft v. Perry, No. 3:07-CV-1362-K (N.D. Texas March 26, 2009)"
Kansas

Wichita Gives Settlement To Pastor After False Arrest

The City of Wichita, Kansas Gives Settlement To Pastor After False Arrest For Exercising His Right Of Religious Freedom
During Wichita’s “Gay Pride Fest” in June of 2007, Mark Holick, the Pastor of Spirit One Christian Center, went with about 30 members to a park downtown where the gay fest was going to end. They went to spread the message of salvation and its power over the abomination of sodomy.
However, once they arrived at the public park, they were told they had to move out of the park and beyond the street just outside the park or face arrest. Within minutes, the police had arrested Pastor Holick for trespassing on a public sidewalk..The arrest was made before they were able to speak at the festival, according to Pastor Holick.
The Christians were treated here as though they were second rate citizens. Pastor Holick filed a motion to dismiss the case and the City Attorney quickly dropped the charges. However the damage had been done, so Pastor Holick along with an attorney named Joel Oster of the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a federal lawsuit against the city.
It took a year and a half, but they were able to reach an agreement upon. The City of Wichita was required to pay the attorney fees, give Pastor Holick $11,700.00, and a “Consent Agreement” where the City of Wichita and the WPD admit their unlawful arrest and violation of Christian rights. The “Consent Order” of the City of Wichita states in part:
“WHEREAS the Defendants (City of Wichita/WPD) do not contest that they violated Plaintiff’s (Pastor Mark Holick’s) constitutional rights…

“NOW, THEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendant (City of Wichita/WPD) violated Plaintiff’s (Pastor Mark Holick’s) rights to free speech, due process, and free exercise of religion by arresting him based on his religious speech in a traditional public forum.”
2. The City of Wichita agrees to permit Mark Holick to engage in his First Amendment rights in the future on the same terms and conditions as all other citizens, and will not be discriminated against due to his religious speech.”
3. The city Defendant has paid Plaintiff $11,700.00 in damages for the unlawful arrest in accord with the City’s ordinary accounting procedures.”

Pastor Holick stated, “Hopefully, due to this settlement, in the future, the Christians in Wichita will have the freedom to practice their God given inalienable Christian religious rights, without fear of arrest due to their Christian beliefs, even when that belief is not popular or politically correct.”
He continues to pursue is religious rights by using his church’s marquee with post messages such as, “AMERICA WE HAVE A MUSLIM PRESIDENT THIS IS SIN AGAINST THE LORD! EX. 20:3.”