In that a declaratory judgment of the Federal Court has found the entire current health care law commonly referred to as "Obamacare" non-severable in its parts and on other grounds wholly unconstitutional (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion%20-%202.pdf) I urge Congress to support the upcoming vote to repeal and replace ObamaCare. 

ObamaCare is a clear example of the government spending spree that went unchecked in the 111th Congress. It is projected to cost $2.5 trillion during the first ten years the plan is fully implemented. The bill also places new burdens on employers, many of whom have already begun trim coverage or raise costs.  It seems even if we like our coverage, we can no longer keep it.

The constitutional flaws in the health care bill are well known. The individual mandate is attempt by Congress to vastly increase its control over Americans' lives.  If they can force me to buy health insurance, what can't they force me to buy?

For these reasons and many more, I urge Congress to vote to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with real patient-centered reforms, such as the elective-coverage and ability-to-pay original Oregon Health Plan was conceived; I've nothing against helping people who are in crisis or in need of a hand up, but Socialist health care deprives all people of quality and is unlawful per the Court.

This is the same thing I said in concert with the Democratic National Committee, inter alia, back in the day then-Seante majority leader William H. Frist, M.D. (R-TN) threatened to end the filibuster.

It may be that on the one hand, so few Senators today would even be interested IN filibustering (usually waiting to see if the Senate would invoke cloture before starting) no one in the present Senate would miss it. On the other hand, to dismiss the rule permitting filibusters would stymie all future Senators who may not be as easily discouraged, and one day might have a point beneficial to the most people which no one yet discovered.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that although the setting of rules of ANY governmental body is hardly the realm of private citizens or PACs, it does not seem fair to minority viewpoints to not permit a vehicle of responsible dissent...especially in an era of so many "unread" omnibus super-bills.

As the Roe v. Wade anniversary marches are set to begin, I sometimes confront (and succeed in) questions from people who tell they've read/heard religious "authorities" contradict my Vatican faith; here is an example typical of the genre.   

A series of books by Episcopal Bishop Spong appeared circa 2001, each another facet in attempting to deconstruct the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to such books, being largely Spong’s personal opinions as an invited lecturer to Harvard elites, it seems to reduce that Spong advocates Thomas Jefferson-like Deism…sure some God created our entire universe, but is NOT its God of history (even if this God CAUSED the dawn of time?) and certainly in no way has ever nor can ever interact with humans this side of eternity.

From such basic if grandly worded yet circuitously arrived-at self-opinion, it seems Jesus Christ was just a man who advocated philanthropy in this life with no strings attached for those who said “no, thanks” or simply wished to indulge every desire they felt benefitted them in this one and only life…especially with Spong’s vision that no original sin nor God-made prohibitions/salvation in any way could exist given the Watch Maker’s PERMANENT absentee landlord status and all, He not having expectation of ever meeting any of us. Spong bases his opinions in such works solely upon the lone fact the four Gospels contained different (non-conflicting) matter in places, were written a few years apart, and to Spong’s reading Paul makes no manifest believe in Christ’s Divine origin, bodily resurrection, or Divinity.

Given the monumental errors of omitted collateral Church and secular history, I continue to stand with the theistic tradition of the Vatican when confronted with “arguments” made of wet paper bags and presented as celebrity one-handed clapping.

As we approach the holiday remembering USA African-American rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one wonders if anyone ever said he was a cause of more violence to non-whites of his day due to his refusal to peacefully insist on civil and voting rights; or if anyone said from his time to date that his talk agitated already-upset KKK members and other whites (together with already-upset then-militant non-white headliners) who would occasionally indulge mob actions of one kind or another over tensions. One also wonders if anyone today would say that the King holiday was always meant to be a focal point for remembering that the legacy of civil rights activism is it makes some people crazy, and for learning that it's better for a vast majority to appease relative needles-in-haystacks who might pop their corks...only today's media and politicos can answer such King-related questions.

Then there's the scenario of Democratic Senator Fulbright daily lambasting Democrat President Lyndon Johnson over escalations in the Vietnam war; didn't Fulbright see the concurrent Weathermen, SDS, and other bombings, riots, and other mayhems caused nationwide by anti-war protesters amid Fulbright's public disgust? Didn't America call Fulbright a criticizer of a sitting President in war time, or a suggestion-planter to organized violence, and either way call for his silencing or expulsion? No, Fulbright to this day is fondly remembered as the man for whom a number of scholarships were given before Pell...Democrat official "fronting for hit squads" was never inferred, and I agree it should not be.

Consider too that absolutely no one has ever or can ever predict who will do what crime(s) when for rage/revenge/otherwise, when a particular normal-seeming person's cork will pop, or both; if it were otherwise, a random post-Gifford tragedy like this (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110112/UPDATE/110112042/Keizer-police-arrest-man-in-murder-of-wife-Lisa-Zielinski) could have been avoided...as it is, through no fault of theirs, DHS through local law just couldn't know who what where when here, and there is no present mechanism for locking away the mentally unbalanced even IF known....shall we assume a man wouldn't kill his wife if we all were happy and said not a thing in the world was our worry, or that his motive was allied to a voice from a TV or radio?

And what about nuts who just want to be shot by police and will seek out for the to them best chance of it? Gifford's attacker is reported as having posted suicide notes on Facebook in December 2010; what if he thought a really good way to chance swift execution at police hands would be to fire into a crowd gathered for an official function of any kind? And some people DO in 2011commit Federal felonies with the exact expectation and wish for police to shoot them to death; for example, one week to the day before the Gifford incident, a man in Salem Oregon went about appearing to abduct a woman from Riverfront Park for the sole and express wish and belief that doing so would result in police blasting him into non-existence (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110104/NEWS/101040328/1001/UPDATE ). Should we assume this man, a transient sex offender from Illinois, would have been more upbeat if the rest of us just dropped all concern for anything we hear from media and official sources, or pursue in intellectual interests, or was motivated by what anyone else thought of anything?

Wherefore, I respectfully submit that it's bubble gum philosophy to assert random violence is a absolutely controllable simply by not talking about or acknowledging its occurrences, and by pretending anything anybody "in authority or in the know" anybody tells IS good for us and motivated only by saintly, avuncular, selfless desires for us to be as responsibly free, empowered, financially secure, and participatory...in the reflex, it is also incompetent to say enough persons need third-party stimulus for violence it's worth sacrificing all free speech and intelligent criticisms.

Looking at the way media and officials are reacting to the shooting of Arizona U.S. Representative Gifford (and several other victims not given such depth of time even though they were killed), it seems that since a man who believed government had failed him on terms known only to him, anyone at all who on even traditional, Constitutional terms so much as says "eh?" to any official forever after shall be deemed the equivalent of Gifford's attacker and silenced together with being made of public "interest". Period, from kids through the elderly...PERIOD!!!

Well, most of us DON'T go around say shooting our Representatives, nor do we seek in comfort in the likes of Pakistani Muslim government bodyguards who shoot their own Governors for speaking against death to all Christians...hope the latter doesn't subject me to being labeled anti-Islam from the same voices saying free speech generally is the cause of attacks on officials.

On the contrary, when I walk around streets in Oregon towns, I notice that police, people in business wear, kids, old people, and even ME more and more observe such road rage on the streets...even as pedestrians...that in Salem, for example, people are using trucks to simply smash down gas pumps for doing it's sake, with others more and more LAUGHING at us as they drive MILES the wrong way, rev up and drive at us in crosswalks WITH lights and signs in our favor, and so on. Around Oregon, stores this past month have been beefing up locks and cases due to increased theft. In other words, it can be pretty dangerous to just be a normal person these days.

Now, I don't really think anybody in charge means to say or imply that whatever happens between the "little people" is their own affair, and whatever happens to an OFFICIAL...well, now, finally, somebody who actually MATTERS!!! Round up the nation, smack, waterboard, draw and quarter, whatever you have to do to the race of rats until one of them coughs up whodunit! No, this is what political opportunists and media mavens crave as  attention-getters for themselves.

What the Gifford matter actually shows is that so many mavens are demanding all government stomp on even Constitutional critics or voices, the ACTUAL psycho-nut cases get to weave overly-long "twisted internet trails" at non-traditional interest websites (as was said of Gifford's attacker) without anyone shutting off their websites, freezing accounts, having police stops, or such, while the bulk of DHS/NICC/Focus Center/Law Enforcement time and money is spent slapping around the places that demonstrably DO NOT produce people like Osama bin Laden or Gifford's attacker.

Wherefore, I respectfully submit that it is not ANY use of religion, speech, questioning, or otherwise that must be abolished...I'm just saying that government might like to spend more time sending in spies on groups who actually ADVOCATE force against others to protect officials, and consider restoring funding to local police agencies and Courts/jails to keep the real hard-core hitters...who don't care about ANY law or persons anyway...away from officials and ALL normal people. Especially on the heels of what media itself has labeled a very sour economy idling the hands and minds of too many people to begin with.

Siging off at Townhall, I can only look at the farago ALL world leaders...patting each other's back's...make, and assume this is what they'd sing to every NON-government person on earth if they could : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5N3q0lGi4w .

Christ has said that all who do His Father's Will are His borthers and sisters; in that spirit, I wish you all so applicable a closeness to
Jesus this Christmas and throughout the coming year, no matter who you are or where you are.

In considering the differences between theanthropic religions (e.g., those involving human sacrifices, human control via magic, human final arbitration or co-opting of cosmic attributions), mere masculine sacramentality involving a hero ascending to or visiting Heaven, and the Judeo-Christian faiths, there seems ongoing insufficiency in the psychology/behaviorist arguments against God as He is defined through Scriptures.

Before Richard Dawkins and “The God Delusion”, the psychiatric paradigm Carl Gustav Jung, in “Modern Man In Search Of A Soul”, “Introduction To The Religious And Psychological Problems Of Alchemy”(Psychology And Alchemy, Collected Works 12), and otherwise, certainly contested Freud’s claim that God is a mere projection of man’s own psyche, but backhanded God anyway through saying: man is genetically tailored with a superego searching for parental and social archetypes and bonds for life with any real or false such original exposures; and, that the religious archetype is still the “self”, except like all human archetypes is no man-made tropism but something that evolved in humans as a genetic edge favoring survival of the fittest.

However, this overlooks the salient point that it is not good for one’s mere survival to believe in a God leading one to respect all people’s dignity, and to care for the sick and disabled.

The likes of Goebbels, Zhdanov, and their modern counterparts have an interest in Jung’s religious archetypes theory, despite its warts. Jung held that if the archetype didn’t manifest itself in some worship of God, then it would manifest upon another objective even if no survival edge(s) actually resulted.

Propagandists historically seek eradication of the ability or even courage to make religious expressions, so that people turn to devoting all their energies to nationalism, racism, feminism, political candidates, campaigning for or against issues, fighting hunger or disease, and so on…again, with results or a real plan never needing to materialize, and often with government steering all subject matters for their own interests.

Judaism and Christianity affirm a transcendental causal agent for our universe, affirm the dignity of ALL persons, and espouse that ALL non-debilitated persons have a choice in choosing situational goods or evils but through choices they alone “elect” to spend eternity in the presence or absence of dignity.

This could be how God can give free will up to the second one meets Him, yet “know” where one will wind up based on their manifest heart. As to Hell, well, what sort of lodgings could anyone expect from someone who has never, ever had the slightest feeling of dignity or love towards anyone, and now spends literal eternity lording over souls who thought Satan never existed?

There is no “hate” speech just because one may say God reveals those who choose one way will have to eventually stick with it longer than they thought, or reveals that an absence of dignity and seeking of God’s Spirit leads to earthly emptiness and failure as a stand-alone matter of fact. 

As Americans For Limited Government president Bill Wilson said: "History has now shown that the 2008 energy and commodities bubble was directly related to government's weak dollar policy. But that didn't prevent Representative Upton using it as a pretext to raise taxes on energy producers, who largely are blameless for inflation caused by printing too many dollars."

In that the Federal reserve has PUBLICLY announced it will buy another $1.76 trillion dollars of Treasury Bonds, thus putting MORE dollars into market-actionable if constructive circulation, and this is bound to cause whopping devaluation of the dollar in 2011; and whereas cuts to Federal and State budgets (except prisons/enforcement) together with expired Bush era tax cuts and gross inflation from devaluation will be used to "reign in inflation" precluding job/trade/occupation possibilities,

Wherefore, I respectfully submit that it is not in the best interests of the United States population at-large to endorse Energy candidate Fred Upton or anyone sharing the view that subsuming cash flows in such ways does any good whatsoever to anyone not in some government.

Not to trespass upon the content, nor now-cliché use of, “Brave New World”, but all the collegiate and techie innuendo swirling out there about genetics, end-game Socialist society, an eventual right-gened Master population of diverse ethnic makeup, and men and women looking to their own genders for companionship with crossover occurring only via future labs screening specimens for “ubermensch quality” to be raised by State-dependent mothers rather than families (that some future generation will arise therefrom, free of “bad genetic vices and superstitions”, making big bucks in empowered freedom and returning the USA to greatness)…well, such things do sound as if SOME kind of “gene-pruning for success” is used as the excuse for extending debt beyond conscious intentions anyone will be able to meet it.

If so, then indeed do listen to those who have a degree…especially the ones who teach such exact concepts in modern schools and universities.

Consider “Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Work Life”, by Scott Shane (A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies, Case Western Reserve University), ©2010 Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-537342-4.

At page 188, sentences 7-9, Shane says: “But, in the real world, American businesses need to contend with entities from all over the globe. What should we do if companies in other countries don’t have the same compunction about genetic testing that we do? (Think Singapore here, whose founding president, Lee Kuan Yew, is a big believer in selective breeding and has encouraged well-educated, professional Singaporeans to have children together.)”.

I’m almost 51 years old, and for most of my life Lee Kuan Yew was the autocratic Socialist ruler of Singapore under its one-party system; a few years ago, after an ‘election’, Lee Kuan Yew Junior took over as President, and ever since the Senior Yew sits as “Minister Mentor” of the government. Next to the size of the USA, Singapore is a postage stamp; as example (http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/singapore-sees-sustainable-development-and-public-housing-as-priority-22469.html ) shows, Singapore has been rebuilt from ethnic neighborhoods into government-owned housing, and the State controls all industry plus job opportunities; as example (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030916sj.htm ) shows, to this day, hardly the manifest majority of people in Singapore enjoy personal empowerment and autonomous relation with their government.

How much longer will it be before enough “ubermenschen” children are grown in Singapore, that managing away of repeated cycles of once-young but now-aging parents, and lack of free enterprise or choice of parenting partners, are no longer required as the “wellspring” of an economy only a few may step up into? 

If anyone today at the ground floor of re-defining USA social roles and culture should one day find themselves “not having or producing the right stuff” all of a sudden as defined by ever-shifting needs of a property/industry subsuming government, or are told they’re now too infirm or ill to play, they might finally get Professor Shane’s caution at page 98, sentences 13-14 of his cited book:”Influence is an important word here. Your genes matter, but so do where you work, how you were raised, your education, and a variety of other factors.”; a lament sounded by too many onetime eugenics boosters in eras from Darwin through Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and into present times.

While many sources exist, both within medicince/science annals and open-source, on the topic of homosexuality I believe my interest in not ramming all things gay upon people is best articulated within the " Encyclopedia of Psychology" (Alan E. Kazdin, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, an 8-volume set available for purchase at the American Psycholigical Association website http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4600100.aspx).

Simply put, addressing the topic "homosexuality", the said Encyclopedia recites that for all the science in and since the day of Freud to date, there is NO known cause(s) of longing for one's own gender (in whole or in part).

Of necessary implication therefore, I simply do not know that I could be helping anyone by encouraging something that exact physical sciences cannot eliminate as a sign a person may have a trauma or mental block impeding their personal growth.

Unlike some, I am not comfortable thinking LBGT could be driven to suicide or otherwise lack self-esteem because they are "surplus fringe" people to some politicians, told they are scientifically free of anything harming them behind preferences just to exploit them in their own right and against anyone objecting to such use of "the fringe".

It is not the likes of me who by design or recklessness or personal expediency or as diversion intentionally abuse the public or any even "fringe" within it.

Thus my support for activities of the Family Research Council and any similar Christian-themed or other religious non-violent groups.