Senator Merkley:

Since you brought it up, the use of reconciliation and buying/trading votes to narrowly pass this bill through both the senate and the house was devious. You state that reconciliation has been used before - but never to reorder, by government intervention, 16-17% of our national economy. This reconciliation process was created, as I understand it, to resolve minor differences between versions of bills (such as typos, accounting errors, etc.). The massive accounting errors brought up by Paul Ryan and other Republicans were never addressed by your use of the reconciliation process at all, and other major differences in these bills were just ignored. Nonetheless, this monstrosity was signed into law. I would not consider this a piece of landmark legislation in any positive or meaningful way - except perhaps to ensure that everyone now understands that social democrats are the party of "tax and spend" and "redistribution of wealth."

And now, social democrats will demonize the very companies which they have required, by law, to report income expectations accurately to their investors, for truthfully reporting the losses they anticipate because of passage of this bill? They will be hauled before congress to explain - why they are complying with the law?!

There will be more families going bankrupt, since social democrats have created an unsustainable economic disaster by passing multiple huge entitlements on top of our already unsustainable entitlements. And, you have ensured that the economy will be damaged for years to come.

Congratulations! You now own every problem Americans experience with their health care - and make no mistake about it, there will be many.

I will say this: your arrogance in demonizing and ignoring the people has ensured that we are working hard to replace you and all the other social democrats now in office. I think you will find that I represent many more Oregonians than you realize. We are justifiably angry that you continue to insist that you know better than we do what best serves our interests.

As the Left continues to smear all conservatives as dangerous and violent (e.g. Eugene Robinson insisting that the danger for violence comes only from the right), I offer the following example of local hatefulness:
http://www.kptv.com/news/22994510/detail.html

As we in the Portland, Oregon area know, the local violent demonstrators are the anarchist types, who can, by no stretch of the imagination, be considered "conservative" or from the "right."

Several years ago, during a US History class, a fellow student held forth on the superior benefits of anarchy as a form of government - after all, wasn't this the means by which nature governed itself?

The discussion which ensued got me to thinking about how the highest predator actually rules nature - a fitting analogy for the effects of anarchy.

If our founders had intended for congressmen and women to rule us, why were they called "representatives" and given specific districts?

Our congressmen/women now say that we elected them to make decisions for us, in spite of what we say we want, via polls, etc. However: many of these same congressmen and women ran on a middle-of-the-road or center-right platform. That's not how they are governing. Their recent lunge to the left went much further than most voters (apparently) anticipated. And, their constituents called, emailed, wrote, protested, and were demonized and dismissed.

If social democrats ran on their by-now-obvious agenda, would they have been elected?

As many have noted all over the net, it's impossible to defend oneself against a negative. Of course people on our side should refrain from any violence or name-calling - we hold ourselves to a much higher standard than the left.

The news stories about candidate Obama that were minimized by the mainstream media have proven to be a good indicator of the beliefs and practices of this president. Some of us paid attention to his past and the people with whom he associated, and realized he was not the "healer" and "post-partisan" candidate he claimed to be. Here is how I view this current president's actual political views and (unfortunately) the policies he has put into place to rule us.

1) Our president really doesn't understand American history and our unique national character of self-determination, self-reliance and personal responsibility. He believes historical America is evil and only loves it to the degree to which he feels he will be able to change it.
2) He is a socialist, of the modern European social democrat stripe. Kudos to Dennis Prager for putting his finger on this definition. He believes that the government is the greatest good.
3) He is radically pro-abortion (see my previous posts).
4) He has obvious resentments against the usual US allies - beginning with Great Britain, and most lately, Israel.  I personally believe this is because he agrees with the hate speech he imbibed in Jeremiah Wright's "church" for all those years.
5) He wholly accepts the left's narrative with regard to racism - witness the "beer summit."
6) He wants to be a "transformative" president - not for the good of the nation, but because it fits in better with his own personal grandiose self-narrative.

In short: Obama is a hard-left ideologue, who is enacting as much of his agenda as he can. If he could simply override the congress and senate to enact the entire agenda, he would do so. He is narcissistic and thin-skinned. He despises ordinary Americans like you and me - in his view, we need to be ruled and regulated by his government, which knows better.

We need to stand together - strongly and peacefully - to ensure that Obama's agenda is never fully enacted. We must not allow the left's rhetoric and accusations to distract us from this goal.

However loud disagreement may seem to the left, it cannot be considered violence in the minds of anyone other than the social democrats now in power. They should grow a rhinoceros hide - as we on the right have long had to do, who are regularly accused of fascism, racism, etc. E.g.: At an organic, peaceful demonstration last Saturday night in honor of our 13 original colonies, we were loudly informed by an young woman walking by that we were "pathetic" and should "shut up." Free speech is only for the left, evidently?

Let us remind ourselves from whence we came - some of the excerpts below are reminiscent of our current experience in the health care debate.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
***
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States….
***
…He has refused to lass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
***
…He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
***
…He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:….
***
…For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:….
***
In every stage of these Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
***
…We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity.

Dear Senator Wyden:

I read your comments after the presidential signing of the health “care” bill – about the president’s “bully pulpit.” I am quite sure when Teddy Roosevelt coined that phrase that he did NOT have in mind the use of a pulpit to beat congressmen and women into supporting legislation against their stated values.

I don’t believe that TR envisioned the “pulpit” as a weapon, but rather as an opportunity to educate American voters about the value of his ideas and proposed legislation – precisely what this president failed to do. Even with all his many speeches on the subject, he could not convince Americans that this legislation was something they should support. Indeed, President Obama has used his “bully” pulpit in a manner befitting Chicago style politics.

I write once again to encourage you to rethink your proposed vote on the health "care" legislation before you.

Why are you, and our other representatives, not listening to your constituents? The arrogance being demonstrated by those who are forging ahead with this singularly vile piece of legislation is mind-boggling. The methods used to force its passage are corrupt. Our elected officials, who are supposed to represent the people, have demonstrated and expressed contempt for not only their constituents, who elected them - but also for the constitution, the purpose of which is to limit the size and scope of government.

There are many moral reasons to object to this attempt to take over individuals’ health care by a massive government intrusion; forced federal funding for abortion; lack of protection for health care workers’ consciences; and no specific protection for human life from conception to natural death. In addition, this proposed takeover violates the traditional American values of self-determination and individual personal responsibility. How can our elected representatives not embrace and do all they can to protect these values? 

As I have noted in the many previous letters I have sent you about this matter, your constituents know that the real purpose of this “health care reform” legislation is to set up the government takeover of our own health care system - which, with all its flaws, is the best in the world.

The proposed takeover is being done with the blithe assurance that it is a cost containment issue, for which dishonest numbers are provided for the CBO calculation. The problem with this assurance is that your constituents know that "cost containment" and "government" are contradictory terms. There is not one government agency that costs us less over time. To the contrary, we know from our own experience that the government can never do anything as humanely, creatively, efficiently or as responsively as the private sector. (See: the US Post Office vs. UPS/FedEx et al.) We also know that government agencies cut costs by cutting services to the public. That is the history of government agencies.

In addition, we see the example of other countries’ socialized medicine plans – and not one has contained costs, even with the reduction in patient services and innovation that was the inevitable result of their plans.

The current issues with our own health insurance plans are a direct result of previous governmental intervention – at the state and federal levels. How is more of the same kind (and a much greater degree) of governmental intervention going to fix the very problems it caused in the first place?

There is nothing significant in the proposed legislation that addresses the spiraling costs of self-defensive medicine being practiced by doctors and hospitals in response to an overactive and imaginative tort litigation bar.

As a descendant of those who undertook a dangerous journey in a small, leaking vessel across thousands of miles and set up a settlement (Plymouth Colony) where the values the government is proposing were tried (on a much smaller basis) and failed miserably, I ask you, and my other representatives, to please read and reflect on that history. Our ancestors learned quickly that enforced communitarian values did not work. Human nature has not changed.

For all these reasons and the many others that have been enumerated during this national health care debate, I ask you to vote “no” on any of the current health care plans. Reform is needed, but not this reform, and definitely not this way.

I have decided it's time to begin entries on this blog again. I want my country back.

This year, I have written three letters to EACH of my representatives and senators - and called all of them multiple times - only to be completely dismissed and disregarded - I am so far beyond frustrated. How about you?

After the "great one" deigned to speak to the country of his birth, which he has sworn to protect, for THREE FULL DAYS after a regular passenger thwarted yet another terrorist attack on a flight into the US, our president wasted no time in calling high-level conferences AND speaking to the international community about the situation in Haiti. Of course the earthquake should, and does, cause us grave concern; we should always reach out to those in need. And we do. That is part of the generosity of the American character, which our president does not seem to understand or appreciate at all. I find this particularly shocking.

Obama's unequal responses to these situations indicate his lack of concern for his mother country - which he apparently presumes to be evil - and his greater concern for ANY OTHER COUNTRY. I really wish he would find another country. I'd vote to have him elected president of the EU - he'd really be more comfortable there, and they do seem to like him. Where can we send a donation to his EU Presidency campaign?!

Let's consider doing away with or severely restricting the nonprofits whose sole function it is to challenge laws and have them overturned by judicial review.
 
Legal nonprofits such as the ACLU and others whose primary function is to:
1) challenge laws against "basic rights" (read: gay marriage)
2) attack ballot initiatives sponsored by conservative organizations
3) persecute individuals with charges of signature-gathering fraud who support these organizations, etc. etc. etc.
 
These nonprofit organizations work with other like-minded associations to shop for a jurisdiction where they know they will receive a favorable judicial review of laws they don't like. Why are they allowed to do this as nonprofits?
 
Lawyers express grave concern about the public perception of the judiciary. They don't understand why the general public fails to demonstrate appropriate reverence for the third branch of government. Why is that? It is because they are responsible for the lack of respect for the judiciary. What other outcome can one expect when one branch is manipulated so as to gain control over the other two?
 
Perhaps, when the judiciary and lawyers in general demonstrate respect for the other two branches of the system, the legislative ("the people") and the executive, they will have the right to demand equal respect for the third branch.

Here is a letter I wrote to NRO in September, 2009, right after Carter's bizarre racist insinuations against the tea partiers:
Dear Editors:
 
Thank you for your timely piece. I have one objection to the title, however – don’t give Pharisees such a bum rap!
 
I began to write a polite, albeit direct, letter to the former president via his own website last night, but gave up the attempt. I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Carter (when I was much younger). I found his statement that everyone should treat the office of the president with respect especially risible – given his own well-demonstrated contempt for that office’s previous occupant. Dare I say it – GW Bush has demonstrated incredible grace and class since he left that office. And Carter? Not so much.
 
I truly wonder about Carter’s attitudes toward Israel and Jews in general, and his “love” for Islamic terrorists. In fact, I do not understand how those on the left can continue to abet Islamic terrorism by accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being al Qaeda-like. It is the left that has removed religion from the public square – and has vigorously promoted the destruction of traditional restraints on hedonistic behavior. The left does this without appearing to realize that it is these very actions which have drawn Islamist wrath – and this means that it is THEY who will be the first disposed of should Islamists succeed in taking over our culture.
 
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing loudly with the president. I disagree with Obama regularly, but don’t have the luxury of being able to say it to his face. I rather appreciate that someone in the house was willing to do so. Perhaps Wilson should not have yelled, but since he did so in the middle of a speech in which the president was busy accusing everyone who did not agree with the healthcare proposals of “lying” – it may have been justified. It certainly is not out of keeping with our Anglo-American history of vigorous (and sometimes raucous) debate.
 
Thanks for writing my letter to former president Carter for me – and for doing it so well.

I wrote this letter to my friends and family in September, 2009

As some of you know, I have read CS Lewis' apologetics for years - beginning with The Screwtape Letters, when I was a teenager. I also read some of his works with commentaries by Peter Kreeft, who converted from Calvinism to Catholicism and now is a Catholic apologetics writer and speaker. He has written some good books.

I have begun listening almost exclusively to Christian radio lately as I drive around town, and recently heard Kreeft's talk on winning the culture war - fascinating stuff. I have long thought that our nation is morally bankrupt due to the machinations of the ACLU in removing Christian values from the public square. It is puzzling to me that these same folk on the left, who regularly demonize Christianity as al Qaeda (and yes, they are doing it again), will defend Muslims terrorists. They just don't seem understand that it is their own attempts to make our culture secular that have brought down the very wrath of Islam upon us - to some degree, a righteous wrath. They also don't seem to understand that if radical Islam wins (as my beloved husband says), THEY will be the first to be lined up against the wall and shot.

HOWEVER - our only real way to win this war is to draw closer to Christ in our own lives and to reflect his light to others. We need to pray for a conversion of all hearts to the Way, the Truth and the Life that is Our Savior - beginning with our own. We then need to lovingly and courageously stand for Christian values in the public square. As Kreeft points out, this will not make us popular or win us praise from the other side in the war; tolerance of evil is NOT a virtue. We are called to be Jesus' light in a time of unprecedented moral confusion and darkness.

I include a link below if you would like to listen to Dr. Kreeft's talk.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/01_culture-war.htm

Thoughts on relationships
Getting married young has definite advantages – the parties are more pliable and open, with fewer rigid boundaries in place.
 
Those who marry in their 30s and beyond must more intentionally negotiate their relationship boundaries. While one may develop wisdom over the years, too often one has also erected more protective walls which must be deliberately breached to create the unique bond required for a lasting marriage.
 
A lack of humility in the young
Has it ever been so? Many of the young lawyers I know seem to have no awareness of their own limitation; they expect high praise for mediocre efforts. Especially in the area of writing – so many think they write quite cleverly, when actually, their articles are replete with mixed metaphors and buzzwords, such as “sustainable” and “diverse.”
 
What is the root cause of this overweening confidence? Is it a result of the “self-esteem” movement? Did we create this arrogant and unrealistic mindset by praising people who didn't deserve it for mediocre work for fear of offending their feelings? Some truly are legends in their own minds.

President Obama: As you said in your inaugural address, we must choose to promote the "God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." 

The word "all" includes every member of the human family, especially the least amongst us in the womb who "deserve a chance" to love and be loved.

I strongly object to your unilateral decision to use my federal tax-dollars for the abortion of unborn children overseas. I know you have promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act and this position against those who can't speak for themselves - and who are therefore most deserving of your protection - is precisely why I did not vote for you. As Pope John Paul II rightly noted, if the fundamental right to life is not guaranteed, concern for other rights is meaningless.

AGAIN, I urge you to actually read what Margaret Sanger wrote, and what she intended for Planned Parenthood to accomplish, and to rethink your unrestricted support for her organization's agenda, which has remained consistent from that day to this.

Legal approval of abortion has caused women grievous harm and made men feel even more unconnected to their own children. It has added to the moral confusion in our society and to the breakdown of families.

If unborn children are not human beings - just what are they?

Please reconsider your position on abortion and your enthusiastic promotion of Planned Parenthood.

Senator Obama:

I call on you to acknowledge all your past associations and history to the people you have asked to elect you. Americans surely have a right to fully understand the political philosophy and character of the person who is asking for their vote.

1) Explain why it is that if a regular citizen has the temerity to ask you an economic question, to which you respond, he is then torn apart by a complicit media, as he noted in the following interview:

"It actually upsets me," Mr. Wurzelbacher said. "I am a plumber, and just a plumber, and here Barack Obama or John McCain, I mean these guys are going to deal with some serious issues coming up shortly. The media's worried about whether I paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America. They really don't. I asked a question. When you can't ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me." (Emphasis added.)

Indeed. This does not bode well for the future of a free and open political debate under an Obama presidency.

Incidentally, Senator Obama, it was your answer to that question that was an issue, and not the questioner or the question. Your answer revealed your socialist economic beliefs - something voters have a right to know.

2) Explain how the National Right to Life Committee "lied" about your voting record with the "born alive" act. If the committee did not lie, you must apologize.

Your record stands for itself; the committee did not lie. Your own actions and words have correctly branded you as the most radically pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president. You promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, that the first thing you would do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which overturns nearly all states' restrictions on abortion (such as parental notification laws, the partial birth abortion ban, etc.), and even removes from doctors and hospitals their conscientious right to refuse to perform abortion.

In that same speech, you mocked the "culture wars" as "so 90s" - and even scoffed at Justice Kennedy's decision, noting he had no medical training. So - do you similarly mock Justice Blackmun for his failure to grasp embryology in the orginal Roe V Wade decison?

I encourage all voters to look up the YouTube video of this speech for themselves.

3) Explain your association with Jeremiah Wright. You sat in his pews for 20 years, and want voters to believe you had no idea of his political views. A more realistic reading is that you either shared his beliefs, or you didn't mind/can't see racism in this context. None of these options speak well for your judgment - and they certainly go against your claim to be a post-racial healer, who will unite this country.

There is one other possibility that occurs to me. In the late 1960s, when the Black Panthers and Weathermen were active, I attended a progressive high school where black students were bused in from across town. In one social studies class, our teacher brought the black and white students together to talk. We had a very revealing discussion, but no matter how we white students responded to the list of grievances presented to us by black students, one young man informed us that we "had to pay" for the sins of our forefathers. Some of us noted that we were not responsible for slavery and asked - how can we move forward? The rhetoric was very frustrating, and I, a 16-year-old, burst into tears. The young man was shocked, and asked our teacher if I was for real; he assured him I was - that I cared. This young man then told me that what he was saying was "just a rap" - nothing personal. It had never occurred to him before that someone would really believe what he was saying.

Is this the case for you? While sitting in those pews - did you consider Wright's racial vitriol "just a rap"? Or, is black racism more acceptable than white?

4) Explain your long-term association with William Ayers - why you steered funds toward his pet educational projects, and your ongoing relationship with him. Just what did he see in you that made him, as an unrepentant terrorist, think you were someone he could support for public office?

Again, the issue is not that you were eight when Ayers committed his terrorist acts, but that he still holds those repulsive views, and you have recently worked with him to actively further his ideological agenda.

5) Voter fraud/election money: Interestingly, just now, at the end of the campaign, we have learned that individuals at your campaign website may donate under the name of "Saddam Hussein" with an address of "spider hole" and that the money will actually be debited from their accounts; even after the New York Times assured us that your campaign rigorously inspects all donations and they are caught before they are charged. If so, how did "Good Will" make so many donations? This is not true of the McCain website. Theirs has security checks in place, and yours does not. Why is that?

You have denied a connection to ACORN - but your record proves otherwise. You were more than "their lawyer" and in fact, have channeled funds to them.

You were also first elected to public office by challenging signatures, which is very ACORN. I work with liberal lawyers and am all too familiar with this method, which is used here to keep conservative initiatives off the state ballot.

You have also asked ACORN type organizations to "get into people's faces" to campaign for you. This kind of aggressive "voter registration" is wreaking havoc on our political system.

6) Those who disagree with you, for whatever reason, are called "racist" by the media, and indeed, by you and your campaign. We are presumed to not have any other logical reason for preferring to vote for someone who actually more closely shares our values, regardless of his or her color.

If Thomas Sowell were to run for president, I would be happy to cast my vote for him.

So, as you may conclude, I did not vote for you, Senator Obama - because I am a Catholic conservative.

My vote has everything to do with my values and morals, which you obviously do not share. I am not looking for a savior, having already found one. Voters who think you are the messiah really frighten me, and they should you, as well, because you will never be able to live up to their expectations.

I have threatened to do this for some time now, and here I am - doing it.

In this present political climate, I think it is important for ALL women of good faith to speak up and debate the issues which have, for so long, been articulated only by organizations such as "NOW" - and "NOW" never spoke for me. What an arrogant title that organization chose. I guess National Organization of Women Who Hate Being Women probably was an unworkable acronym.

I am pro life and, while I understand that people have the RIGHT to have different views on the subject of abortion, I believe the life of the unborn human being trumps the right to hold that opinion.

I would like to discover why it is that feminism wandered so far from its original roots of equal pay for equal work, and equal consideration as a human being, to the need to reject all femininity and indeed, to become male.

I welcome discussion and would like to hear from others on this and other related subjects.